Either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. From an early age, it is evident that physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) has “it.” Sure, he’s kind of brash at the ripe young age of 22 when he starts studying experimental physics in Cambridge, but like the best of the best in anything, one typically has to be able to see the biggest picture. Not where things are, where things are going.
Oppenheimer takes his cutting edge studies of quantum physics back into the United States and Cal-Berkeley. There, he teaches his findings to young students. Back in the states, he’s reunited with brother Frank (Dylan Arnold) and eventually introduced to a woman who will mean a lot to him and his legacy, psychiatrist—and Communist member—Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh).
As life ebbs and flows, Oppenheimer meets and grows with biologist Katherine Puening (Emily Blunt) who becomes the steady rock he needs to navigate the world. He’ll need that steadiness, because the world is on the brink of disaster as Germany and the Axis forces are believed to be building a bomb. It’s a race against time to beat them to the button, and if the US is going to do this, they need the best of the best. General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) appoints Oppenheimer to lead “The Manhattan Project,” a tireless years-long endeavor to develop an atomic bomb capable of ending the war. If this endeavor is successful, he’ll also need that steadiness to take on those who no longer agree with what he’d come to represent and regret, such as Atomic Energy Commission chairman Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.)
Admission: Over the last couple of years, Christopher Nolan’s recent works have left me pretty indifferent. He never lost the visual craftsmanship found in Dunkirk and Tenet, but to a small yet sizable contingent of people including myself, he lost the ability or maybe interest in building characters where appreciated (perhaps not as pertinent in Dunkirk but certainly desired in Tenet), crafting a coherent plot, and writing gripping/audible dialogue. I did fear a smidge of the same when Oppenheimer was announced, but whether attributed to adapting the screenplay from a biography, the captivating trailer, the unbelievable star wattage assembled in the cast, a combination of all that or some things else, Oppenheimer grabbed my attention, and consistently seized it throughout its three-hour runtime.
Part of that is obviously the aforementioned Nolan. Long interested in time and using stretches of his films to run narratively parallel and/or a bigger part of the whole, he does that again in framing the story under colored “Fission” and black-and-white “Fusion,” using two different perspectives as the story evolves. The first 20 or so minutes aren’t the cleanest, but it all coalesces as matters build to the Manhattan project and it’s hard to see how he could have told the narrative otherwise.
Hallmarks of Nolan’s style exist here; hard cuts, unreliable narrators, architectural scale, etc. For a feature like this though, no way he could pull it off alone. He receives massive assists from cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema, editor Jennifer Lame, and composer Ludwig Göransson. Collectively with the contributions of many unlisted others, they all make Oppenheimer potentially the best-looking film of 2023.
Nolan has been known to meld genres in previous movies; but never quite like how he does with Oppenheimer. Covering the gamut of horror to adventure, history to thriller, and even romance (albeit clunky) to drama, the tie that binds them all is its central figure. Whether we’re seeing the events unfold in his head or through the viewpoint of another, the charismatic physicist is the sun with which everything else revolves around. Nolan’s multi-varied storytelling works wonders with this adapted screenplay, as each time he and his editor cut to a new scene seemingly more information and better depth is given to Oppenheimer, his world, who is in his orbit, and most importantly, his psyche. This is a fascinating character study that neither demonizes nor heroizes the father of the atomic bomb, but by the end, one could see and understand both modes of thinking.
Also by the end, the audience feels the exhaustion and moral quandary Oppenheimer deals and grapples with, thanks largely due to the phenomenal work delivered by Murphy. It’s truly a performance filled with steely intensity and somber regret sometimes driven purely by his cool blue eyes. He’ll get much of the rightful attention now and during awards season, but in a weird way, I’m remembering this movie for as much as the smaller and somewhat bit characters and performances. To praise nearly everyone here would be impossible and take up too many words. For yours truly, the non-A-listers in Josh Hartnett, Dane DeHaan, Benny Safdie, and even Josh Peck register as the most impressive standouts relative to their screentime. I could watch this again, and totally pick out another handful of thespians.
Succeeding as an ultra-visual historical come to life and a mesmerizing tale of morality (among other things), Oppenheimer is deserving of all its hype. It’s one of the best of the year and probably beyond.
A-
Photo credits go to ign.com, leisurebyte.com, and wegotthiscovered.com.
For additional detailed thoughts on films both small and large, games, and the key moments that comprise each, check out ThatMomentIn.com.
A great review man.
Whoooo, I’m getting intimidated here. I’m glad my blog isn’t popular because I’m about to get killed for my thoughts on this.
Thanks for the kinds words Tom. Trust me, mine isn’t super popular either (I don’t do this for the views and I’ve long given up writing 2x a week), but I’m intrigued to hear your thoughts.
I can see where some people might not be enthralled with this—I do feel like my excitement was high but weirdly my expectations were realistic? I think that’s really because I haven’t truly enjoyed a Nolan feature since most of Interstellar and even with that, I haven’t had interest in rewatching a feature of his since TDK/TDKR and it’s been ages since I’ve watched those.
You write a mean review MMJ.. but no where does it go into the absolute deplorable scraps he gave the 2 woman characters here. While I love RDJ Jr., Cillian was incredible, Matt Damon will be going up against himself in Best Actor, Best Supporting.. I couldn’t help being angry while watching at the hideousness of what those woman characters were given.. again, essentially scraps. For me that took my grade down to a B. It was unforgivable. Nolan strikes again on his lack of female characters when they had so much to do with it in real life. but other than my anger..your review is as always, spectacular! 🙂
You’re totally right Peggy, I didn’t get my hopes up that he’d give real attention to the women characters. I do think Blunt got a little bit of meat at the end, but all in all it would have been great if there was more. I suppose that’s not the story he wanted to tell.
For better or worse, I guess I don’t go into a Nolan movie looking for great characterization out of more than 1-2 people and I’m not sure if he’s ever written a great woman character. Characterization doesn’t seem to be his thing.
I see Nolan’s movies in IMAX whenever possible, and the man has rarely disappointed this viewer. Great review, Mark. Can’t wait to see it again.
Much appreciated! This was the first time in a minute I’ve really found myself fascinated and immersed in a Nolan movie, everything just coalesced perfectly for me.