Three years after “Tenet”, Christopher Nolan is back in the cinema with “Oppenheimer”, a river film dedicated to the creator of the atomic bomb. But did this first biopic of the director of “The Dark Knight” convince the spectators?
Since the success of The Dark Knight, each new Christopher Nolan film has been an event. Whether it comes out in the fall (Interstellar) or in the heart of summer, a playground mostly prized by the English filmmaker, who distinguished himself there with Inception, Dunkirk, Tenet and, today, Oppenheimer.
A first biopic for the director and screenwriter, which focuses on the fate of J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy), physicist described as the father of the atomic bomb. For three hours, Christopher Nolan stages this key figure in world history, in color and black and white, with a daunting cast.
Robert Downey Jr. (in his first post-Marvel role), Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Rami Malek, Kenneth Branagh or even Josh Hartnett gravitate around Cillian Murphy. But did the whole thing convince the first spectators? The answer is yes.
AlloCine
The day after its theatrical release, Oppenheimer posted an average of 4.4 out of 5 among AlloCiné internet users who rated it. It’s neither Christopher Nolan’s best film (Interstellar, Inception and The Dark Knight are still ahead), nor even that of 2023 (Spider-Man Across the Spider-Verse retains its crown), but it’s already very positive.
An average which will, of course, change in the days to come, once the feature film has been seen by more people. But here are some of the first opinions posted around Oppenheimer.
Wienna R : “With Oppenheimer, Christopher Nolan projects us into a hard-hitting story that meticulously explores the political and scientific issues of the atomic bomb, as well as the psychological burden endured by its protagonist. An intense and extraordinary viewing.” (5 out of 5)
Little Wolfie : “A necessary, intense and magnificent film. An exceptional interpretation of Murphy! The great Nolan. Go see it, it’s an incomparable cinematic experience.” (5 out of 5)
selenie : “The film begins by immediately mixing form and content, immediately establishing a non-linear narrative chronologically speaking and playing with the dreamlike around the stars and the atomic explosion (…) Nolan signs there a monument of the genre, a kind of ‘moral thriller’ full of acuity and very faithful to historical facts. A great film to see absolutely and to recommend. “ (5 out of 5)
An incomparable cinema experience
Cool_92 : “A film-river that blasts the codes of the biopic (…) The film is very demanding and dense in information. It will not please everyone as it is talkative and quite long. However, we do not feel the 3 hours. The 2nd part is perhaps the most engaging and the most exciting, that of the race for the bomb (…)
A little disappointed, however, by the soundtrack, effective yes, but which will not be remembered. Nolan proves once again that he is an outstanding director who makes great cinema.” (4 out of 5)
norman06 : “Excellent biopic, more classic than Nolan’s earlier films, but none the less outstanding in narration, cinematography and editing. Cillian Murphy is amazing in the title role.” (4 out of 5)
Sylvain P. : “Movie Monster, Oppenheimer shows us the story of the father of the American atomic bomb. It’s thrilling, extremely long, a bit disjointed and musically in questionable taste, but ultimately the three hours pass smoothly. Nolan remains a master of entertainment no matter what he chooses.” (3 out of 5)
Passionate about science (and its history) go your way
Fabgroove : “Disappointed. The film favors throughout its length the political torments of the central character linked to this era of “witch hunts”, to the detriment of the scientific and technical aspect very often relegated to the background. Operation Trinity almost passes for a detail of the film at certain times and that’s a shame.
We feel that the director wanted to spare himself the complexity of a screenplay written around a subject that should have been the main theme, namely the atom. So three hours for that is a long, very long time.” (2 out of 5)
Seb Lake : “3H of not much, it’s particularly long. So yes, it’s well filmed, the actors are good, and the story is worth knowing, but that does not prevent the material of the film from being insufficient for the duration chosen by the director (…) Here is a very wet firecracker.” (2 out of 5)
Pretoria 2 : “Big fan of Nolan, I was waiting for this film like the messiah. Telling myself that it would be a Nolan-style ‘chernobyl like’ in the XXL cast. The cold shower, infinite frustration when you go to see this film for the scientific aspect. 10% to break everything. 90% boring dialogues to die for and politics (…) Passionate about science (and its history) go your way.” (0.5 out of 5)
And you then? Have you already chosen your side? Otherwise, go to the dark rooms to discover Oppenheimer and form your own opinion.