J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) faces the ramifications of his work in “Oppenheimer.” (photo courtesy of Universal Pictures)

It’s been nearly 80 years since atomic bombs were dropped in Japan by the U.S., and the decades-long Cold War seems like a distant memory. Yet, the after effects hang in the air.

In the world’s ongoing wars and nuclear threats, the correlation is apparent. But on our very soil, weapons run amuck. Thousands die each year from gun violence, with an unimaginable number perishing in mass shootings – often children. Year after year, though, guns go forward unfettered and military defense systems develop new and more destructive weapons.

It is in this environment that Christopher Nolan has delivered “Oppenheimer,” a searing study of humankind’s obsession with destruction.

Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy), dubbed “The Father of the Atomic Bomb,” is documented through his bumpy rise, destruction and half-handed vindication as Nolan shifts across various points in his history together with a style that echoes elements of the director’s earlier “Inception.” Oppenheimer is put in charge of the Manhattan Project by Gen. Leslie Groves (Matt Damon). The project aims to build an atomic bomb before the Nazis – and fellow Allied power the Soviet Union – beat them to it.

The nonlinear arrangement serves a couple purposes – most obviously, it provides a “Citizen Kane”-like structure that explores what exactly makes Oppenheimer tick. It also puts the viewer into his head, examining the psychological effect on a scientist’s mind as he grapples with his role in crafting the largest weapon of mass destruction in history. When brimming with ideas but plagued with guilt, how does one survive?

Quietly at the center is Emily Blunt, playing Kitty, Oppenheimer’s wife, who handles the shame in more tactile ways – drinking, outbursts and, forgive me, blunt observation. She is the voice of the audience while Oppenheimer is the vessel.

The film’s crescendo comes with the first bomb’s detonation, but the safety goggles the observing scientists wear are not enough to mask the weight that will be left with them following the atomic events of Aug 6 and 9, 1945. The deafening cheers that follow the bomb’s success have a manic quality that pushes the film into the realm of horror. Death is celebrated. Death is cheered. Destruction is the crowning achievement of man.

The double-bombing of Japan ended World War II. But thousands of Japanese civilians died in the process. It saved thousands of our own soldiers, too. There are two sides to the argument … but was there another way? Did we open a Pandora’s Box in the effort of expediency? Did we lose some of our humanity? When Oppenheimer says he has “blood on his hands,” it’s all too real.

It serves as a timely, relevant warning by way of reflection, of how humans in the race for victory and progress can become the ushers to an apocalyptic world. The madness in the nonlinear crafts a jumbled fear of what the obsession can and will always bring.

Here is a bell rung, loudly and forcefully, that in othering a perceived enemy, we may lose our very souls in the pursuit of Earthly domination. Here is a lesson that two wrongs may not make it right. Here is the crippling realization that what may end one problem may give birth to something far more terrifying.

It isn’t difficult to draw a parallel to today’s American life. The trickle-down effects of becoming a superpower seep into society. Our country’s obsession with killing machines has become part of our personality. In becoming the America that dropped atomic bombs, we also became the America that warns visitors not to “tread” on us. We became the America that amasses military-style weapons as “collector’s items.” We became an America that has mass shooter drills. We became the America that wears superiority as a badge of honor – and wear is that feeling of superiority rooted? In the ability to destroy others.

It takes “Oppenheimer” a little while to pick up steam, but the second half of the film moves with a thrill that few pieces of art ever achieve. It is a triumph of storytelling – a melding of impeccable cinematography, performance, editing and sound design. The sound is actually the true star of the film, with Ludwig Göransson’s music and the sound editing bridging together the conflicting feelings of the characters with discomfort and anxiety.

Oscar nominations seem inevitable for the technical aspects of “Oppenheimer,” and after an more than-$80 million haul this weekend and near-universal critical praise, it would take some mighty forces to leave it out of the Best Picture race. Blunt is outstanding. Damon and Rami Malek also come in clutch, and Robert Downey, Jr. surprises – giving an unrecognizable twist on the pompous persona with which he’s most associated. Murphy, an actor so frequently relegated to the supporting cast, gives the performance of his career. Again, Academy Award nominations will abound.

Will people heed the film’s warning – or will people just come away loving the thrill of the explosion? If history serves, the world will continue to turn on its axis, as humans continue to spin toward new ways of killing one another. The answers to any questions remain as elusive as whether or not we should’ve dropped the bombs.

What remains in “Oppenheimer’s” aftermath is a chilling indictment of the incredible, frightening possibilities humans have for annihilation.