Thanks Ty, planning on seeing it next week -Cape Cinema in Dennis. After reading Odie’s review was wondering- your review more encouraging.
Not to be of course, but would have loved to get McCarthy’s take on the film. His Tennessee roots and decades sequester at the SantaFe and preoccupation with physics and human flaws Stella Maris, etc….
AMC Boston Common has this in 70mm format, but I don’t believe it’s IMAX. They also have it in IMAX but not in the original screen format. Which is the better way to see this film?
I would normally say 70mm, but the projection at the AMC screening I attended was noticeably substandard. If you can see it in 70 at a theater where they know how to do film projection (like the Somerville), that'd be my choice. Otherwise IMAX.
If you expect to get good projection at the AMC Boston Common aka the Worst Theater in Boston, I've got a bridge to sell you down here in Brooklyn. The Coolidge has it in 70mm if you want to see it that way. The theater in Providence is the closest one to see it the way Christopher Nolan wants you to see it. Unlike Nolan, I won't tell you to spend your money on an IMAX movie where 65% of it is set in an office, a small room and Congress. And I saw it in IMAX 70mm at the Lincoln Square, which has a real IMAX screen, not LieMAX. I would have been pissed if I'd paid the $35 for that ticket. (I saw it for free, the one good thing about being a film critic.)
I guess it’s not 100% pure, but the Jordan’s Furniture IMAX theaters are showing Oppenheimer in what’s probably a better screen format than Boston Common. However I ended up at the non-IMAX 70mm screening in Auditorium 18 downtown. I have the AMC Stubs subscription, so it’s somewhat similar to your critic’s free ticket. Nearly every seat except the front row at every premium screen was sold out this weekend, so I was lucky to find one decent matinee seat available.
There were no issues with the projection or sound, and I noticed a live person tending the machinery in the projection room, so AMC did seem to care at least at my show. But I noticed very little difference between the 70mm film and a standard digital projection. Maybe the images were just a bit darker, maybe a little less contrast, but hardly anything I’d notice especially after the first few minutes. The most peculiar thing was the previews, which had the same aspect ratio as the feature, but had a thin letterbox margin on all 4 sides of the picture. I thought the film was excellent, but the last hour could have been tightened up a bit.
That wasn't a person in the projection room; that was a rat! AMC hates my guts because I call their main theater here in NYC "The AMC Bedbug 25" and I wrote that mean piece in the Globe about their stupid (and now cancelled) preferred seating plan. I'm glad Remy from Ratatouille cared enough to check the projection for you.
I can't speak to what Oppenheimer looks like in any other format besides the one I saw it in, and not even Jesus texting me "go see it again, my child" would get me into a theater for another viewing. ("New phone, who dis?" would be my response to the Lord.) I thought the cinematography was superb, so I assume it looks as good in any format. Glad you enjoyed Oppenheimer. I know four people who walked out of it so far.
Such an interesting time and people. My first husband was a physicist. Strange intense humans. This week's Scientific American has an article, about what physics tells us about Barbie's world. Strange times. I enjoyed your review, as usual.
I liked Robert Downey Jr. a more than you did, and the movie less than you did. He was the only thing keeping me awake while Nolan turned the movie into an IMAX ABC Movie of the Week. I used to be the Nolan apologist, as many tech guys tend to be, but things have changed. And I'm beyond sick of his intentionally shitty sound mixes. I had a reader today write me saying I didn't worship Nolan's "genius" enough and that he wished you were still at the paper. As I do whenever readers say they miss you, which is often, I send them here. I tell then you have a Substack and they can be reunited with your greatness while leaving me the hell alone. "And don't be a cheap bastard about it," I write. "Pay the man." Happy to promote this place!
Back in the 80’s ( I think), I did the first major Hollywood project of my career , a TV movie called Day One, about the fusion part of Nolan’s film. It started David Strathairn as Oppenheimer and Brian Dennehy as Leslie Groves. Directed by Joe Sargent, it was written and produced by David Rintells. Head of the writers Guild at the time. I thought it was excellent - and many agreed, as it won the prime time Emmy that year for best feature. It has since vanished into the Hollywood Ether. So it goes.
Saw it at the Somerville theater in its full 70mm glory. I agree that it severely bogs down in the final third, as Nolan piles on the humiliation Oppenheimer suffered during the rigged hearing that Strauss set up. Lots of beautiful (and terrifying) imagery, though, and some creative sound design for sure, though I still find much of his dialogue hard to hear. (He seems to design his sound mixes as if he wants to torture those of us who can't hear conversations well in loud spaces.) Overall, it felt as if he refused to simplify any aspect of the narrative for those of us who haven't read the biography the film is based on.
Hoping for another "Dunkirk", to my surprise I was underwhelmed by "Oppenheimer". Except for the soundtrack, which after a while drew attention to itself and became overpowering, not in a good way. I was reminded of the "Frontline" documentary series, which relies on its ominous music beds for dramatic effect when the subject matter is, by itself, sufficiently serious. Murphy's performance is impressive, if perhaps a bit one-note, although that seems to be what the role called for. Robert Downey, Jr. will win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.
Nailed it as usual, Ty. I especially appreciated the comment about underused actresses, especially the gratuitously overexposed Florence Pugh. And yes, it is about 45 minutes too long, all time in which one loses the sense of history and import that the movie creates so well in the first half. Strong performances to be sure, but I don’t really get all the oohs and aahs this film is receiving.
Three weeks after the release of the movie, there is a monotonous and steady criticism of the last one third of the movie. Hopefully, Nolan is reading all of this, and plotting his next film, which should be about what happened on the ground in Hiroshima.
Bravo, Ty! Looking forward to seeing “Oppenheimer” in IMAX next week
Thanks Ty, planning on seeing it next week -Cape Cinema in Dennis. After reading Odie’s review was wondering- your review more encouraging.
Not to be of course, but would have loved to get McCarthy’s take on the film. His Tennessee roots and decades sequester at the SantaFe and preoccupation with physics and human flaws Stella Maris, etc….
AMC Boston Common has this in 70mm format, but I don’t believe it’s IMAX. They also have it in IMAX but not in the original screen format. Which is the better way to see this film?
I would normally say 70mm, but the projection at the AMC screening I attended was noticeably substandard. If you can see it in 70 at a theater where they know how to do film projection (like the Somerville), that'd be my choice. Otherwise IMAX.
If you expect to get good projection at the AMC Boston Common aka the Worst Theater in Boston, I've got a bridge to sell you down here in Brooklyn. The Coolidge has it in 70mm if you want to see it that way. The theater in Providence is the closest one to see it the way Christopher Nolan wants you to see it. Unlike Nolan, I won't tell you to spend your money on an IMAX movie where 65% of it is set in an office, a small room and Congress. And I saw it in IMAX 70mm at the Lincoln Square, which has a real IMAX screen, not LieMAX. I would have been pissed if I'd paid the $35 for that ticket. (I saw it for free, the one good thing about being a film critic.)
I guess it’s not 100% pure, but the Jordan’s Furniture IMAX theaters are showing Oppenheimer in what’s probably a better screen format than Boston Common. However I ended up at the non-IMAX 70mm screening in Auditorium 18 downtown. I have the AMC Stubs subscription, so it’s somewhat similar to your critic’s free ticket. Nearly every seat except the front row at every premium screen was sold out this weekend, so I was lucky to find one decent matinee seat available.
There were no issues with the projection or sound, and I noticed a live person tending the machinery in the projection room, so AMC did seem to care at least at my show. But I noticed very little difference between the 70mm film and a standard digital projection. Maybe the images were just a bit darker, maybe a little less contrast, but hardly anything I’d notice especially after the first few minutes. The most peculiar thing was the previews, which had the same aspect ratio as the feature, but had a thin letterbox margin on all 4 sides of the picture. I thought the film was excellent, but the last hour could have been tightened up a bit.
That wasn't a person in the projection room; that was a rat! AMC hates my guts because I call their main theater here in NYC "The AMC Bedbug 25" and I wrote that mean piece in the Globe about their stupid (and now cancelled) preferred seating plan. I'm glad Remy from Ratatouille cared enough to check the projection for you.
I can't speak to what Oppenheimer looks like in any other format besides the one I saw it in, and not even Jesus texting me "go see it again, my child" would get me into a theater for another viewing. ("New phone, who dis?" would be my response to the Lord.) I thought the cinematography was superb, so I assume it looks as good in any format. Glad you enjoyed Oppenheimer. I know four people who walked out of it so far.
Such an interesting time and people. My first husband was a physicist. Strange intense humans. This week's Scientific American has an article, about what physics tells us about Barbie's world. Strange times. I enjoyed your review, as usual.
I liked Robert Downey Jr. a more than you did, and the movie less than you did. He was the only thing keeping me awake while Nolan turned the movie into an IMAX ABC Movie of the Week. I used to be the Nolan apologist, as many tech guys tend to be, but things have changed. And I'm beyond sick of his intentionally shitty sound mixes. I had a reader today write me saying I didn't worship Nolan's "genius" enough and that he wished you were still at the paper. As I do whenever readers say they miss you, which is often, I send them here. I tell then you have a Substack and they can be reunited with your greatness while leaving me the hell alone. "And don't be a cheap bastard about it," I write. "Pay the man." Happy to promote this place!
You get a finder's fee, my friend.
Oppenheimer- big theater; Barbie - big TV. The following quote is from Ron Charles, book reviewer from the Post:
"Halfway through a bizarre conversation about the "Barbie" movie, I realized that my wife thought the directer was Greta Thunberg"
Back in the 80’s ( I think), I did the first major Hollywood project of my career , a TV movie called Day One, about the fusion part of Nolan’s film. It started David Strathairn as Oppenheimer and Brian Dennehy as Leslie Groves. Directed by Joe Sargent, it was written and produced by David Rintells. Head of the writers Guild at the time. I thought it was excellent - and many agreed, as it won the prime time Emmy that year for best feature. It has since vanished into the Hollywood Ether. So it goes.
I've seen this movie!
Saw it at the Somerville theater in its full 70mm glory. I agree that it severely bogs down in the final third, as Nolan piles on the humiliation Oppenheimer suffered during the rigged hearing that Strauss set up. Lots of beautiful (and terrifying) imagery, though, and some creative sound design for sure, though I still find much of his dialogue hard to hear. (He seems to design his sound mixes as if he wants to torture those of us who can't hear conversations well in loud spaces.) Overall, it felt as if he refused to simplify any aspect of the narrative for those of us who haven't read the biography the film is based on.
Hoping for another "Dunkirk", to my surprise I was underwhelmed by "Oppenheimer". Except for the soundtrack, which after a while drew attention to itself and became overpowering, not in a good way. I was reminded of the "Frontline" documentary series, which relies on its ominous music beds for dramatic effect when the subject matter is, by itself, sufficiently serious. Murphy's performance is impressive, if perhaps a bit one-note, although that seems to be what the role called for. Robert Downey, Jr. will win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.
Nailed it as usual, Ty. I especially appreciated the comment about underused actresses, especially the gratuitously overexposed Florence Pugh. And yes, it is about 45 minutes too long, all time in which one loses the sense of history and import that the movie creates so well in the first half. Strong performances to be sure, but I don’t really get all the oohs and aahs this film is receiving.
Three weeks after the release of the movie, there is a monotonous and steady criticism of the last one third of the movie. Hopefully, Nolan is reading all of this, and plotting his next film, which should be about what happened on the ground in Hiroshima.
The screenplay for the movie has already been written by John Hersey