Director:
Christopher NolanGuión:
Christopher NolanCámara:
Hoyte van HoytemaMúsica:
Ludwig GöranssonReparto:
Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr., Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Conti, Benny Safdie (más)Streaming (5)
Sinopsis(1)
Oppenheimer es un épico thriller que transporta a los espectadores a la trepidante paradoja de un enigmático hombre que deberá arriesgarse a destruir el mundo para salvarlo. La película cuenta con Cillian Murphy en el papel de J. Robert Oppenheimer y con Emily Blunt interpretando a su esposa, la bióloga y botánica Katherine Oppenheimer. Matt Damon se convierte en el general Leslie Groves Jr., director del Proyecto Manhattan, y Robert Downey Jr. da vida a Lewis Strauss, un miembro fundador de la Comisión de Energía Atómica de los Estados Unidos. (Universal Pictures España)
(más)Reseñas (14)
Christopher Nolan, en su película más madura y la menos atractiva para los espectadores, atrajo y sorprendió con una charla de tres horas sobre física nuclear y política. Atrajo a espectadores de todos los niveles de educación e inteligencia. Me quito el sombrero ante él. Rodar en 57 días un mosaico de acontecimientos tan centrado, perfectamente dirigido, repleto de información y cuidadosamente ensamblado, que no deja de ser interesante y tampoco pierde la credibilidad histórica en ningún momento, es una maestría cinematográfica. ¿Y que a Nolan le haya ayudado en esto un tema que nos concierne a todos y nos asusta a todos? Pero ¿qué otro director le daría más impulso a este tema? La intensidad y urgencia de la narrativa de la película se ve potenciada nuevamente por la ruidosa banda sonora mezclada por el mago Ludwig Göransson (Tenet), siendo esta obra suya algo independiente y digno de admirar por su originalidad y creatividad en los detalles. Brillante estilización de los personajes, montaje, elenco de actores, que uno no esperaría aquí y que al mismo tiempo encajan perfectamente (¡Benny Safdie llama atención!). Y esas dos escenas clave, construidas sin ayudas digitales sobre elementos cinematográficos básicos, son un auténtico placer. Inmediatamente después del final de la película, tuve más sentimientos encontrados, porque esperaba algo diferente, probablemente como todos nosotros. Sin embargo, con el tiempo, Oppenheimer crece en mí y me alegro de que Nolan lo haya hecho "a su manera".
()
I could have done without the last half-hour, where the loses its breath, but until then it's a riveting fresco, with an anti-war appeal at the very end, something much needed in these days of Putin's saber-rattling.
()
Nolan is the Dr. Manhattan of contemporary Hollywood. And perhaps will be for another two decades at least. At the peak of his creative powers, he can afford a three-hour conversation colossus, which subjectively lasts a third less, because the level of precision of all creative components is on an absolute level. Actually, even the most coveted gold-plated statue is completely understandable. And yet something is missing. Perhaps a bit of personal passion in front of and behind the camera. Without hesitation, however, this is the only film by the director that I know I will probably never watch again. PS: Sex in the interrogation room is probably the biggest cringe moment in Nolan's filmography. No debate about it.
()
I went to the cinema thinking that Christopher Nolan wouldn't make just a biopic. Well, it's basically a biopic for at least the first hour and a half. A bit more playful in terms of working with time planes, but above all, it's audiovisually imaginative and engaging in a way that all those academy-praised films like The Theory of Everything have little chance of capturing my attention anymore. Moreover, Nolan switches gears a little bit in the middle and starts to play a lot more with individual plot lines as well as genres, so that after the more daringly conceived biopic (which looks great in IMAX), Oppenheimer turns into a horror film at times, a psychological drama at others, and isn't afraid to be a courtroom thriller that even Aaron Sorkin would applaud. It's a bit of a shame that Nolan doesn't have more faith in his audience and always ends regurgitating what might seem a bit complex for the unfocused into a few sentences. I'd certainly have liked it if he'd pushed the line about the responsibility of scientists more and generally gone more in depth with the main character himself, but those are just small things. I was entertained by Oppenheimer for the entire three hours, whether Nolan was playing with image, sound, pacing and genres, or sticking to more traditional storytelling techniques, and just spicing them heavily with his audiovisual mastery.
()
Two commissions, two ambivalent narcissists and a lot of tensions, things left unsaid and affecting history. Unexpectedly emotional and working with characters for a Nolan film. Spectacular in all its intimacy, transparent in all the time-playing frenzy of characters, names, and events. Three hours of dialogue condensed into what feels like a much shorter running time. The tangibility of it all, the acting, Göransson's score, the editing... Everything is at the highest bar, but that's no the reason to love it. The reason is how it totally nails it, how it grapples the issue in an unscholarly way asking the big questions of life, and how damn good it is as a film.
()
Christopher Nolan has made an excellent 3-hour period drama about the making of the atomic bomb with a perfect cast, breathtaking visuals, great dialogue and decently dosed tension, but it's also a very exhausting and challenging film, and I'm not sure I want to go through it again – we all know Nolan makes films that need to be seen multiple times to fully understand them and pick up all the details, but here I just don't know if it will be too tedious a second time around, or if it won't be at the cinema again. I like the fact that Nolan wrote the script himself and got the best of the best for the rest: cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoyte, whose cinematography is simply unique, the music this time is not by Hans Zimmer but by the skillful Ludwig Göransson, who is also a safe bet; and he was lucky in the choice of actors. Cillian Murphy gives probably the performance of his life, which should be awarded an Oscar. It was also nice to see Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jr. (the rest of the famous actors really had minimal space and are rather cameos). The first hour is a little quieter and a little too much scientific for my taste, which I'm not that interested in, but it's simply part of the fabric, just not something I'm downright fond of. With the arrival of Damon and the preparation of the nuke – the explosion is one of the best sequences of the film (unexpectedly) – the tension was palpable, the atmosphere thickened and the whole thing is really very nicely executed. I enjoyed the final “trial”, it was pretty heated, although I expected to be even more blown away, as I love these verbal shootouts, but something was missing. All in all, I am satisfied, it couldn't have been done better, audiovisually it is a masterpiece of the genre, it's just not really my genre and unless I have the need to visit the cinema again immediately, I can't give it a full score. 8/10.
()
Nolan made a bold move when, after Tenet flopped because of the coronavirus pandemic, he spectacularly cut his long-standing ties with Warner Bros. and played a game of “Do You Want Me?” with other studios. Universal can thus now call Nolan “my darling”. All the studio had to do was fork over the money for a project that doesn’t fit into the currently preferred pigeonholes of Hollywood production. Oppenheimer is thus interesting as a marketing challenge. The first steps led through the elevation of the project itself to the high-concept tagline “Nolan makes an atomic bomb”. Subsequently, the elevation of analogue was brought into the mix, which, in combination with the detonation of the bomb, helped to evoke the impression of an event. Finally, the phrase “70 mm IMAX” helped to complete the suggestion that a three-hour biopic about a theoretical quantum physicist would be an epic spectacle. The most remarkable thing about this is the fact that the premium projection format is employed not for a visually bombastic spectacle, where it would be obviously justified, but for a dialogue film that is mostly composed of shots of actors in suits or uniforms delivering their lines. On the other hand, the myth of 70 mm film stock previously was used in the exact same way to promote Tarantino’s interior dialogue-heavy The Hateful Eight. Even more than in the case of Tarantino’s film, this time the PR spin doctors managed to create the impression that for every film fan a visit to an IMAX cinema is the equivalent of a pilgrimage to Mecca. This is a commendable approach in the interest of achieving a return on the funding invested in Oppenheimer and securing future Nolan projects. Despite the whole PR circus, however, I will venture to say that we don’t need the biggest screen to fully appreciate this film. Excellent sound, yes, but not IMAX. Oppenheimer will not rivet viewers to their seats with the spectacle of its scenes. However, it does offer excellent screenwriting that brilliantly holds the viewer’s attention and succeeds in clearly and thoroughly examining the title character. I write that as someone who has trouble remembering names, so a lot of films with numerous characters don’t work for me, because I easily get lost in them. That is not the case with Nolan’s Oppenheimer, because of how it is told, or rather how it layers not only the timelines, but also the images and sound. It’s as if Nolan has gone back to his roots, when he didn’t have huge budgets and captivated audiences solely with the power of the ingeniously composed narrative in Memento. Except that, unlike his youthfully ambitious hit, the non-linearity in Oppenheimer doesn’t come across as a gimmick. With an unpretentious purposefulness refined over the years, it makes it possible to dissect and, in a way that is fascinating for viewers, piece back together the disparate roles that Robert Oppenheimer played in his life, as well as the professional, personal and moral questions tied to his personality, work and position in the context of major historical events. Thanks to the film’s structure, which constantly places details aside in favour of the bigger picture and distances the context and point of view from the dramatic appeal of the moment, Nolan’s portrait succeeds in avoiding the minefields of poster glorification, tabloid scandal and philosophical ponderousness. Not by dispensing with them, but by constantly bombarding them with particles of other points of view. In Oppenheimer, the standard phrase “complex portrait” is an uncompromising maxim.
()
(menos)
(más)
A focused Nolan, a perfect Cillian Murphy and a roaring Ludwig Göransson in a history lesson I've always wanted to see. The suffocating atmosphere, disturbed only by the celebration of the Trinity explosion, sticks to the palate, and at times you feel sick of what could have been. If Hitler hadn't shot himself, they would have dropped the nukes in Europe. Oppenheimer's life of communism, his wives, his nightmares, his friends and his enemies are all engulfing, and for three hours they don't let go, whether it's black and white conversations or the simulation of a nuclear explosion. The horrific ending with Einstein still resonates with me. “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”
()
Barbenheimer, part 2. I wouldn't be afraid to compare Nolan's Oppenheimer to Dominik's Blonde. Both films are adaptations of biographical novels, dealing with generally known topics, bringing back the same stories, the same settings, the same personalities and asking the same questions. Perhaps both films are more formally ambitious, but they don't bring anything new or surprising to the table. Perhaps only the new acting challenges of dealing with images of characters that are culturally rooted and defined. And Nolan of course has the most attractive cast of today, there is no doubt about that.
()
I was expecting another new world adventure and instead got a wildly edited, plodding three-hour procedural with elements of an inside job at the end. All to the sound of monstrously thumping music and artsy black and white flashbacks. I'm not disputing the dense premise, or the decent performances, but the film only has two sparks in 180 minutes. One when the bomb goes off and the other when the camera is trained on Florence Pugh – with or without clothes on, it doesn't matter, both work.
()
In many ways, it’s exactly the film I expected, in many ways even better. This time Christopher Nolan handles a controversial issue with precision not only as a director but also as a screenwriter, because, though it’s true that in Oppenheimer "they’re always talking", all the monologues and dialogues are written in such a way that you don't drown in them. Yes, their weight may sometimes pull you under the surface for a while, but not for long, because each of those scenes ends with a clearly understandable conclusion, which in turn is the basis for the next scene. The chaos (however affably reckless) of Tenet, which punishes even a few seconds of inattention, is not repeated here. All of this with an incredibly great cast, led by the trio of Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jr., in a clever presentation of two different perspectives on the same thing that intersect at the end with a chilling thought that lingered with me for a long time.
()
Blockbuster sobre la vida de un físico teórico y el padre de la bomba atómica no es tanto un clásico drama biográfico, sino más bien un thriller político dramático modernista en el que se alternan dos líneas narrativas a través de varias líneas de tiempo. Un denso desfile de personajes ambiciosos, inteligentes e intrigantes y diálogos inteligentes que no dan espacio para respirar, además de eso, está filmada con una intensa fuerza cinematográfica. Una película dinámica y feroz con una estructura impresionantemente entrelazada, construida sobre la base del enfrentamiento de dos hombres egoístas y la historia de la lucha de un científico por la salvación de su propia alma, plantea preguntas relacionadas con la transformación de la civilización después de la invención de armas nucleares, el aspecto ético de su uso y la disposición de las personas a arriesgar por fama o dominio la destrucción del mundo, lo que tiene una relevancia que llega hasta el presente.
()
I hadn't seen any proper trailer for Oppenheimer, and since my knowledge of the "father of the atomic bomb" ends at that designation, I went into the cinema as a blank slate, but also with some anticipation given the director's name and the stellar cast. On several levels, the film tells the story of J.R. Oppenheimer – enthusiastic student, pioneering physicist, unfaithful husband, American hero, and "criminal." Before the screening, I expected the film to be full of (atomic) mushrooms, but in this respect the film was quite economical – though the truly oppressive atmosphere at times made me feel like I was watching one giant ticking bomb, in which not atomic nuclei but human egos were exploding, and in which envy and hatred were mixed. This was also contributed to by the overwhelming musical score, perfectly evoking the "explosive" nature of the film. Alongside an enlightening history lesson on the development of atomic weapons, I thoroughly enjoyed the scenes from both the colour and black and white processes, and it was fascinating to see how the scales (of truth and lies) were tipped. Alongside excellent performances by Cillian Murphy and Emily Blunt, it was Gary Oldman's small but impressive role as Truman that sticks in my mind the most. All in all, I'd give the film 4.5 stars – some pieces of Nolan's filmography have impressed me more (Interstellar, The Prestige) – but since Oppenheimer managed to keep me hooked for the full three hours in the cinema, I'll give it a boost in rating.
()
My strongest impression after finishing the movie was joy. Joy that I didn't watch it sitting down. Otherwise, I'd have to use a Marsellus Wallace line to describe the experience. Christopher Nolan assembled a stellar cast (even for walk-on parts), and naturally, I was expecting something exceptional. However... While I had no issue with the performances — they were, in fact, fantastic — the story didn't grip me as much as I had hoped. I've admitted time and again that I'm not exactly well-versed in the natural sciences, and as a result, I found myself missing out on a substantial portion of the dialogue. What I did manage to grasp didn't offer much in the way of new insights; politics remains a global quagmire, even in the so-called cradle of democracy, where secret police practices bear an uncomfortable resemblance to totalitarian regimes. Nothing groundbreaking for me. Oh, and there was an epic explosion at one point. Not enough for a three-hour film. / Lesson learned: Reading in Sanskrit might have fatal consequences.
()