Oppenheimer (21st July 2023) Christoper Nolan / Hoyte Van Hoytema

[Stephen Perera]

Well let's start talking about it why not....Aspect ratio

• • 1.43 : 1(Film IMAX - some scenes)
  • 1.78 : 1(4K Blu-ray - some scenes)
  • 1.90 : 1(Digital IMAX - some scenes)
  • 2.20 : 1(70mm and Digital)
  • 2.39 : 1(35mm)
• Camera
  • IMAX MKIII, Panavision Sphero 65 and Hasselblad Lenses
  • IMAX MKIV, Panavision Sphero 65 and Hasselblad Lenses
  • IMAX MSM 9802, Panavision Sphero 65 and Hasselblad Lenses
  • Panavision Panaflex System 65 Studio, Panavision System 65 Lenses
• Negative Format
  • 65 mm(also horizontal, Kodak)
• Cinematographic Process
  • IMAX
  • Panavision Super 70
• Printed Film Format
  • 35 mm
  • 70 mm(also horizontal, also IMAX DMR blow-up)
  • D-Cinema

 

Edited March 28, 2023 by Stephen Perera

[Stephen Perera]

removed as useless haha

Edited March 28, 2023 by Stephen Perera

[Diego Collado]

2 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

a behind the scenes

 

This is a parody video, made from BTS footage from Interstellar and other interviews, as well as footage from other films. It says so in the description!

[Stephen Perera]

hahaha its cos I don't want to watch any trailers etc that I didn't notice hahaha

[Stephen Perera]

the time has come...or nearly.....I'm going to travel up to Barcelona and stay a couple of days and watch a 70mm film projection of it methinks.....it will not be shown in Spain in IMAX 70mm format.....it will be shown in digital IMAX

[charles pappas]

July 23rd in San Antonio.

Projected Film IMAX, one of the few left.

[Jon O'Brien]

Always it seems to me projects/movies requiring a bit of extra gravitas tend to suit being shot on real film. Something about that extra bit of movie-making street cred kind of helps get you over the line.

Just anecdotally of course I do get the impression that at least a fair percentage of cinema goers are starting to notice and they are starting to care if a major movie is shot on film or not.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Jon O'Brien

[Stephen Perera]

I'm film evangelist as some in here know haha.....I find people around me are always really interested to hear about films being shot on film or digitally and I ask subjective questions such as whether they feel the actors are playing dress up or have we been transported back to the era (if applicable) and then I explain things......its great....people are very open to artesanal ways of doing things and they value industry/art etc such as shooting on film presents

[Abdul Rahman Jamous]

For me, Nolan is an example of how the plot can overrides the story and how the style can overrides the drama.

I don't enjoy watching his movies, and needless to say  that I won't be watching this one.

[Tyler Purcell]

To say I've been anticipating this film for a while, is an understatement. It's been quite the experience talking to the guys at Fotokem about the process of the lab work alone. How they had to convert one of their slower processors to do black and white 65mm negative processing, which meant they had to run 3 shifts a day since they were shooting so much film. Fotokem will never run black and white 65mm negative again, this was a one-off. Unlike Tenet, which was clearly a DI finish, Oppenheimer has been confirmed to be a completely photochemical finish with a few "clean up" shots recorded back to negative, but timed the old fashion way. Where I'm not "in love" with that concept, it can work. Yesterday I even got to see the final box of 5222 65mm negative they didn't shoot, sadly Kodak won't be selling it. I think they're going to keep it for posterity reasons since they'll never make it again. 

Nolan is doing the largest film release since Hateful Eight in 2015. Nearly 200 theaters will show it on film globally. This includes 30 15p IMAX prints, 20 of which are state side. Making it the largest IMAX film release since film died. Since last summer, theaters have been getting IMAX projectors pulled out of mothballs, to be re-installed into theaters. I'm hoping they will stay in most cases instead of being pulled out. The ability to project film prints is very important for the future of the format. Even theaters that have no room for the projector like the Chinese theater in Hollywood, are having a booth installed in the back of the theater JUST for this screening. Insanity! Outside of that, the film will have 113 5 perf prints and 80 35mm prints. It's playing on more 5 perf theaters than Hateful Eight! That's insane! 

Unlike the release of Tenet, which was muted due to Covid, it's clear this time around, they'll do a proper release and the marketing of film release is going to help them like it did with Hateful Eight. I just hope, they don't have major issues. We'll see in a weeks time!

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Abdul Rahman Jamous said:

For me, Nolan is an example of how the plot can overrides the story and how the style can overrides the drama.

I mean plot is the story really. I think you mean the "gimmick" overrides the story. That I can agree with. His last two films have been very much in that vain. At the same time, they are thinking movies. If you wanna sit down and not pay attention, then he's the wrong filmmaker for you. They're complex plot wise, but they're not complex character wise. That's fine, they aren't character studies. I believe Oppenheimer since it's about one person, we'll probably see more of an intimate character piece. So far, everyone who has seen it, has loved it. Can't say that for Dunkirk or Tenet honestly, many people were mixed about those. I think Tenet is a masterpiece, but the gimmick OWNS the plot unfortunately. 

6 hours ago, Abdul Rahman Jamous said:

I don't enjoy watching his movies, and needless to say  that I won't be watching this one.

That's unfortunate, he's one of the industries most successful filmmakers. 

Name another filmmaker the studios will toss endless money at, where the filmmaker is doing something unique and not some superhero movie. He's a breath of fresh air, in a world of cinema, dominated by "made by committee" Hollywood junk. 

[Abdul Rahman Jamous]

11 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

 

That's unfortunate, he's one of the industries most successful filmmakers. 

Name another filmmaker the studios will toss endless money at, where the filmmaker is doing something unique and not some superhero movie. He's a breath of fresh air, in a world of cinema, dominated by "made by committee" Hollywood junk. 

I am not denying his genius, and I'm actually glad that he is giving us a lot of refreshing movies, what I am saying is "The dark night" is not "Spider-Man 2", "Interstellar" is not "Ad Astra", "Inception" is not "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Dunkirk" is not "Saving Private Ryan"

[Scott Pickering]

Tyler- Are you sure this is a "One OFF" for B&W 65mm? I contacted Fotokem and asked him this very question. This is what was said:

"Hi Scott,

 

65mm black and white negative processing could be reestablished on a large enough project.  It’s a huge undertaking each time we switch the 65mm negative processor over to black and white.  We have never established 70mm black and white print processing - that was not possible for a number of reasons.

 

Andrew"

 

So this comment above suggests they will do it, if the amount is enough to merit switching the tanks all over again. I also asked what process they used to copy over the B&W segments to the color print stock, since doing just that usually looks not as good as printing to a B&W print stock. I wondered if maybe the B&W was scanned, manipulated for color print output, and then laser printed onto color stock. Nope. It was optically printed direct from the camera negative to color print stock, making sure the color was as neutral as possible.

 

"The black and white negative is contact printed onto color print stock.  We worked hard to maintain the neutrality of the image, through color timing and processing control.

 

Andrew"

 

I have my tickets to see Oppenheimer at my local IMAX theater which is one of the few still showing in 70mm film prints, as they kept their 15/70 projector in the booth all these years. Im just glad I can still see it this way, as I love "true" IMAX projection from film. Nothing touches it. I've been seeing true IMAX since 1986. And lets not mention how rare it is just to even see a film print projected these days. I hope there are more possible chances to see 15/70 at this theater in the future. 

 

Im going to see the movie this Saturday in the afternoon. Its at the Langley IMAX here in BC Canada.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Scott Pickering

[Stephen Perera]

3 hours ago, Scott Pickering said:

Tyler- Are you sure this is a "One OFF" for B&W 65mm? I contacted Fotokem and asked him this very question. This is what was said:

"Hi Scott,

65mm black and white negative processing could be reestablished on a large enough project.  It’s a huge undertaking each time we switch the 65mm negative processor over to black and white.  We have never established 70mm black and white print processing - that was not possible for a number of reasons.

Andrew"

 

So this comment above suggests they will do it, if the amount is enough to merit switching the tanks all over again. I also asked what process they used to copy over the B&W segments to the color print stock, since doing just that usually looks not as good as printing to a B&W print stock. I wondered if maybe the B&W was scanned, manipulated for color print output, and then laser printed onto color stock. Nope. It was optically printed direct from the camera negative to color print stock, making sure the color was as neutral as possible.

"The black and white negative is contact printed onto color print stock.  We worked hard to maintain the neutrality of the image, through color timing and processing control.

Andrew"

Very informative and yes my own personal opinion was if they pay for it then obviously it can be done again hahah.....it's a change of chemicals....Kodak D96 and Fix F5....also for Kodak to cut 70mm film isn't exactly difficult for them either......film is produced in large sheets and then up into formats no? so what's the big deal really....other than hype and marketing value.....maybe im wrong

[Tyler Purcell]

On 7/15/2023 at 12:19 AM, Abdul Rahman Jamous said:

I am not denying his genius, and I'm actually glad that he is giving us a lot of refreshing movies, what I am saying is "The dark night" is not "Spider-Man 2", "Interstellar" is not "Ad Astra", "Inception" is not "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Dunkirk" is not "Saving Private Ryan"

I mean Spiderman 2 is unremarkable in any way. Completely forgotten, but Dark Night is still highly sought after. 

Ad Astra is unremarkable in any way, I absolutely hated it.   Interstellar tells a very unique and complicated story. It's my favorite Nolan film actually. 

I mean Inception has never been made before. The mere concept is genus. So is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a genus film as well. However, Eternal Sunshine isn't really a studio film. It was a low budget indy. Kinda different world. 

Dunkirk wasn't supposed to be Saving Private Ryan. I agree tho, Dunkirk is Nolans weakest film in my view. It's pretty, but that's about it. Saving Private Ryan is a masterpiece, Dunkirk is not. 

[Tyler Purcell]

On 7/16/2023 at 10:20 PM, Scott Pickering said:

Tyler- Are you sure this is a "One OFF" for B&W 65mm? I contacted Fotokem and asked him this very question. This is what was said:

Yea, I talked to the lab manager Mark and he kinda laughed and said no way. 

The machine is very slow, it pissed Nolan off. It was taking days to process a single days worth of dailies, 3 shifts a day. Costing Fotokem a lot of money for the added personal. 

Kodak also confirmed, they can't resell the remainder of the unused 5222 "wide" 65mm camera negative because Fotokem refuses to process it and they are the only lab that would. They have an agreement with Fotokem to NOT sell the film due to that reason. 

Oh and here is the last box here in Los Angeles. I have a feeling there is more somewhere. 

[Stephen Perera]

13 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Ad Astra is unremarkable in any way, I absolutely hated it.   Interstellar tells a very unique and complicated story. It's my favorite Nolan film actually.

Dunkirk wasn't supposed to be Saving Private Ryan. I agree tho, Dunkirk is Nolans weakest film in my view.

haha we must not go to the cinema together Tyler...

Ad Astra - I saw that film...about loneliness/solitude essentially as its central theme....by myself, alone in an empty cinema.....you have to know what real loneliness feels like to get that one perhaps...I do....a lifelong struggle against it even surrounded by loved ones/friends as I am gifted to be
Dunkirk - you have to be British/French to really get that one....I thought it was a deeper, better film than Private Ryan albeit the latter a great rewatch on any time/day of the week but let's face it...it's an Americanism....

[John Shell]

@Tyler PurcellAre you sure Tenet was a DI finish ? 

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, John Shell said:

@Tyler PurcellAre you sure Tenet was a DI finish ? 

Yes, confirmed the negative used to make the prints, was recorded out. I do not believe this was intentional. I believe Nolan re-cut the film at the last minute and they ran out of time. So it was easier to record it all out because IMAX has a few CRT recorders. So they recorded out the new IMAX negative and then reduced it to 5 perf IP and made the prints with minimal timing changes. You can also tell when you walk up to the screen during the screenings, you can see the digital pixels. 

[Tyler Purcell]

Here is my review. I don't think there are any real spoilers, we all know the story. 

Profoundly poignant and introspective, “Oppenheimer” condenses the critical aspects of one mans life and internal struggles, into a three hour movie, which is challenging to watch. Christopher Nolan is a master at conjuring up wild fantasies, but in “Oppenheimer” he needed to stay grounded. He needed to take the works of other writers and treat the story with the respect it deserves. On one hand, the film is a masterpiece, due to how Nolan presents Oppenheimers personal struggle, having invented the means to our own demise. On the other hand, it’s a Christopher Nolan movie and his wildly outlandish and incoherent methodology of telling stories, feels like a child’s finger painting when looking at the material he has to work with. Its clear there wasn’t enough conflict during the rise of Oppenheimer, being the lead scientist at Los Alamos, so Nolan came up with a clever, all be it challenging to understand, method of creating some sort of through narrative which binds the three hours together. For better or worse, as the story unravels, it gets further and further engrossing and by the end, you honestly want more. You’ll be hard pressed to find a filmmaker who doesn’t smile when the audiences biggest complaint, is a three hour biopic, not being long enough.

 

The film is helmed by quite an incredible all-star cast, with award winning guys doing bit parts like Kenneth Branagh and Rami Malek. Cillian Murphy is so deadpan the entire film, he’s so emotionless, even in moments of distress, it’s hard to connect with his performance. Emily Blunt, Matt Damon and Robert Downy JR, the “main” cast of the film, were all much more rounded performances and honestly, steal the show from Cillian unfortunately. Robert clearly wants an Oscar and his performance is worthy. It was a fantastic role for him, one of the best I’ve seen in years. Blunt is always good and her character is so haunting, she almost feels like a schizophrenic, which is kind of what the real person was like. Of course who can go wrong with Matt Damon, the part was very simple and he did an admirable job. But gosh, poor Cillian, I feel so bad. He had two great opportunities to show some emotion and Nolan clearly felt it didn’t work, as they were left on the cutting room floor. Was he the wrong pick? Without seeing his full range on screen, it’s hard to tell. I just know without the tremendous supporting cast, mostly award winners in their own right, Cillian would not have been able to hold it, staring at the camera with that deadpan look.

 

To say this film is an “IMAX” movie, is disingenuous to the audience. Not only is there basically no major IMAX scenes in the movie, but it takes way from the story. The vast majority of the film is shot with Panavision 5 perf 65mm cameras, which his a widescreen 2.20:1 aspect ratio format. Harkening back to “The Dark Knight Rises”, which was mostly shot on 35mm Anamorphic. The 2.20:1 aspect ratio IS the aspect ratio the film was edited in and this is what all of the dialog scenes are shot with. So the “IMAX” version of the film, jumps between aspect ratio’s nearly every scene. There were some pretty full 15P 65mm IMAX shots between the 5 perf scenes, but they were a distraction. The film would have been still awesome as a 2.20:1 aspect ratio film, designed to fill the 1.90:1 aspect ratio “digital” IMAX screens. The CLEARLY photochemical timing was poor, reminiscent of Dunkirk, which I thought on film was one of the poorest examples of photochemical timing made in the modern era. Nolans last film “Tenet” looked outstanding because it had a DI (digital intermediate) finish, where they scanned the negative, colored it digitally and recoded it back to film. This is the “normal” workflow that’s been used since the early 2000’s for nearly all movies, outside of Christopher Nolan and Paul Thomas Anderson, who both prefer the look of photochemical timing. However, when the timing is poor, the audience complains about the cinematography, which is something I’ve seen so many people do with Dunkirk and Oppenheimer on their own reviews. Worst yet, was the black and white scenes, printed to color stock. Oh gosh, what an egregious thing to do. Not only were they green, I mean straight green, but they were mostly timed wrong. Either too dark or too bright. There was such an unevenness to the timing over-all, it wasn’t nearly the IMAX prints of Dunkirk bad, but it was damn close.

 

Hoyte van Hoytema’s work is outstanding in “Oppenheimer”. The film features a lot of complex dialog scenes and keeping them interesting with framing and blocking, with set design and lighting, was very tricky. Editing played a key role as well, but I always look at what was shot day-of and Hoyte and his crew just nailed it. Where they wanted to be more intimate with the camera,  they’d push for wider angle lenses and hand held. When they wanted to be more removed, looking in from a distance, they’d switch to dollies and sticks, with an IMAX shot here or there mixed in for fun. I don’t even recall seeing a crane or jib shot in the entire film, it was either hand held, dolly or sticks. You can tell they were shooting fast, lots of complex scenes, which have to evoke emotion, which need to be understood by the viewer. This is where the editing comes in and where I prefaced this review with the finger painting Nolan does with the incoherent story telling methodology, there were A LOT of editing issues with the movie. Scenes that needed to breathe a few frames more, cut off sometimes mid dialog. Major continuity issues with other characters in scenes mouths moving, but not the right dialog coming out. One moment near the end, where a hand full of frames were missing mid shot! Clearly someone who was cutting the negative screwed up. But mid shot? The technical aspects of post, over-all were a bumbling mess sadly. Even Ludwig Göransson’s score was unimaginative and completely forgettable, which was a real shame. The audio mix (always a problem in Nolan films), ruins any ability for the audience to enjoy the score. It’s always a struggle to hear the dialog to a point where you just want the score shut off.

 

I feel “Oppenheimer” is a quandary of a movie. What he wrote, is an excellent piece of cinema. However, once he “Nolanized” the finished product, I think it looses much of its power and intimacy. It goes from a character study to a showpiece for the directors reel. Part of the entire point of this film, is the debate of whether Oppenheimer himself should be credited with the Atomic bomb, or is it the people who gave him the money and dropped it on Japan. The film tries so hard to show how Oppenheimer struggled with the very concept of building a civilization ending weapon, that the world would never be the same once it was dropped on Japan. That Oppenheimer was more than just a scientist, but also someone who should be commended for his desire never to see the bomb used. But the film puts too much emphasis onto Christopher Nolan and his unusual story telling method, along with technical issues, which do not plague other filmmakers of this caliber. It’s a travesty because all of us Nolan fans (which I am absolutely one) really felt this could be where Christopher Nolan finally is recognized for his work by the academy. He had all the elements, but he blew it, simply because he couldn’t be mature enough. He couldn’t pull a Quinten Tarantino. He couldn’t just make an adult movie. He sure tried, no doubt the material exists to make an award winning film. What I saw however, was a flawed film which was only saved by a phenomenal supporting cast and a final act, which was not only an extremely powerful message, but also reminds us how nuclear proliferation will eventually be our undoing as a society. Some may argue that Oppenheimer is Nolan’s greatest work, but I still think the genius of “Inception” and “Interstellar” can’t be beat. Oppenheimer will do very well in the box office, it will make up for Tenet’s Covid release debacle, but I will struggle with sleep tonight, thinking what could have been.

 

As a side note, I highly recommend NOT seeing this film on 70mm IMAX. Complete waste of time. Watch it on “standard” 70mm or 35mm. There are over 100 prints like that in “normal” theaters and the experience SHOULD be better, all be it, still green black and white scenes. I’m sure the digital version is not much better with that aspect, but honestly I feel the digital presentation version of the film, maybe the best way to see it.

 

3.5/5

[David Mullen ASC]

I saw this today in 5-perf 70mm film, which I suspect was an optical reduction of the IMAX shots, not a D.I. The print was superb, you forget how much better the blacks are in a non-D.I. film print, even if there is a loss of shadow detail from the contrast -- we've gotten used to the flatter shadow detail of digital movies.  Occasionally in day scenes, it gets a bit harsh-looking but always rich, dramatic.

You could get a sense of where the IMAX shots come in, despite everything being the same 2.20 : 1 framing -- either there is a drop in depth of field to the point of extreme shallowness, or there is a lot of corner fall-off and the shots feel "big" in background scale, like when Oppenheimer climbs the ladder at Trinity.

I thought it was a good movie, exploring all the contradictions of Oppenheimer, and I thought Cillian Murphy did a great job, to me he clearly goes through the emotional wringer even while internalizing his pain. The sound mix was rather oppressive.

If it's true that Nolan shot a lot of this movie in 5-perf 65mm -- his usual reason is that he prefers dialogue scenes to not be looped, which IMAX cameras usually cause to happen -- then perhaps the 5-perf 70mm print was the way to go.

[Scott Pickering]

Thanks for the reviews guys. Im seeing the film tomorrow in IMAX 70mm. I too thought the optical dupe on Dunkirk was poor, and the 5 perf shots looked way off compared to the IMAX sections. I expect now this to be the same situation for tomorrows showing.

[Dan Finlayson]

On 7/20/2023 at 10:36 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

That Oppenheimer was more than just a scientist, but also someone who should be commended for his desire never to see the bomb used.

I don't agree with this reading of the film and this could very well change your perspective on a number of other aspects of Nolan's work here.  Don't want to get into spoilers though.

I also don't think the IMAX presentation is a waste of time, especially if you care about the sound presentation.  But I do agree that 70mm 5-perf is a great way to watch it/wouldn't disappoint by any means.

[Phil Rhodes]

I was at FotoKem just after the NAB show researching a story, and we had to get a special go-ahead to visit the labs because "a sensitive project" was in process. Lots of 70mm on on the rollers but all blasting by far too quickly to see what was on it.

All the cans were marked "Gadget," which had to be about the least-encoded codename ever. Still, I suppose we could have been led into believing it was one of the other projects about at the time which needed 70mm release prints.

[Ole Alstrup]

On 7/21/2023 at 7:36 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

The vast majority of the film is shot with Panavision 5 perf 65mm cameras,

How much? Do you have any official references? Thanks.