First, the greatest thrill for me was that I saw Oppenheimer in a packed theater about a week after its release. As annoying as Hollywood might be, I’m a softie for the cinema and wish it’s long life in this world. Nothing makes me happier than to see a movie theater packed for a non-Marvel movie – pure joy! 

Let’s get into it!

For those short on time, Oppenheimer was great. I recommend it, but I also recommend that you brush up on your Oppenhistory before seeing this 3 hour movie. If you can’t, don’t worry, still a good time. 

The bits you think you do know about Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb, they’re not in this movie. Seriously, they’re not there. After the movie, I thought I was cool when quizzing my friend, “Do you know the name of the plane that dropped the bomb?” 

“No?” he said, wondering why he should care.

“It’s the Enola Gay,” I said. “How about that?” I think the name was a big deal when I first heard of it coz it had the word “Gay” in it and that was really funny back in the 4th grade. As a 35-year-old, it receives a nod and the word, “Oh” in response.

Oppenheimer is a movie about science you won’t understand and politics you won’t really grasp until the end. Its mostly a biopic and a courtroom drama. My expectation was that you’d see how the atom bomb was made and they’d break it down for you so you could understand how it works (like when people fold a piece of paper and stick a pencil through it to explain I-forget-what). I also thought we’d see the bomb’s delivery and some of the aftermath – not that I wanted to see carnage, but I wanted to imagine being the people on that plane. There’s none of that. It’s about Oppenheimer specifically, the Manhattan Project in New Mexico specifically, and the trouble he got in because he hung out with commies.

Not complaining by the way. I think this focused story was the correct approach. It’s about one man’s impact on the world. A man builds something, hands it off, and the world changes. It’s fascinating to consider. 

Now, I really enjoy Christopher Nolan’s movies, but I’ll admit they take a few watches (or sometimes just an hour or so) to grasp. There’s always some sort of complex plot structure or time differential to contend with. It makes you wonder, is that bad filmmaking? Should I, as an adult, non-idiotic viewer, be able to grasp when and where we are at all times or is it the filmmaker’s responsibility to make that clear? And what about people’s names? Man, it was really hard to follow people’s names. 

A big part of the movie revolved around The Chevalier Incident and the challenge I had was defining who or what Chevalier was. Was it a person? A location? A French liqueur? Then the actual incident occurred on screen, but I didn’t know it because I had no clue what Chevalier was. Then, in one of the last scenes, someone says “Chevalier” and they cut to one character and I got it. So then I recalculated everything I had seen before to fit with this new knowledge. Chevalier is his commie friend; the blonde fella with the mustache – just to help you out. 

Then there were some scenes in black and white, but later those same scenes were in color, with the defining line unclear. Like maybe when we’re following Downey Jr.’s character, it’s in black and white? But I wouldn’t put money on it. I usually get these and I can pick up on the structure right away, but for Oppenheimer, it was tricky perhaps because I was concentrating so hard on following along. 

Despite all the confusion, I still enjoyed the three-hour experience. The film was beautiful; the acting was excellent (except for one moment – see below), the symbolism and imagery were awesome, the sense of urgency and stress was palpable, and the story — once I pieced it together — was intriguing. My greatest recommendation would be to read up as much as you can on Oppenheimer, The Chevalier Incident, and perhaps the controversies surrounding his connections to communists and the resulting fallout (pun intended) after the Manhattan Project. While I think it’s valuable to experience this narrative first hand in the theater, Nolan doesn’t make everything super obvious and clear.

It’s odd, because I like the idea that Nolan doesn’t hold our hands, but I also needed a bit of help. If the Chavalier Incident is a central theme, make it super super clear that we should know who Chavalier is. I thought that guy was a passing character and his important moments were smaller than they were. Again, the movie assumes you know a bit about Oppenheimer outside of the Manhattan Project.

So, hot tip, do like 10 minutes of research before you see this movie.

Hot tip number 2… enjoy a nice big, salty Italian sub before you see this 3-hour movie. Soaked up all the water in my body, not one bathroom break.

Otherwise, it was really great even if you’re a bit lost during it. I love Cillian Murphy, he’s fun to watch. Robert Downey Jr. was a joy to watch – I love that guy (and not because of Iron Man). The supporting cast, all the scientists, a million faces you’ll love to see, they were all excellent.

Emily Blunt was great, of course, but there’s a funny side note here. I have clients in the world of aesthetic medicine (fillers/botox/laser removal, etc) and so I now know what that looks like. Emily Blunt is absolutely stunning in general and in this movie (Emily, seriously, I disparage you not), but because I work closely in that field, I can see the fillers a mile away. I think we’re getting to a point where if you’re working on a period piece, that sh** can’t fly if your character is living in the 40s. Again, in particular in this movie, she looks incredible despite the face treatments — I usually hate the look of fillers/botox, etc — but it’s sort of uncanny in a period piece; like anytime Nicole Kidman has been in a non-modern movie in the last ten years. Something is just off. 

Lastly, as a native Masshole, I really root for Matt Damon. I think he’s a good actor, but for me, he has become so recognizable that I can no longer see not-Matt-Damon. Does that make sense?

Like in Interstellar, when he suddenly appeared halfway through the movie, I laughed out loud. I chortled in an otherwise quiet theater. My friend and I had a similar reaction during Oppenheimer when he delivered one line that actually appears in the trailers. See below from 1:09 to about 1:25: 

In the trailer it isn’t so hilarious, but in the vibe of this scene in the movie, my friend and I couldn’t help but laugh… I just can’t not see Matt Damon. It’s a bummer too coz he was great otherwise.

Go see Oppenheimer. Nolan’s movies were made for theaters. I won’t even get into the vast number of parallels to both the corruption in our government and the looming threat of nuclear war. It was a movie to mull over in your brain and with a friend. My friend and I debated politics for four hours after we saw this movie. It was a good catalyst to have a deep discussion and perhaps relate how certain aspects of war and politics don’t change. It also does a great job at discussing the complexity of responsibility, both with creating such a powerful weapon and allowing yourself to submit to the powers that be in the name of a greater good. When is that necessary? When is it a mistake? It’s tough to say.