Oppenheimer (2023)

[Randy Stankey]

Yeah, I'd say that a rocket launch is one of the few things that can make a comparable sound to that of an A-bomb.

I wish I could have seen a Shuttle launch! Musta' been pretty cool!

[Jim Cassedy]

I don't want to make too much of a spoiler but, when a movie
is entitled"Oppenheimer" you know there's going to be a bomb. Right?

All I can say is that if Robert Oppenheimer was so damn smart, he should
have been able to invent a bomb in fewer than 9 reels . . .

[Lyle Romer]

Yeah, I'd say that a rocket launch is one of the few things that can make a comparable sound to that of an A-bomb.

I wish I could have seen a Shuttle launch! Musta' been pretty cool!

Also, the night shuttle launches had similarities as far as the brightness of the SRB exhaust and how it lit up the area for miles. Looking at a night launch through good binoculars was almost too bright to look at. One of the launches I attended had the right atmospheric conditions and wind direction so when the sound arrive it actually made my pant legs flap.

It was definitely an amazing experience (although you had to deal with scrubs after sitting out there for a few hours waiting).

[Geoff Jones]

I saw Oppenheimer in 70MM in auditorium 16 at Regal's Colorado Mills theater in Lakewood at 3:30 today.

The projection was excellent. Razor sharp. Rock steady. Beautiful. Sound was great too. Afterwards, I asked a manager to pass along my thanks to the projection staff.

The auditorium was fairly meh. The screen was roughly 40' wide. Constant-width with top masking. We sat on the 4th row and had to look up a little too much.

I thought the film was good, but not great. There's a ton of masterful filmmaking on display, but I'm not nuts about Nolan's convoluted storytelling style.


Heads up to Colorado moviegoers - there are reports on reddit about issues with the 70MM presentation at AMC's Westminster Promenade. (No surprise there.) That location is 3 miles from my house, but we opted for the 35 minute drive to Colorado Mills. I'm glad we did.

[Jon Dent]

Watched it tonight in boring old 2:20 on a scope screen, and I almost feel like I was physically assaulted. Oppenheimer pounds you over the head and screams "look at me, I'm CINEMA!" in your ear over and over and over again for three hours.

Now that being said, it has some tremendous sequences that are nail biting in their tension. The runup to the Trinity explosion is brilliant, so much so that it made me short of breath with anticipation. The final release (explosion) was...interesting, if not entirely effective. While I applaud the ballsy auditory decision during the first minute of the explosion (and all the other explosions for that matter), the visuals of the fireball didn't quite capture the magnitude of the event, looking fairly small in scale. And when the sound finally did hit, there wasn't anything really notable about it aside from it's enormous volume. Yeah, this movie is really, really loud. There's not a lot of subtlety on display here, and I don't remember hearing any memorable surround effects, just massive piledrivers of sound from the front. There's even a few "silence followed by maximum digital signal" moments that sounded quite distorted, even at the reduced volume we run at.

Thankfully dialog is understandable outside of one scene where the music rudely runs it over, but that's Nolan, and he sure isn't changing.

Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey Jr. and Matt Damon are all excellent, creating characters that feel like real people, not just extensions of the people playing them. Even Matthew "Joker" Modine impresses (never thought I'd say that).

Nolan is a filmmaker that by this point, you just have to fully accept. For every brilliant camera shot, powerful moment, roller coaster sequence of editing, or interesting sound design idea, there's an equal amount of pretentious dialog, overly artsy visuals, and deafening audio.

It is what it is, and Oppenheimer is 100% pure Nolan as of 2023: Equally brilliant and ridiculous.

[Darin Steffl]

All I can say is I really enjoyed this film. It was way better than Tenet in audio and story line. Maybe being based on actual history helps. I almost walked out of Tenet because I couldn't understand what was happening and my ears hurt. It was the opposite of Oppenheimer which I would gladly see again. The 3 hours actually flew by for me and I was never bored.

[James Biggins]

Watched it tonight in boring old 2:20 on a scope screen.

'Boring old 2:20'? Seriously?

[Jon Dent]

Sarcasm, cause everyone else is going on about seeing it in IMAX15/70 and I'm not sure if there's even one of those in my STATE, let alone within reasonable driving distance.

EDIT: Yeah I'd have to drive 900 miles.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Sarcasm, cause everyone else is going on about seeing it in IMAX15/70 and I'm not sure if there's even one of those in my STATE, let alone within reasonable driving distance.

EDIT: Yeah I'd have to drive 900 miles.

There is one here in Nashville at the Regal Opry Mills. Saw it there 2 weeks ago and it looked and sounded great. The film is a masterpiece, but it also leaves a lot out. I guess it should have been 4 hours long with a break...

[Mike Blakesley]

My wife saw this movie when she was out of town for a few days a couple of weeks ago, but we watched it together last night. We were still talking about it this morning, which is a sign of a good film for us.

I thought the first 75 minutes were a little slow, but my wife confirms what's been said on this thread about if you see it twice, it glues everything together. So now I want to see it again.

I thought the movie had one of the most interesting soundtracks I ever heard. The acting, direction and writing were top tier, as mentioned.

3.5 out of 5, with a probable extra star reserved for when I see it another time.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

As I was watching the IMax, I sat there and kept thinking... Too bad Hans Zimmer didn't do the score for this... The score was ok, but it wasn't Hans Zimmer ok....

[Marcel Birgelen]

As I was watching the IMax, I sat there and kept thinking... Too bad Hans Zimmer didn't do the score for this... The score was ok, but it wasn't Hans Zimmer ok....

Interresting, I think I missed Hans Zimmer more with Tenet than with Oppenheimer. I'm not sure if an epic, sweeping and bombastic soundtrack the likes of which Zimmer is best known for, would've really fit in with this movie and the rather stark realism of it all. It's clearly less distinctive than e.g. Interstellar or Inception, but I think that's not necessarily a bad thing. I also think that in a biopic about someone who clearly hasn't a lot to do with music, shouldn't be about the music either, so it's fine when the score takes a backstage seat for a while.

[Joe Redifer]

Finally got around to watching this movie.

To me the movie was worth watching, but it's not one that I have a desire to ever watch again. The performances were great... as good as they could be considering the editing (more on that later). Emily Blunt only ever plays characters I hate. The makeup was outstanding. They did a really good job of making people look different ages, almost as good as Back to the Future... maybe even slightly better. From what people were saying, I thought this movie was gonna be chock full of sex scenes, but it really wasn't. There's like two quick scenes of sex, one real and one imaged, and then two people sitting naked in chairs for a minute or so. That's it. I didn't feel they were necessary, but I didn't feel they were intrusive either. Much ado about nothing there.

The visuals were fine, but the constantly switching aspect ratio was dumb. Not sure why y'all still put up and celebrate that shit. What the hell is wrong with you people? Those comments aren't directed solely to the people here at Film-Tech, but to society in general... but I'm sure there are at least a few Nolan fanboys here who simp on anything he does. The Trinity Test visuals failed to impress. I mean they'd be pretty good for college film course students but not a real movie. The editing on this movie suuuucked. That's usually how it is with Nolan. The cadence of the dialog is awful, and it's not the actor's fault. They make sure to cut out any dead air between delivered lines. It makes dialog very unnatural sounding and honestly quite annoying. The movie quite literally never has a chance to breathe. Again Nolan fanboys will eat this up, mostly because they don't know any better. Nolan does this because I'm sure he's on the spectrum and doesn't know how natural dialog works since conversation is likely not one of his honed skills. I also noticed very few J or S cuts, so the camera was always on the person for their entire line.

The audio was OK. Very loud, of course. But at the same time overdramatic. Why is the music bellowing when that guy is yelling at him when he is about to be denied his clearance? I didn't even really care about that part, but the music was so overpowering that Nolan wanted you to feel like this was a life or death thing. I could not care less, and honestly neither should have Oppenheimer himself. It's like getting a membership card revoked, boo-hoo. Why am I supposed to care about that and moreover, why am I supposed to care with my FULL EMOTIONAL CHARGE?? I liked how sound sync was realistically handled, mostly. They foreshadowed this with the small explosion tests so audiences wouldn't run out during the big (well, big-ish) explosion scene and scream at idiot theater employees who have no knowledge on how to deal with an audio problem anyway. There was lots and lots of subwoofer which resulted in lots of room shaking. I've heard better subwoofers in other movies, though. I didn't hear too much in the way of the surrounds, nothing that I particularly remember, anyway. Just noise during the loud scenes, no artistic directionality. I forgot to turn on subtitles as I usually do with Nolan movies since sound is one of his weakest abilities, that and editing. But I'm happy to report that I was able to clearly understand over 95% of the dialog without them. Did hell freeze over? What happened?

Overall, glad to finally have appeased my curiosity about this movie. But it's overhyped. It's not one that needs to be seen on a big screen or big sound system as it's mostly just people talking. I'd rather watch Perry Mason on IMAX than this. The following comment IS directed to Film-Tech members: These days you'll love anything that gets produced on film just for the sake of it being on film, especially large format film. Film doesn't make a mediocre movie a great movie. Get over yourselves. Hey... someone needed to give it to you straight.

[Lyle Romer]

Overall, glad to finally have appeased my curiosity about this movie. But it's overhyped. It's not one that needs to be seen on a big screen or big sound system as it's mostly just people talking. I'd rather watch Perry Mason on IMAX than this. The following comment IS directed to Film-Tech members: These days you'll love anything that gets produced on film just for the sake of it being on film, especially large format film. Film doesn't make a mediocre movie a great movie. Get over yourselves. Hey... someone needed to give it to you straight.

Your criticisms are valid. I will say that seeing the movie in 15/70 in a real IMAX theatre built in 1992 with an enormous 80' screen does make a difference with this movie. It hides a lot of those flaws you noticed because you are so immersed in the experience.

[Joe Redifer]

What, exactly, are you immersed in? The only thing I could think is maybe your eyes are just darting around the image looking at different things?