Nolan’s Three-Hour Biopic Opus ‘Oppenheimer’ is Not Da Bomb

Christopher Nolan, the revered father figure of Film Twitter Bros the world over, has made his Mank (or his JFK, depending on who you ask.) Much like David Fincher’s polarizing and 10-time Oscar-nominated biopic, Oppenheimer offers a sprawling and contemplative portrayal of technology that reshaped the world, all while navigating the invasive presence of McCarthyism in America. It presents a sprawling, intricately layered narrative reminiscent of a Russian Nesting Doll, with stories within stories and a dynamic interplay of multiple timelines, including both colorized and black-and-white sequences, complemented by an ensemble cast of A-list actors. Those who caught early screening have already flocked to Twitter to lob terms like “masterpiece” and “best of the century” at Nolan’s three-hour biopic about the Father of the Atom Bomb but, much like Mank, Oppenheimer sees a celebrated filmmaker delivers a work seemingly tailored for awards recognition, though very clearly near and dear to him, yet ultimately fails to ignite the explosive impact it promises.

Cillian Murphy stars as J. Robert Oppenheimer with a screenplay from Nolan that’s based on Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin’s 2005 biography ‘American Prometheus’. Joining him is an impressive ensemble of A-list talent including Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr., Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, and Kenneth Branagh. But this large cast of characters too often lack depth and complexity, shuffling in and out of the fold without making much of a mark.

Nolan has always struggled to create meaningful human relationships in his films, particularly romantic ones, championing complex narrative webs over genuine human connection, and that is true here. For example, Oppenheimer is cast as a womanizer and though we see him with multiple women throughout the course of the film, we never get a sense of what drives him into the arms of other women, what the nature of their relationship is, or find anything representing heat in their exchanges. Oppenheimer‘s portrayal of its titular character emphasizes his icy demeanor, understated brilliance, and a noticeable lack of sexual passion. Murphy is solid here: haunted, distant, hollow: but such a remote performance can be challenging to invest in, especially with Nolan rendering the rest of the film so unintentionally cold to the touch. While the film carries an R-rating for nudity and sexuality, Nolan’s direction renders the overall experience devoid of nuclear heat, emotionally distant, and sexually frigid. As we navigate the shifting timelines and attempt to follow the numerous relationships, Oppenheimer becomes a demanding and arduous experience. It succumbs to the notion of ‘more is more’ without offering substantial improvements. This becomes particularly evident in the initial hour, where the narrative juggles four distinct time periods—Oppenheimer’s college days, his post-A-bomb professorship, and two separate trials. The overwhelming sense is that the film could have benefited from a more focused editorial approach, allowing for significant trimming without sacrificing crucial content.

While Oppenheimer does feature a few truly brilliant moments – the Trinity Bomb test is a stunningly assembled sequence, as is a later scene where Oppenheimer finds himself walloped by the reality of what he has unleashed upon the world – they are often overshadowed by the excesses of the narrative, ultimately resulting in a rather tedious viewing experience. The fact that the movie reaches its narrative climax with an hour of runtime remaining is a testament to the need for stricter editing on Nolan’s part.

There was chatter that Oppenheimer was Nolan’s “horror movie” and though that is an exciting prospect, it’s not really true. I’d hesitate to even call this a thriller, despite the presence of Ludwig Göransson’s tension-wracked score, one full of bombast and intensity, which suggests that we’re watching a thriller, doing its best to lift hours of board room conversations into something actually exciting. Which too often, Oppenheimer is not.

There’s a good movie in here but Oppenheimer suffers from the burden of cramming a handful of different eras into one narrative, detracting from its overall impact by virtue of being too busy and showy. Nolan’s decision to fracture the story and present it non-linearly lacks justification, as there isn’t much here that validates his opting for the narrative fragmentation that worked so well in Dunkirk. It’s fancy filmmaking for the sake of being noticeable and only succeeds in creating an alienating and emotionally distant experience. Oppenheimer will have its devotees – and appears to already – but it’s hardly going to light the world on fire.

CONCLUSION: In his latest endeavor, ‘Oppenheimer’, Christopher Nolan presents a dense, sprawling, and isolating biopic that, unfortunately, veers towards excessive tedium, often obscuring moments of true magnificence within its labyrinthine narrative.