Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,615
Glasgow Film Theatre is showing the 70mm version but not an IMAX
Last edited:
Oppenheimer - 2023 Christopher Nolan & Cillian Murphy (birth of the Atom Bomb).
- Thread starter ianh
- Start date
article on the lenses & films
www.kodak.com
.. not much redundancy of film prints.
was curious - doesn't look like they use anamorphic lenses like blade runner
Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema NSC FSF ASC gets up-close &…
Hoyte van Hoytema FSF NSC ASC reveals details about capturing Christopher Nolan's nail-biting thriller in IMAX (15-perf) format using KODAK 65mm large-format film.
www.kodak.com
.. not much redundancy of film prints.
was curious - doesn't look like they use anamorphic lenses like blade runner
Not much point. Anamorphic lenses were invented to squash a widescreen capture onto a square 35mm frame. Regular 70mm film is wide enough without needing to do that, and 15perf IMAX is so massive you wouldn't gain anything. Not to mention the distortion from anamorphic lenses etc. would be absolutely massive on screen and rather distracting.
Shapes of 70mm film etc. for reference; https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/73151/does-imax-have-its-own-type-of-70mm-film
What did Bladerunner do?
EDIT:
Only two people in Australia know how to show Oppenheimer in it's full IMAX glory
Last edited:
the street scene shot of replicant women are renown for enhancing atmosphere/drama - because background is slightly out of focus,
but maybe they'd be 'confusing' on a large imax screen up close.
Is the speech intelligible? Or do I need to wait for the blu-ray to throw on subtitles like the last two Nolan movies xD
Some more spoiler-free reviews -
Stuckmann - "Nolan has made a challenging adult drama"
Jahns - "Awesome-tacular"
Traditional media Reviews -
Independent - 4/5 - "The prioritisation of cleverness in Oppenheimer isn’t necessarily a criticism of Nolan – more a testament to who he is as an artist."
www.independent.co.uk
Telegraph - 5/5 - "It’s at once a speeding roller-coaster and a skin-tingling spiritual portrait; an often classically minded period piece that only Nolan could have made, and only now, after a quarter-century’s run-up."
www.telegraph.co.uk
Guardian - 4/5 - "this movie, for all its audacity and ambition, never quite solves the problem of its own obtuseness: filling the drama at such length with the torment of genius-functionary Oppenheimer at the expense of showing the Japanese experience and the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
www.theguardian.com
Empire - 5/5 - "A masterfully constructed character study from a great director operating on a whole new level. A film that you don’t merely watch, but must reckon with."
www.empireonline.com
NY Times - "A drama about genius, hubris and error, both individual and collective, it brilliantly charts the turbulent life of the American theoretical physicist"
www.nytimes.com
Forbes - "Oppenheimer is Nolan’s weakest film to date, and a sharp contrast to his perfectly ambitious and complex vision in Dunkirk."
www.forbes.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One things to note about "traditional" reviews, whilst all talked about Nolan's direction and choices, virtually none actually talked about the quality of film itself i.e. costume, set design, script, acting (apart from Cillian Murphy), effects/CGI, cinematography, score etc and all effective spent 90% of their reviews (and therefore my time reading them) waffling about the real Oppenheimer and his story - To me that is a fundamental failing of how a professional journalist (vs a youtuber etc) should "review" of a film when their review doesn't actually say "this bit is good because, this bit was bad because" etc and instead talks about everything other than the quality of the film.
For example, it took about 30 mins in total to try and pull the "1 line review" quotes above for each review, and in a professional review of a movie it really shouldn't be that hard to pick out "is this good or bad and why" from it, especially when the youtubers are talking about all these points and also picking out issues which people might want to know beforehand such as the low mumbling audio mix (a common Nolan complaint) etc. It's no wonder these people are getting far more traffic than the traditional media as they actually spend most of their time talking about the film they're reviewing, and do so in a way which is easily accessible and answers the most important question "should I see this" within a few minutes.
Stuckmann - "Nolan has made a challenging adult drama"
Jahns - "Awesome-tacular"
Traditional media Reviews -
Independent - 4/5 - "The prioritisation of cleverness in Oppenheimer isn’t necessarily a criticism of Nolan – more a testament to who he is as an artist."
Oppenheimer is clever, imaginative and Christopher Nolan at his best – review
Cillian Murphy allows the light to dim from his eyes in every subsequent scene, but it is Robert Downey Jr who is titanic here
www.independent.co.uk
Telegraph - 5/5 - "It’s at once a speeding roller-coaster and a skin-tingling spiritual portrait; an often classically minded period piece that only Nolan could have made, and only now, after a quarter-century’s run-up."
Oppenheimer, review: Cillian Murphy dazzles as the destroyer of worlds
Christopher Nolan's portrait of the father of the nuclear bomb is a triumph, like witnessing history itself being split open
www.telegraph.co.uk
Guardian - 4/5 - "this movie, for all its audacity and ambition, never quite solves the problem of its own obtuseness: filling the drama at such length with the torment of genius-functionary Oppenheimer at the expense of showing the Japanese experience and the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Oppenheimer review – Nolan’s atom bomb epic is flawed but extraordinary
Christopher Nolan’s account of the physicist who led the Manhattan Project captures the most agonising of success stories
www.theguardian.com
Empire - 5/5 - "A masterfully constructed character study from a great director operating on a whole new level. A film that you don’t merely watch, but must reckon with."
Oppenheimer
Cillian Murphy stars in Christopher Nolan's explosive thriller. Read Empire's review.
NY Times - "A drama about genius, hubris and error, both individual and collective, it brilliantly charts the turbulent life of the American theoretical physicist"
‘Oppenheimer’ Review: A Man for Our Time
Christopher Nolan’s complex, vivid portrait of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the “father of the atomic bomb,” is a brilliant achievement in formal and conceptual terms.
Forbes - "Oppenheimer is Nolan’s weakest film to date, and a sharp contrast to his perfectly ambitious and complex vision in Dunkirk."
Critic’s Review: ‘Oppenheimer’ Is A Hot Mess
Christopher Nolan's latest film is his first stumble — will audiences agree? We'll find out this weekend.
www.forbes.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One things to note about "traditional" reviews, whilst all talked about Nolan's direction and choices, virtually none actually talked about the quality of film itself i.e. costume, set design, script, acting (apart from Cillian Murphy), effects/CGI, cinematography, score etc and all effective spent 90% of their reviews (and therefore my time reading them) waffling about the real Oppenheimer and his story - To me that is a fundamental failing of how a professional journalist (vs a youtuber etc) should "review" of a film when their review doesn't actually say "this bit is good because, this bit was bad because" etc and instead talks about everything other than the quality of the film.
For example, it took about 30 mins in total to try and pull the "1 line review" quotes above for each review, and in a professional review of a movie it really shouldn't be that hard to pick out "is this good or bad and why" from it, especially when the youtubers are talking about all these points and also picking out issues which people might want to know beforehand such as the low mumbling audio mix (a common Nolan complaint) etc. It's no wonder these people are getting far more traffic than the traditional media as they actually spend most of their time talking about the film they're reviewing, and do so in a way which is easily accessible and answers the most important question "should I see this" within a few minutes.
Went this afternoon - it's a remarkable film, didn't feel long at 3 hrs! However - just this week I did read the biography 'American Prometheus' that the film is tightly based on (excluding some artistic licence with Einstein!). As such film comes across as a montage of the most iconic and quotable bits from what is a pretty long book. I also have a physics degree and a long interest in partial and nuclear physics so knew all the scientists featured.
For viewers without any prior knowledge of Oppenheimer's life I could imagine them being pretty baffled, especially by the 2nd half. Technically great, the photography, the acting, costume etc.
I would recommend some prior reading of Oppenhimer's life, especially post war, to get the most out of it though.
For viewers without any prior knowledge of Oppenheimer's life I could imagine them being pretty baffled, especially by the 2nd half. Technically great, the photography, the acting, costume etc.
I would recommend some prior reading of Oppenhimer's life, especially post war, to get the most out of it though.
Caporegime
I'm starting to think a 3h documentary on the Manhattan project would be more interesting than this...
Im starting to get Dunkirk vibes....
Guess I'll find out at 4pm
The real travesty will be if I enjoyed Barbie more than this
2023.... We live in strange times.
Im starting to get Dunkirk vibes....
Guess I'll find out at 4pm
The real travesty will be if I enjoyed Barbie more than this
2023.... We live in strange times.
Last edited:
Don
Glued to the screen for 3h, excellent casting all round.
10/10
10/10
paper versus youtube reviews : can scroll to the bottom of a newspaper review on a big screen, whereas youtube has to hold/attract viewer for 30s (isn't it ?) to get the money - so make that 30s count.
DIY watched excerpt of below 2hrs - Barbie wouldn't be happy only 10 women out of 400 scientists - the naming of the bikini too, hadn't heard of Crossroads
youtu.be
film doesn't seem to mention second russian spy/Hall ?
DIY watched excerpt of below 2hrs - Barbie wouldn't be happy only 10 women out of 400 scientists - the naming of the bikini too, hadn't heard of Crossroads
"The Bomb" (Documentary) Nuclear weapons - BBC 2017
See how America developed the most destructive invention in human history - the nuclear bomb - how it changed the world and how it continues to loom large in...
youtu.be
Soldato
I've not been to the cinema for years but this is a film that I want to see. Could be the one that Nolan will finally get his hands on a certain Gold handheld statue next year.
Caporegime
Blimey 9/10
His best? I don't think so but Jesus oscar time
Added below edit...
Audio, there was still 1, possibly 2 scenes where the score interfered with the dialogue. Not tennet levels of stupid but Nolan really struggles on this, it's weird.
His best? I don't think so but Jesus oscar time
Added below edit...
Audio, there was still 1, possibly 2 scenes where the score interfered with the dialogue. Not tennet levels of stupid but Nolan really struggles on this, it's weird.
Last edited:
Good film telling an interesting story about a clever guy. .
60mins too long.
No benefit of watching in the cinema.
The sound was uncomfortably loud at the odeon I visited.
IMDB - 8.9/10
My rating 6.7/10
I preferred the series "Manhattan" .
60mins too long.
No benefit of watching in the cinema.
The sound was uncomfortably loud at the odeon I visited.
IMDB - 8.9/10
My rating 6.7/10
I preferred the series "Manhattan" .
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,053
Saw it earlier.
Rather long, technically brilliant, engaging and well paced.
I can't say I found it enjoyable though.
First time I have been in a completely full cinema like that for years, last being Avengers End Game. Most films of recent are nearly empty even on the opening weekend prime-time showings.
Every seat booked out and maybe only a couple of no shows.
Rather long, technically brilliant, engaging and well paced.
I can't say I found it enjoyable though.
First time I have been in a completely full cinema like that for years, last being Avengers End Game. Most films of recent are nearly empty even on the opening weekend prime-time showings.
Every seat booked out and maybe only a couple of no shows.
Caporegime
Oh yeah what was the point of this as iIMAX?
Literally 1 scene I can think of?
Literally 1 scene I can think of?
No real benefit of seeing in the cinema, imho.
It's a story about a clever dude who makes a thing.
There's no stunning visuals, sound is mostly talking / background noise.
Deffo one for watching on the sofa at home.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect nukes n bombs all over the place.
For a documentary film showing the creation of a device which ushered in a new era and directed mankind down a dark path, the ethical and moral dilemmas along with the personal acceptance this had to happen, it was all addressed pretty well.
But 3 bloody hours in a cinema for a film that doesn't really have anything visually outstanding to see or hear....
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Saw it last night with my wife and I have to say I think it's his weakest film by far. She didn't enjoy it at all and said she nodded off a few times.
There's nothing spectacular about the visuals at all or the sound. As said above, there's no reason to go to the cinema to see this and there's nothing that identifies it as a Nolan film at all.
It actually reminded me of Oliver Stone's, JFK.
I don't get all the praise for Murphy's performance either. I'm not saying it was bad, but it didn't set the screen alight for me. The film also assumes the viewer knows more about the events that happen and the people portrayed than I certainly did.
I don't think I'll be I a hurry to watch this again when it's available to stream or on physical media and my wife said she wouldn't even watch again. It's a shame really because we both have enjoy all of Nolan's other films, I even like Dunkirk and Tenet enough to have seen them at least three times.
There's nothing spectacular about the visuals at all or the sound. As said above, there's no reason to go to the cinema to see this and there's nothing that identifies it as a Nolan film at all.
It actually reminded me of Oliver Stone's, JFK.
I don't get all the praise for Murphy's performance either. I'm not saying it was bad, but it didn't set the screen alight for me. The film also assumes the viewer knows more about the events that happen and the people portrayed than I certainly did.
I don't think I'll be I a hurry to watch this again when it's available to stream or on physical media and my wife said she wouldn't even watch again. It's a shame really because we both have enjoy all of Nolan's other films, I even like Dunkirk and Tenet enough to have seen them at least three times.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,053
I thought that, but watching this 1965 interview between CBS and Oppenheimer that popped into my YT feed this morning made me warm to his performance much more.
From the archives: Robert Oppenheimer in 1965 on if the bomb was necessary
In a 1965 interview with CBS News, J. Robert Oppenheimer said about the atomic bomb, "The ending of the war by this means, certainly cruel, was not undertake...
youtu.be
Edit I'm finding Matt Damon's roles of recent great, he is very successfully embracing that middle age character and was perfectly cast in this as was RDJ.
Last edited: