Oppenheimer Review: Have I become death the destroyer of worlds?

 Oppenheimer Review: boom or bust?

Biographical films as of late have become all the range lately with many different figures of the past have had their stories told through the medium of motion pictures, documented work or television and they can vary from the forms that are shown from the likes of musician like Queen, Elton John, Amy Winehouse and loads more to the likes of political figures like the Clintons, JFK and Dick Cheney and even to some other known well known figures such as Von Erichs (Iron Claw), Prv Dos (Hacksaw Ridge) and Oskar Schindler (Schindler's List) where many have had a degree of success or critique either in the form that they tell their story of being authentic or fabricated or to the person they were and how they were remembered and that is the focus of todays review as we are talking about the story of the man who will be known to have labelled himself as Death the destroyer of worlds as we are talking about the award winning biographical film about the man known as J. Robert Oppenheimer in the Christopher Nolan directed film of Oppenheimer and I am here to ask the question on the likes of wondering if this film about the creation of the Atomic Bomb is a booming success or just a complete Bust? Well thankfully it is more in the Former half as even with a lengthy runtime, this is one of the most well made bio films about the creation of a weapon of mass destruction and the consequences to the one responsible and we will talk on this film below in my thoughts and opinions of the matter

*note: most case this will have spoilers as given this is a biographical film so much can't be covered up and this will coincide with the previous review I just uploaded with the double feature Barbenheimer reviews and will combine their appeal with this review.

Structuring a planned alibi

So a lot of time with film when it comes to being about biographical films, there is always a case that in order to build on a character is to learn of their life and to examine and try and recreate the tales of moments in time of what those people experienced in the past. We see this with Musicians like Bohemian Rhapsody where it built up to the finale at Live Aid, Michael Collins helping in the fight back against the British in the 1916 rising or sometimes like the Weird Al Biopic it can have a sense of some creative additions where it will give some truths and then add some odd comedic outcomes that only would fit the mold for a Weird Al bio film and sometimes if you have the accurate forms and do it well it will be a case by case basis that some will work well to accuracy and some will be affected by creative changes that will make things debatable (one such example being the Amy Winehouse Bio film where their is a mixed array of the portrayal of Amy's Dad or the likes of the Elvis film being told from the perspective of his manager) but when it comes to a person that may not be as heavily known J. Robert Oppenheimer, it takes a master craftsman like Christopher Nolan to find the right form to given the inventor his due diligence with the plot in focus as such:

"During World War II, Lt Gen. Leslie Groves Jr (Matt Damon) appoints Physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) to work on the top secret Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer and a team of scientists spend years designing and developing the Atomic Bomb. Their work comes to fruition on July 16th, 1945, as they witness the world's first Nuclear explosion, forever changing the course of history"

Now in the case of this biographical film, it is based on the form of the book of American Prometheus which is a novel of a recounting of his life and the creation of the bomb that changed history and from the research and analysis of historical experts, it seems to be one of the most accurate retellings of a life story told to screen and they did not skip out on any of the details and they went cover to cover putting all the details into the story and I think that it helps to give the creator of powerful destruction the detailed story it deserved.

Story: 8.5-9

The creative masterminds on the scene

Now like the other film in this double bill review group, both of said films have seen a massive array of big name stars that will want to have their presence in the project and while I could go through every single one of them there is a lot of them that don't have as big a presence as a select few, so in the terms of this review I will be mainly focused on the main group and lump most of the others in with the round up of side characters like I did with the other review as some have more of a presence and development then other but I will give a focus to them in this section

J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy)

So we of course start with the title character himself and that is with J. Robert Oppenheimer who in this is portrayed by Irish Actor Cillian Murphy. Now the film is the massive focus on the likes of this character in particular from the retelling of the story of how he got into the realm of science and physics and how himself and a massive group of scientists from all fields would come together to create a massive weapon of mass destruction and the following outcome and affect to the whole ordeal and told from the 2 storied perspective of a hearing that he was interviewed and investigated in front of and another department talking of the possible internal conflict. It is best to sense that if you get the performance and the character right then it helps to sell the characters life story that you try and cast and portray a person who isn't then its already a problem but it is not an issue when it comes to this portrayal as they have found the perfect representation of the "destroyer of worlds" and Murphy really provides such a layered performance of a man who goes beyond the realm of plausibility to create something bigger then any of them could imagine and the consequences that being blinded by potential ends up becoming a wake up call and concerning reality in the aftermath that you feel the sense of being in his mind of creating the powerful weapon with unknown potential, the personal story of life and relationships he experienced in his past and all the other elements of following from the archives of his life, I think they delivered a performance that is well engaging and really see their reasoning of the approach of creation and the affect of the work that came from it that I think it helped to excel the film with a strong leading performance in a film with some really great performers and will agree in the sense that his Oscar win for said performance I think was overall worth it.

Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr)

Speaking of another Oscar winner from a strong performance from said film, we are talking about the focus of the other side of the coin in this story perspective (as it jumps between two perspectives of the film with Oppie's in Colour and this part in Black and White) we are talking on the politician and hearing lead by the man known as Lewis Strauss who is played by Robert Downey Jr. The perspective of this character is in the realm of how he worked and offered a career for Robert in the past where he offered a career in one of his Institutes but things turn a little sour as time went on and where the focus of said part of the film is with the hearing of the outcome of the accused and the possibility of a position in a political power role and where most of the last 3rd of the film is centered in. It is a case that while this section is a lot of talking and political discourse, I think the way that they present Strauss is well defined and executed strongly as you can see from the performance and charisma that he is trying to exhume in the hearing that trusting faith in someone that may not be trusted to their past who they once considered a colleague is the sense of mind games where you feel you want to hate the guy, but you can see through it all that its the approach that anyone would take for power. And I think though all of this that while a lot of political jargon and discussion can bore the eyes off me and even through all of the last hour or so being just a talk piece, I actually felt engaged listening to it and entertained from the outcomes and the performances of said project cause they have someone like RDJ who will bring a personality and presence into a room where the concept may not be the appealing aspect to me but from the right performance, it makes it more engaging and the performance of Strauss is really well done and very well casted.

Kitty Oppenheimer (Emily Blunt)

Now we move onto the 2 leading ladies before we return to one more man in a suit and this one is a tale that is a little bit of a sad reality from the stories from the past and this is in the form of the woman that becomes the lady of the destroyer of world and that is with Oppenheimer's wife of Kitty. So Kitty comes into play about near the end of the first hour or so and they are the one that lead to the help in the focus and to keep things straight when at points seem a little dire for the man leading the project but in a reverse form, She is also dealing with her own demons that she was finding at the bottom of a bottle. It is a tragic aspect that one aspect of her story was that I was thinking her whole element she was giving to the narrative was that she was a chronic alcoholic and that was all her story was going to be but it does come into play a little later where she gets herself a little better and more focused of helping to keep Robert on the ball when tragedy in his life strikes but she does pick it up by the 2nd half when it all comes together and becomes a vessel of defense for her husband of his past and his actions and in all sense it is a strong performance moment in that latter half. She is a little bit absent in the beginning part of her characters presence but it does make it up for her in the end, would've been nice to see more of her to be fair but they work well for how much they have as a presence and not overly waste an actress with such far range. 

Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh)

As for the other women in Robert's life we have the woman that we would have a sense of a relationship with for a short period of time and that is with the woman known as Jean Tatlock who is played by Florence Pugh. Now this is the focal love interest for the first part of the film that sees them meet at a party and may get to know each other just that little bit too much of learning some Sanskrit while she has her pughbies out (I apologize for that bad pun) and then the likes of their relationship or affair of sorts are a bit of a here, there and everywhere situation that somewhat ends in a tragedy so to say. I think in all sense I was wondering if there was a lot more to the likes of this relationship affair as it is brought up in the 2nd half in the interview process (in a weird aspect as well) and once Kitty comes into play she kind of just disappears from more of the outcome and I wonder if there was more to the whole relationship then what was presented in the small amounts of content shown but it is hard to say. I do say that the performance and scenes are decently filmed and shot but there is kind of a little amount of substance to come from some of these scenes besides learning of his active mind and the quote of I have become death but I think for the amount of screen focus she has, she does have a decent performance but I feel may have needed a little more substance but its hard to tell how they would do so.

General Leslie R. Groves (Matt Damon)

The last of the cast that I am going to give the most of a general focus to is with a character that has a fair amount of a presence in the film and that comes with the man that assigns Oppenheimer his position on the Manhattan Project and that is with General L. Groves that is played by Matt Damon. This is the character in the past that essentially gets the main focus character on board to develop the project that will create the weapon of possible human destruction due to his level of intellect and having the expertise to get the job done for the government to help against the ongoing conflict in the world at the time. The likes of Damon's performance is honestly a not bad portrayal and is one that pops up here and there throughout the first half of the project up to the testing of the bomb and then kind of disappears afterwards but he is there when its needed and provide some sense of a role to the whole ordeal (and the odd funny joke delivery in a serious film) but overall I think he's fine in the role that he has and served the amount of screen time he had well enough.

The rest of the team

So those 5 were the ones that I gave a main focus to because when it comes to the rest of the cast it is difficult to delve into a lot of them as this movie is stacked and if I had to give everyone a focus, this review would be as long as the actual film but this has a big cast of some well known names and previous collaborators from the director with names like Kenneth Branagh, Rami Malek, Emma Dumont, Josh Peck, Jack Quaid, Gary Oldman, Josh Hartnett and so many more characters that its hard to remember if they had much of a focus or were in for a scene or 2 and that was it. In all sense they do their jobs and performances well, even if the likes of where in the film they were a focus on (the only ones of said list I mentioned remembering seeing is Malek and Branagh as they have some focus in the picture at different points) but I give the props and effort to the casting choices and roles they played all the same that if I do not know how much of a presence they have I think it was all done well.

So overall with the characters at play, I think that it works well when the main focus characters work they really work and deserve some award recognition and in some sense that while there is a bit of nitpicking here and there in terms of the performance for some in wanting a little more of them or some more development (but just a little) I think they still do a great job overall and I think that even in a film with some big name stars in every scene, they all work well to deliver some great performances and help sell the concept from beginning to end.

Characters: 8-8.5

Presenting a test of massive power

So on the basis of story and characters out of the way, we move into the focus of the main world we experience in this title and that comes in the form of the presentation. So the likes of this presentation of most reviews I do is the case about the world and visuals shown to us and in the case of the world, I can at least appreciate that it is something a little bit different in the realm of it being a biographical film and set in the time period that its locations and placement of big scenes is decent and is not the usual jargon of generic cities and maybe an aspect of tell don't show mentality but with this one it is show don't tell as while some elements are brought up in the hearing and the interview/interrogation and seeing things unfold and seen more in the form of through the eyes of the main lead is interesting that being focused on the goal in mind and fearing of being a bit too big to fail shows its presence in some locales like established universities, some hints of the suburbs and then some massive testing facilities and in the outskirts in New Mexico that while there may be moments that it is not showing too much, it still feels a bit more fresh then the usual outcome.

The same I can say as well about the use of the visuals in the film that a lot of the main focus was the attention that a lot of said project was practical as Nolan is one that would not overly rely on the use of CGI and rather go more practical which is present throughout this film where most of the aesthetic that may look a like non practical is the likes of the focus of colours and neurons and everything else that flashes on the screen at certain intervals throughout the runtime but it seemed that was also practical with the aid of the VFX artists with some slight touch ups here and there for some but if it can be done in a practical manner, it will be done and this is even seen with the actual recreation of the trinity test in the film as it was done practically and not with the CGI aesthetic (but is also not an actual Atomic Bomb cause if it was there would've been endless news stories about it after they shot the scene)  and while some will complain that the explosion in said film being a lot smaller then they hoped for, I think the fact it was all done in the form of practical aesthetic makes it feel more genuine as while you can make explosions look more bigger and better with massive amounts of artists, I think having a more raw form of the approach work it that much more better.

The last aspect I will bring up is in the element of pacing and runtime as it is the case that some contention with said film came down to this aesthetic (and a case with a lot of movies in general as of late). This is now Nolan's longest film to date clocking in at exactly 3 hours and it is a case that in some sense for a fair bit of the film, you really do not feel the length and in some sense you do and that comes with a little bit of the pacing (and there is another element with this but its more with the next 2 sections and I will leave it for that) as it is a case with some elements of the story it goes by a little quick on some scenes and some drag on a slight bit but the drag is a lot less of an issue to some regards compared to some scenes going a little too fast when it may be points I would like to see more of and not breezed past but it may have been a case of not wanting to overdo the length then it already has. I am sure its even a case that you probably cut out some small bits here and there and reduce it down just a slight bit but not way too much bit I think that its a given with some of Nolans movies that things like Pacing and one other issue comes into affect but we'll get to that other one in due course.

Presentation: 9

Writing a formula to scientific success

So in the basis of this next section with the relation to the writing of the film, I find it that it is a case that the writing works very well in being well structured, focused and smart without feeling a bit too smart that some may get a little lost in the likes of science talk and the flow of dialogue and discussion feel well mannered and simply easy and straight forward to follow and feel like genuine conversations, classes or meetings with how it all comes together and I think the writing taken from the book it is ripped from and beefed up a bit with the writing from Nolan himself to provide a biographical epic... with one small caveat. This critique also relates to the likes of Music but it comes down to some of the sound mixing which is an issue  as sometimes with his projects its the case of the balance of music or background noise may be amplified in scenes that overdo it that small bit and can make some dialogue become more muffled or lower in tone and can affect it. Now its not as bad as the sound mixing in his last movie of Tenet but it could've been avoided and affect the writing aesthetic if it interrupts some scenes when characters are talking about important stuff and they can get a little muted over the movies score but its only in small aesthetics. But besides that issue I think the writing does work well enough and I think with that affect from the music and sound mixing can bring it down a little and some bit of dialogue that feel a little odd placing but its probably overthinking it and in all sense is fine.

Writing: 8.5-9

The score to capture the worries and fears

Another section that I will of course give heaps of praise on is with the score for this movie as the films composer of Ludwig Góransson created a fine piece of work with their score through out the film when displayed over the scene in focus or from the combining of the visuals aesthetic to make it a near out of body like experience with some certain scenes in the film especially with the track of Can you Hear the music being the one that has stood out the most for many with how it creates the sense of creativity, thinking, anxiety and philosophical question all in a 2 minute track and works well with all other tracks on the score for the film. Now of course the score is great but it also comes into the affect of the sound mixing that it can be affecting the dialogue aspect of the film where the music may overplay that little bit too loud to hear the characters in discussion properly but I think it is only really once or twice for said aspect and more of the sound effects or background aspects that affect the dialogue moments. But in an overall way the music really helps provide some new method of seeing the world in another way and as Kenneth Branagh's character of Niels Bohr says "Can you hear the music, Robert?" I know for certain that I can hear it really well.

Music: 9-9.5

A short fuse that may not light with issues

Now of course like any film or media project (including ones with great acclaim) will also come with their own issues and problems and this is with the likes of some of those critiques. Now I have already made some bits of mentions of the critiques in those sections but I will place them here for everyone to better understand my own small issues with the film.

Story + Presentation: This one is going to be combined together as they both technically come into the affect of one aspect and that is with some elements of pacing to the narrative and some bits of runtime. The basis is that the likes of some of the pacing in the film as I mentioned does feel a little rushed at times where it could've been a little bit extended to better highlight some aspects instead of overlooked very quickly and get to some scenes that work well in the focus of length and some that may go on just a tad bit too long. However I can't massively critique the narrative as it is very much more close to the truth of how things played out in the past with some little bit of a beefed up narrative but some aspects may have needed a little bit more time to sit and play out and not rushed to the next aspect (which seems odd given the film clocks in at exactly 3 hours) cause they have the time to let it play out or reduce some element scenes in some that may go on just that little bit too long. Also one other thing I forgot to bring up for presentation was that they never credited a mass amount of those that helped with those small elements of CGI where 80% of those involved went uncredited and it should've been given some praise and focus for their hard work and dedication and hopefully they can fix that down the line but will have to see if anything has.

Characters: This mainly comes down to some of the main group (specifically with the 2 leading women) feeling that slightly underused. I think Blunt has that little more of a effort and focus that picks up in the 2nd half of the film compared to Pugh and feel Jean may have been underutilized or maybe needed to be fleshed out with both of them just that little bit more. Some of the other aspects would stem a little to the rest of the wider ensemble cast that may have some distinct names in the field of this projects creation but really have not much of a substance, but its only really just the elements of the minor issues of the cast as most of them still turn out some great performances overall.

Writing+ Music: This mainly comes to the affect of the aforementioned affect of the sound mixing and some elements of dialogue that its the case that at points where the music or affects are a little too amplified over some scenes of dialogue and discussions that it may be hard to tell if it was important information or just a standard conversation that added little substances to the wider affect. I can give the writing is still great and the music is excellent but sometimes you need the balance of hearing the music on its own and then ducking the volume levels so we can focus on the dialogue at hand and hopefully we will see this improve with some of Nolan's follow up works but I guess we will see how it goes.

But that is all I have to say about the outcome of the critiques of the film and they seems like a bit of a mouthful but in all sense they are very small nitpicks compared to a lot more complaints and issues of others and don't make the massive amounts of problems and now we can round up the whole ordeal.

A film that may blow up in success

To round up this review and analysis, Oppenheimer is one of the finest pieces of biographical media pieces that has been made and put to screen with the focus of detail and dedication to the man who has unbeknownst created the weapon that could destroy life as we know it and has himself become Death the destroyer of worlds and the focus of filmmaking from Christopher Nolan, The entire production team and the massive all star cast including the award winning performance in Cillian Murphy's portrayal is a strong testament that with a sense of spectacle, dedication, technique and also a once in a rare occasion of releasing with another massive film that helped to save cinema at the time of the underwhelming summer season, I can see the creation of this powerful atomic bomb was not a complete bust.

Final score:

Story: 8.5-9

Characters: 8-8.5

Presentation: 9

Writing: 8.5-9

Music: 9-9.5

Total Score: 43-45/50 or 86-90%

So with all of that discussion, I would like to know your own opinions on this film in particular and want to know your thoughts on it, did you like it, love it, hate it or indifferent or disappointed in any elements and let me know in the comments below. As well as the case that you do not have to listen to my review and make it the be all end all as this is just my own opinions on everything and everyone is entitled to their own but I hope you enjoyed the ramblings of this review and the other half of the Barbenheimer double bill review. But I will leave it at that and as always I hope you all stay being wonderful people and to have a great day everyday doing many great things and I shall see you all in the next review :)

Take care, keep being you, signing off.

Sam H :)