Oppenheimer rated 4.4 out of 5: “Intense and beautiful” or “wet firecracker”? What do viewers think of Christopher Nolan’s new film?

After the success of The Dark Knight, every new Christopher Nolan film has been an event. Whether it’s in the fall (Interstellar) or in the heart of summer, a playground mostly treasured by the English filmmaker who has distinguished himself there with Inception, Dunkirk, Tenet and, today, Oppenheimer.

The first biopic for the director and screenwriter, focusing on J. On the fate of Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy), a physicist described as the father of the atomic bomb. For three hours, Christopher Nolan stages this pivotal figure in world history, in color and black-and-white, with a terrifying 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 all this convince the first audience? The answer is yes.

The day after its theatrical release, Oppenheimer posted an average of 4.4 out of 5 for AlloCiné among Internet users who rated it. It’s neither Christopher Nolan’s best film (Interstellar, Inception, and The Dark Knight are still to come), nor the 2023 film (Spider-Man Across the Spider-Verse retains the crown), but it’s already very positive.

An average that will of course change in the days to come once more people have seen the feature film. But here are some of the first opinions that have been published around Oppenheimer.

Who is R : “With Oppenheimer, Christopher Nolan tells a hard-hitting story that thoroughly explores the political and scientific issues of the atomic bomb, as well as the psychological toll it takes on its protagonist. Intense and extraordinary viewing.” (5 out of 5)

Little Wolf : “An essential, intense and brilliant film. An exceptional performance by Murphy! Great Nolan. Go see it, it’s an unparalleled cinematic experience.” (5 out of 5)

Selenium : The film begins by instantly mixing form and content, instantly establishing a chronologically non-linear narrative and playing with dreams around stars and atomic explosions (…) Nolan signs a monument of the genre, a kind of “moral thriller”. Full of wit and very true to historical facts. A great film, a must see and highly recommended.” (5 out of 5)

An unparalleled cinematic experience

Cool_92 : “The film-river that spreads the codes of biography (…) the film is very demanding and dense information. Not everyone will like it because it’s too long to talk. However, we do not feel 3 hours. second part. This is probably the most attractive and exciting of the bomb races (…)

A little disappointed, however, with the soundtrack, effective but not memorable. Nolan proves once again that he is an outstanding director who creates great cinema.” (4 of 5)

norman06 : “An excellent biopic, more classic than Nolan’s earlier films, but still outstanding in storytelling, cinematography and editing. Cillian Murphy is amazing in the title role.” (4 of 5)

Sylvain P. : “Monsters, Oppenheimer tells the story of the father of America’s atomic bomb. It’s exciting, extremely long, a little unsteady and musically in question, but in the end the three hours pass without a hitch. Nolan remains a masterful entertainer, no matter what. He chooses.” (3 of 5)

Passionate about science (and its history), go your way

Fabgroove : “Disappointing. Throughout its length, the film favors the political suffering of the central character associated with the “witch hunt” era, to the detriment of the scientific and technical aspect, which too often recedes into the background. Operation Trinity almost passes in detail. The film is at a certain point and sad.

We feel that the director wanted to avoid the complexity of the script, which was written around a topic that should have been the main theme, namely the atom. So three hours is a long, long time for that.” (2 of 5)

Lake Seb : “3 hours is not much, it is particularly long. Yes, it is well shot, the actors are good and the story is worth it, but this does not prevent the material of the film from being insufficient for the duration chosen by the director. (…) There is a very wet firearm here. (2 of 5)

Pretoria 2 : “Big fan of Nolan, I was waiting for this movie like a messiah. I told myself that it would be “Chernobyl-like” Nolan’s way of XXL casting. Cold shower, endless disappointment when you go to see this movie for scientific research. Aspect. 10% to ruin everything. 90% of boring dialogues % What to die for and politics (…) fascinated by science (and its history) get in your way.” (0.5 out of 5)

and you then Have you chosen your side yet? Otherwise, head to the Dark Rooms to discover Oppenheimer and form your own opinion.