The whole communist-trial storyline was utterly uninteresting and unnessessary. Nolan apparently thought he was making a spy thriller midway. As if we would suddenly care about Oppenheimer's life on account of his personality.
shareAgreed. They could have cut that storyline and it would have been a much better film. There was so much interesting stuff that could have been told about the Manhattan project that they did not touch. Or so many other aspects of Oppenheimer's life. Very disappointing film in that sense.
And obviously they still shower it with Oscar's because in 2024 "hypes must be hyped".
The Wikipedia page for the film "Oppenheimer" includes the "plot" as described in chronological order, not as the film portrays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_(film)
In case you thought you were missing something...
I kept trying to get through this mess because I thought it was going to link Julius and Ethel Rosenburg but it never did.
I seem to remember a scene where someone (Matt Damon?) was yelling that someone at Los Alamos was "working for the Russians the whole time" but then nothing more...
The movie was an adaptation of a non-fiction novel about J. Robert Oppenheimer, and his fall from grace during the McCarthy Era. There are plenty of pictures about big explosions.
shareReducing the movie to a "picture about big explosions" shows a total lack of understanding.
The interesting part of the story was never the explosion, but rather how they built the first nuclear bomb. Its construction demanded ingenuity and innovation in multiple fields and made for a fascinating story, of which there are not many movies at all.
The succeeding trial and Oppenheimer's supposed "fall from grace" was a completely meaningless and tacked-on melodrama that served of no importance. It would be a much better movie without it.