Oppenheimer's film, which is one of the most anticipated films of the year for many, including myself, lives up to expectations. Most of the movie is excellent. The only thing that kept me from enjoying the whole movie was that I felt like I liked two of the three hours and enjoyed the other hour. I realize that Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk deserves a second viewing, so maybe Oppenheimer will too. I don't feel compelled to go see it right now, as it's a long and tiring movie.

But I can't argue with the fact that it's incredibly well done in so many ways. It feels like it really reflects the era it's in, has great sound design and has one of the best soundtracks of the year. It looks and sounds just as great as you'd expect. Every performance is between good and excellent, but Cillian Murphy is the star of the show and if we're talking about the (early) award review, I think he's the one to beat.

The film is most effective when it focuses on being a psychological thriller with a well-known historical figure; it even turns into a psychological horror movie at some point. There is one episode in particular that is terrifying, involving a conversation.

Although its subject is now well-known history, it still manages to contain a few truly suspenseful moments.

However, the last hour really struck me, and I wished that the conclusion didn't take up a third of the movie, but rather a longer epilogue. Looking back, I think Oppenheimer would have been better if it had been 3 hours instead of 2,5, but it wasn't bad by any means; it was just a bit of a test of patience (this is very subjective; I remember thinking Babylon's similarly long runtime was totally justified, but others didn't feel that way).

While the movie wasn't perfect, I got the impression that it was outstanding for most of the time it was on screen. And that's a reason to celebrate, making Oppenheimer a movie worth seeing in theaters.

Source: imdb.com/Jeremy_Urquhart

📩 21/07/2023 17:28