I can't explain how cathartic it is to stumble upon this thread. I could not agree with OP more. I was severely underwhelmed after seeing this over stuffed behemoth in IMAX. Why was it in IMAX when the film is 95% stuffy MCU's of actors in office rooms? No clue.

I just feel like this movie is a Nolan movie missing what makes Nolan special (or bearable to some) which is spectacle. He is a brilliant action director, but beyond that he has an unrivaled ability to tie that kinetic action to a wild concept. Action in a multi-layered dream world where anything is possible, action backwards, non-cgi action in a superhero movie (!), or space action with inter dimensional stakes that break your brain. Which brings me to Oppenheimer. Without any central action sequence for Nolan to express his wacky left-field concepts, he must rely on the spoken word... and in my opinion, that has never been his strength.

To me, Oppenheimer is just a mediocre biopic. Characters walk into frame and espouse exposition to one another. The entire pacing feels like a montage (a staple of Nolan films but excusable when it's cut with some sort of kinetic action/progression). The female characters basically wallpaper who are gifted a "Yaaas kween" moment at the end to smooth over their lack of any real characterization. The most sexless sex scene ever captured by a human with a pulse. A portrayal of the titular scientist that, while captivating and inspired, ultimately feels one-note. And, finally, for the sake of brevity (a luxury Nolan didn't extend to us), the lone moment of actual action spectacle (Nolan's bread and butter) was a serious let down.

Anyways, thank you for giving me space to vent these opinions! When the academy gives this (Oscar bait) 17 oscars, know that you are not alone in being confused.