Is Oppenheimer really Christopher Nolan’s greatest movie… probably not, but it is a masterpiece in its own right! It is a brilliant, but flawed film about J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb. Christopher Nolan tells two stories within one, the young idealistic physicist who would later create the first atomic bomb and then the controversial figure who warned against the use of such weapons and then was silenced by his own government for speaking truth to power. This 3-hour movie in a lot of ways feels like a documentary, but with Christopher Nolan’s brilliant visual style of filmmaking. I liked the film very much. I’m glad I had the experience of seeing a 70 mm print on the big screen, but as good as the film is, as much of his masterpiece it might be, it is a very flawed film. The type of flaws that make me not want to see it again on the big screen and I’ve never said that about a Christopher Nolan film. The film works on many levels as you’re basically watching two different films However, I feel the biggest flaw is Christopher Nolan could not decide which story he really wanted to tell and just blurred everything together into what he feels is a cohesive story. Like all his films, there are many perspectives. Oppenheimer may be the main character, but there are many perspectives within the film about the kind of man that Oppenheimer really was. Like all great characters, Oppenheimer was very flawed as a human being. He was a brilliant physicist who essentially brought quantum physics to America and his theories led to the creation of the most destructive weapon known to man, but he was also polarizing, he was a womanizer. He had too many left-leaning tendencies but was never really a communist. He was an enigma and at the heart of this movie that is what Christopher Nolan is trying to show However, I don’t know if a 3-hour movie can tell that kind of story since he essentially made two movies about Oppenheimer.

The performances are the best part of this film. Cillian Murphy is outstanding as Oppenheimer. He was perfectly cast because he has a quiet but commanding presence that is very much needed to portray Oppenheimer. If you don’t understand what I mean, go watch Peaky Blinders. The supporting cast does an amazing job Matt Damon who plays the General over the Manhattan Project, Emily Blunt who plays his second wife, and Florence Pugh who plays his borderline schizophrenic first wife whom with he keeps having an affair.  But of course, all the supporting characters who play scientists, and had their own role in the creation of the atomic bomb.  However, if there is one truly standout performance besides Cillian Murphy it is Robert Downey Jr who plays Strauss, the man who essentially takes down Oppenheimer in the eyes of the public and the government. You root for his character even when you see that he is the villain of the story and that is the brilliance of Robert Downey Jr’s performance. Christopher Nolan has always gotten the best out of his actors, by mainly letting them freely perform without much interference. Nobody can deny how fantastic the performances are in this movie. But Christopher Nolan has always been known for his stunning visuals and their use of metaphor. Since you are telling two different stories, he alternates between color and black and white when telling different parts of this story. The color represents the hopefulness within the story and the black and white represents the dark gritty nature that surrounds the characters and the consequences of their actions. I very much enjoyed this and it’s a great way to tell a story, but just doesn’t make the film as perfect as it should be.

The main issue with the film comes down to what kind of story Christopher Nolan is trying to tell and essentially cramming two huge stories into a 3-hour movie. There’s so much about Oppenheimer’s life in the Manhattan Project that we don’t know as well as all of the controversies surrounding him post World War II into the Cold War with the rise of atomic weapons. For example, he was not in favor of developing a Hydrogen Bomb because it was more destructive than the one he created and he fervently stated that governments and humanity could not be trusted with such power, which would lead to his downfall because nobody wanted to hear that kind of Truth at the height of the Cold War especially when the Russians were able to develop nuclear weapons. One story should be his life as a physicist which led to the creation of the bomb and the other story is the indictment from America for the truth he spoke and his left-leaning tendencies. I’m all in favor of telling those two kinds of stories so we as an audience can fully appreciate what Oppenheimer really was. But how do you tell that kind of story? Do you make two 2-hour movies or is that kind of story better suited as a limited series? There’s so much story being told within this film that there are things that get glossed over or never fully explored. We get glimpses of Oppenheimer’s life and I think that makes it hard to objectively form an opinion of the man and his legacy as well as the other characters including the main villain of the story. This is where I argue that sometimes you need more than a two or three-hour movie to tell a story.

Granted, it’s hard to convince people to sit for four hours in the theater and that is where a great limited series on a streaming service is probably better. Then again having part one and then part two of a movie is acceptable. If you think I’m wrong, how many fans eagerly went to go see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1 and 2? How many of us are eagerly waiting for part two of Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning? Maybe that’s what we needed to get the full scope of Oppenheimer from his time as a young physicist to when he became a controversial figure towards the end of his life. I don’t mind a 3-hour movie in the theater as long as it flows well and I don’t think this one flowed as well as it could because of trying to cram two stories into one movie. The music didn’t help either. I’ve always appreciated Christopher Nolan’s different styles of music within his film, but sometimes it can be very grinding. There were moments in Dunkirk where we experienced that that made the film less enjoyable. It’s a little too much in this film and while I do understand that you want kind of a annoying or grinding score to heighten the intensity of certain scenes, it doesn’t always work and can make the film more annoying than it should be. The film scores in Christopher Nolan’s movies are always one of the best things about the films, but not with Oppenheimer.

Overall, it’s an interesting film. Everything we love about Christopher Nolan as a filmmaker is within this story and J. Robert Oppenheimer is a perfect polarizing character to make a movie about, especially since his legacy is about the creation of the most destructive weapon to mankind. But where Christopher Nolan is trying to tell this huge story that basically two films in one, it’s a lot for a 3-hour movie where a limited series would have been better. I’m sure a 4-Hour director’s cut would make this movie a lot better and I hope we get that one day. Oppenheimer is visually stunning, especially the scenes of an atomic bomb exploding. Everyone’s performance is first-rate, but the performances are not enough to overshadow the film’s flaws. With Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan got away with a lot because he had great performances, not so much with Oppenheimer. This is a movie that’s meant to be seen on the big screen, but it’s also hard to ask people to sit for a 3-hour movie whose pacing is not as good as it should be. The only reason to truly enjoy it on the big screen is because the visuals are magnificent.  I called the film a masterpiece because we’ve never had a story like this about Oppenheimer or somebody who plays the character perfectly like Cillian Murphy did. It’s a great character study about a bona fide genius that helped save millions of lives by creating a destructive weapon that brought our enemies to their knees, but at the same time, a controversial figure that constantly steps on his own legacy. That’s probably the best thing that Christopher Nolan does with this movie, he shows an imperfect man who for better or worse is one of the greatest pioneers of mankind. He gives us an intimate look at all of these characters who are very flawed and some who are villainous but makes us sympathize with them. Perhaps that’s the true genius of the film even if to tell this kind of story you need a 4-Hour film or limited series. However, Oppenheimer is a movie worth seeing on the big screen and something that everybody should experience at least once even though it’s not Christopher Nolan’s best work.