The only reason why I am giving 2 stars intead of 1 is the great acting by Murphy and the impressive cast; also the subject chosen is a beutiful and complex mix in principle: the 20th-century impressive scientific revolutions, ethics and psychology, 2nd WW history, politics during subsequent cold war and macchartism; in principle a terrific and stimulating mix. This could be the only other possible explaination for positive reviews.

Despite this, I am utterly disgusted by how the director took such a beutiful and compex subject, but molded it with the same hands he used for a total fiction as Batman: first of all, a well documented historical, heavy and delicate subject is treated here with total disregard for historical accuracy, filled with selfish directing inventions, where irrelevant figures are overloaded with gravitas, while many incredible and historically-essential figures are irrespectfully given 1-min stage time or even totally forgotten.

The best and most inspiring scientific minds of our times up to now, are treated in the film as a quarrying buch of childs and chickens. The essential contribution from science myths as Fermi or Von Neumann, definitely as relevant or more relevant in the Los Alamos scientific endeavour as the administrative manager of the saloon - this is what Oppenheimer actually was -, are basically removed from the film and deprived of any role. Other awe-inspiring people as Richard Feynmann or Kurt Godel are given a ~1min stage time and often pictured as idiots.

Some of the most impressive achievements of modern science as Quantum Mechanics or Relativity are just turned into a confused salad of random words - especially at the beginning. While this wouldn't be irritating in psychology-focused and fictitious film as Will Hunting for example, it's irritating and sad to see in a supposedly historical film, where individual contributions and ethical questions where deeply intertwinned with the most impressive and community-driven scientific revolution the human kind has seen.

Maybe the director, within a 100 million budget, could have found space for hiring one single decent scientific consultant and an average modern historian.

Apart from the better smoothed and realistic characters of Oppenheimer or Grooves, many other characters, the interactions and dialogues are often stretched and extremized to the point of disumanization and irrealism, typical of some bad American filmography.

The beutiful complex scientific-historical-political-psychological subject is shredded to pieces by the dog-butcher directing, where the psychological theme is certainly garnished by the continuous use of flashbacks and flashforwards, but the price to pay for the selfish removal of a linear timeline is the complete loss of the consecutio necessary to all the other delicate themes. The director chose a jewel subject, but destroyed the most part of it; he bought a precious truffle, but decided to only cook the dust on it, while smashing the precious thing under his boots.

In conclusion, a presumptuous and selfish director spotted a terrific but delicate subject, where in the middle of WW2 and cold war history, psycology and thrilling science, the transition from a beutiful scientific revolution to the killing of half a million people is pictured. But the director turned all of this into a low-quality and ridiculosly- expansive mix between a fictitious genius-picturing film - yet very far from the accuracy of beutiful tapes as Imitation Game - and a comical American fiction like Friends, with characters turned into caricature figures and historical and scientific facts arrogantly treated as fictional material.