The first third belongs to one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. It’s pleasantly surprising in how bizarre it is, which I was very entertained but also super surprised by. The continuous quick cuts to close ups of nuclear fission/fusion are beautiful and keep things punchy, but there are also several more surreal moments (two of which involve Jean Tatlock) that don’t play like your typical Nolan studio action movie. It plays like a music video, with the dialog having a cadence like a song—it crescendos, peaks and valleys just like music, and the INCREDIBLE score accentuates this perfectly. The soundtrack is the best part of this film and I’m glad it’s not Hans Zimmer again; it’s more orchestral and varied in its instrumentals and I was absorbed by it from start to finish.
The second third of the movie is where the tension ramps up. The Trinity Test is a masterclass in building suspense, again aided by the soundtrack. This is also the highlight of the film’s cinematography; while beautiful throughout, the quick cuts don’t allow you to absorb some of the more thoughtful shots until you get to the sweeping shots of Los Alamos leading up to and including the successful test. This part of the film climaxes with a haunting depiction of Oppenheimer’s PTSD in a classroom building—it’s the peak of this movie’s more cerebral approach and is an effectively haunting scene that I didn’t necessarily know Christopher Nolan was/wanted to be associated with.
Then the third act starts, and it devolves into more standard fare. It’s still a good movie, but it lacks the uniqueness of the second and (especially) first acts. Aside from a few interesting Rashomon-style duplicated scenes that accentuate different POVs, it’s essentially a typical courtroom drama. And while it does come to a satisfying conclusion, the themes and plot lines introduced in the third act feel a little rushed, which is strange because these scenes are omnipresent through the whole movie. This section also continues to carry the quick, rapid-fire delivery of lines/scenes from the music video-type first act…but two hours in, it starts to become tedious and robs some scenes of their room to breathe.
And that highlights a slight problem I had with the whole movie—the focus. It doesn’t fully know which aspect of this story it wants to lean into. The fact that there is a focus on Jean and Oppenheimer’s relationship with other professors (I thought that Josh Hartnett would be more of an antagonist given his constant reminder that application > theory) seems to inform the viewer that this will be a character study…and yet, the film seems to gloss over details regarding Oppenheimer’s personal politics or intrinsic motivations toward leading the Los Alamos project/barreling toward completion of the bomb. The second half introduces more politics and science, but the movie doesn’t really give us too much detail into the external political factors, either…not enough to classify the film as a true period piece. Then when the part that classifies as courtroom drama starts, it feels like it has its whole own beginning, middle, and end again because so many more character motivations are introduced and then concluded all in the last hour. I walked away learning a little more about the historical context of the situation and a little more about Oppenheimer, but not a deeper understanding of this story like the best biopics (JFK comes to mind) do.
I know people have loved the acting and it’s true that everyone brings their A-game. Controversially, however, I think Cillian Murphy is being slightly overrated; he does turn in an incredible performance, but it doesn’t really suit the first part of the film. He plays a great brooding, regretful, ostracized scientist, which serves the second half of the film perfectly. However, there’s a part toward the beginning where Matt Damon is introduced and calls out Oppenheimer for being an eccentric, arrogant, womanizing character…which Murphy doesn’t really convey. Again, great performance, but doesn’t serve what the character needs to be for the whole film. From an acting front, however, everyone else gives it 110%; while Robert Downey Jr is rightfully getting his kudos, Emily Blunt probably gave the most “interesting” performance to me.
Overall, this is an important movie not just because of the subject matter but because of what it represents—a return to form for large, serious Hollywood films. It’s absolutely worth seeing in the theater, possibly multiple times. For about 60 minutes I was convinced I was watching a masterpiece unfold before my eyes…by the 120-minute mark, I knew this was something great if not a bit more conventional than I had hoped for…and then by minute 180 I had enjoyed what I had seen, and was moved by what I had seen, but had a finished product that was less interesting than the beginning had me believe.
I dont know if I’d watch this too many times at home, but it needs to be seen in Dolby at the very least—and I think I’ll try to see it again before it leaves the theater. A solid 8/10.
www.boxofficepro.com
