Cork actor Cillian Murphy's shelves will be 'weighed down with gold come award season...'

IT is hard to know where to begin with a film like Oppenheimer. Firstly, it is a Christopher Nolan flick, meaning it is as much an experience as a film. He has made a career out of immersive, groundbreaking films that feel like they touch your core.

He uses as little CGI or special effects as possible; the results are staggering. Just think of Dunkirk and how the sounds of explosions and low-flying planes rattled the very seats.

Nolan has an exceptional gift; even when something doesn’t quite work, like Tenet, it still draws attention, asking to be watched regardless of its faults.

You then have his 20-year relationship with our own Cillian Murphy; the Corkman has appeared in five of his films and openly said he would work with him on every project from here till the end of their careers.

Murphy, as we all know, is an exceptional actor. Until now, he hasn’t had the lead in a Nolan film; their joint efforts would surely be a golden ticket.

Finally, we have the story of Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, whose story is well documented. How do you make the story of a scientist interesting? Oppenheimer’s work was groundbreaking, but how do you make that come across on screen? You give it to Nolan, that is how.

Murphy is J Robert Oppenheimer, a U.S theoretical physicist who travelled to Europe to further his studies after earning a Harvard degree in 1925.

His mind is unparalleled; he attends lectures by renowned scientists like Niels Bohr (Kenneth Branagh) and soaks up every piece of information. He doesn’t have much time for Albert Einstein (Tom Conti); he was so last century.

By the time rumours of war in Europe start, the US is eager to build a weapon to rival the ones that Germany and Russia are racing to finish.

The top brass know they need Oppenheimer, but are wary because he socialised with Communists in the past and needs to prove trustworthy.

Oppenheimer has a plan to bring the brightest minds together in a community. He convinces the U.S government to build a town in Los Alamos, New Mexico - where scientists can work, live, and socialise. It is a project with 4,000 people.

Many scientists and Oppenheimer worry about what would happen if they build an atomic bomb, called the gadget in case spies overhear their conversations. Will they inadvertently destroy the world? That is not something the government is concerned with.

While we see what is happening in the past, the action flashes to the 1950s, when Oppenheimer’s loyalties are questioned at a hearing involving testimony from Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.).

Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh) and Kitty (Emily Blunt) also feature as the women in Oppenheimer’s life - both of whom played important roles.

The cast includes a who’s who of Hollywood, such as Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Josh Harnett, Rami Malek, and Gary Oldman.

This should have been a five-star film, but it loses a star because of its treatment of one character in sex scenes. I am not alone in this thinking; after we talked about the great and the good elements of the film after the press show, the next topic was Nolan’s depiction of a female character. It irked quite a few of us, not just the female critics in attendance.

It is not a prudish thing; sex scenes, when done correctly, can add a lot to a film. However, this is pointless with a gratuitous view of a young female actor while Oppenheimer is mainly covered. I’m not suggesting we needed to see an equally naked Murphy, but Pugh should be given equity.

In a film populated with over 90% male actors, with only two female leads versus umpteen men, a film that points out the difficulties female scientists had in achieving parity in a male dominant world, it just feels wrong. 

It’s 2023, female actors deserve better, and Nolan, as a visionary in all other respects, should support females and not feed into an archaic view of what women contribute to film.

Now to the good things; well, there are no good things, only great things - so great that am I likely to run out of space before I get around to them all.

Technically, it is a masterpiece. Scattered throughout the film are moments where the screen lights up with how Oppenheimer experiences life. Flashes, stars, a jumble of sound and light represent the chaos and brilliance rattling around in his genius noggin.

The sound design is staggering, particularly late on. As for the ‘gadget’, it needs to be experienced in a cinema where you can be immersed in and surrounded by light and noise.

Damon, Pugh, Hartnett... everyone is excellent, but I will eat this page if Downey Jr isn’t nominated for Best Supporting Oscar. His performance is a career-best, a real return to the work that Downey produced decades ago.

And now to our Murphy, who gives everything to the role. 

He is exceptional; we feel every bit of his torment, frustration, charisma, and ego. 

You don’t convince the US government to spend $2 billion and build an entire town without charisma, and Murphy displays Oppenheimer’s charm in spades. I don’t know where he goes from here, I don’t know if he can ever top this, but I do know his shelves will be weighed down with gold come award season.

Oppenheimer is slow to start and could do with more haste in the opening scenes. It has those unforgivable sex scenes. But, good lord, when it gets going, it pulls you in, rattles you, exhausts you, and in the final seconds, it leaves you gasping for air. It’s the best four-star film I have ever seen.

Do yourself a favour, catch this visceral experience on the biggest screen you can find if, only to see Murphy’s haunted blue eyes staring back at you.

Oppenheimer, in cinemas, July 21, cert 15a, ****