|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Sept 17, 2020 4:12:09 GMT
Saw this for a second time today. I wouldn't say it improved on a rewatch for me, but I didn't enjoy it any less either. Though I can maybe see how some might find the second half of the film more involving than the first half on rewatch because once you know the plot set-up, it becomes easier to disengage from the exposition dumps as you're waiting for things to kick into higher gear (which makes it sort of similar to Inception). A couple things that stuck out to me this time: Something seems slightly off about the rhythm of some dialogue scenes. The pacing feels a little too rushed at times, and I say this not because it's difficult to follow, but because I'd prefer it if some scenes just breathe more and allow certain lines to have more of an impact. Some moments that should feel more significant come across as a little too cursory. It's probably a combination of the acting and the editing since the film moves at breakneck speed overall, plus it's likely Nolan wanted the dialogue to have the kind of snappiness and lightness characteristic of Bond. I also have to agree with some reviews saying that the film's visual palette is kind of drab overall (a lot of grays and browns and off-whites), which I suppose is partly the result of the locations they shot in, but for a spy film that's heavily inspired by Bond, I would have liked a little more lushness and vibrancy like the stuff at Amalfi Coast... though the look of scenes like the red and blue room with the turnstiles is great. I love Hoyte's work on Dunkirk and Interstellar, but part of me wonders what Pfister might have done with this film. It's funny thinking back to those early rumors that the film was going to be a romantic thriller because you might say that description is not far off. It's essentially a time-hopping bromance between JDW and Robert Pattinson's characters. There's actually erotic fanfiction that already exists (I think I've seen people use the term "Protagoneil"). So this might be the closest thing Nolan's come to making a gay romance... also, here is some fan art I found lol: In my last post, I wasn't sure how to rate the film, but now I think a 7.5/10 seems about right. But in addition to deciding where it places in Nolan's filmography, I've also been thinking about where to rank it among the Craig Bond films, so my rating would put it below Casino Royale (my favorite Bond film) and Skyfall, but above Spectre and Quantum of Solace, so right in the middle. How would other people rank it with the Craig films?
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 17, 2020 5:33:52 GMT
But in addition to deciding where it places in Nolan's filmography, I've also been thinking about where to rank it among the Craig Bond films, so my rating would put it below Casino Royale (my favorite Bond film) and Skyfall, but above Spectre and Quantum of Solace, so right in the middle. How would other people rank it with the Craig films? My rank would be exactly the same. Although I don't see the reason to compare it with Craig's 007 films. To me the whole point of the movie was the reverse time trick, not its spy elements.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Sept 17, 2020 7:13:48 GMT
Saw this for a second time today. I wouldn't say it improved on a rewatch for me, but I didn't enjoy it any less either. Though I can maybe see how some might find the second half of the film more involving than the first half on rewatch because once you know the plot set-up, it becomes easier to disengage from the exposition dumps as you're waiting for things to kick into higher gear (which makes it sort of similar to Inception). A couple things that stuck out to me this time: Something seems slightly off about the rhythm of some dialogue scenes. The pacing feels a little too rushed at times, and I say this not because it's difficult to follow, but because I'd prefer it if some scenes just breathe more and allow certain lines to have more of an impact. Some moments that should feel more significant come across as a little too cursory. It's probably a combination of the acting and the editing since the film moves at breakneck speed overall, plus it's likely Nolan wanted the dialogue to have the kind of snappiness and lightness characteristic of Bond. I also have to agree with some reviews saying that the film's visual palette is kind of drab overall (a lot of grays and browns and off-whites), which I suppose is partly the result of the locations they shot in, but for a spy film that's heavily inspired by Bond, I would have liked a little more lushness and vibrancy like the stuff at Amalfi Coast... though the look of scenes like the red and blue room with the turnstiles is great. I love Hoyte's work on Dunkirk and Interstellar, but part of me wonders what Pfister might have done with this film. It's funny thinking back to those early rumors that the film was going to be a romantic thriller because you might say that description is not far off. It's essentially a time-hopping bromance between JDW and Robert Pattinson's characters. There's actually erotic fanfiction that already exists (I think I've seen people use the term "Protagoneil"). So this might be the closest thing Nolan's come to making a gay romance... also, here is some fan art I found lol: In my last post, I wasn't sure how to rate the film, but now I think a 7.5/10 seems about right. But in addition to deciding where it places in Nolan's filmography, I've also been thinking about where to rank it among the Craig Bond films, so my rating would put it below Casino Royale (my favorite Bond film) and Skyfall, but above Spectre and Quantum of Solace, so right in the middle. How would other people rank it with the Craig films? That's the problem i have with Hoytema in general with the exception of Her. His images have a dull brown or sometimes greenish layer that i heavily dislike. He is great with IMAX and some of the stuff he shot with Nolan is stunning but i dearly miss Wally Pfister's refined and naturalistic images. I loved those deep blues from Nolan's earlier films.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Sept 17, 2020 7:14:13 GMT
But in addition to deciding where it places in Nolan's filmography, I've also been thinking about where to rank it among the Craig Bond films, so my rating would put it below Casino Royale (my favorite Bond film) and Skyfall, but above Spectre and Quantum of Solace, so right in the middle. How would other people rank it with the Craig films? My rank would be exactly the same. Although I don't see the reason to compare it with Craig's 007 films. To me the whole point of the movie was the reverse time trick, not its spy elements. The time inversion concept of course sets it apart from those films, but Tenet actually plays like a straight Bond film for much of its runtime. While countjohn is more lukewarm on the film than I am, I see where he's coming from when he says that he felt like the concept is sort of "tacked on" to what is otherwise a pretty conventional plot.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 17, 2020 9:21:55 GMT
My rank would be exactly the same. Although I don't see the reason to compare it with Craig's 007 films. To me the whole point of the movie was the reverse time trick, not its spy elements. The time inversion concept of course sets it apart from those films, but Tenet actually plays like a straight Bond film for much of its runtime. While countjohn is more lukewarm on the film than I am, I see where he's coming from when he says that he felt like the concept is sort of "tacked on" to what is otherwise a pretty conventional plot. About half of the film is very Bond-ish (although the plot is pretty simple if you ask me). But the second half makes it a totally different movie from almost everything we've seen before.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Sept 23, 2020 10:05:10 GMT
A rewatch on a wonderful IMAX screen confirmed that Nolan is the true master of the format - by now he instinctively knows how to pick the best possible camera placement and movement in order to elicit the most incredible reaction and fully draw the audience into the world of his movies, and "Tenet" achieves that immersion in a spectacular fashion. I loved the film even more seeing it in its intended format on a gigantic screen - this may seem like a harsh thing to say in times when a lot of people don't have any access to theatres period, let alone IMAX ones, but if you are interested in seeing this movie and have an opportunity to do it in an IMAX theatre then by all means do exactly that because only that will provide the full "Tenet" experience. Although I'm very glad that my IMAX viewing was a rewatch - not only because it made certain things clearer but also because it allowed me to relax and bask in the glory of the IMAX experience without worrying so much about keeping up with the movie (that was the first viewing). At first I was disappointed that I didn't get to instantly see the film in IMAX but now I think it all really worked out for the best. And now I want to expand on some other thoughts about the film but I'll have to do that under spoilers because of, well, spoilers: There've been quite a few reviews and reactions saying that the film doesn't really have that extra layer of meaning and that it's all mechanics and tricks with nothing but puzzles to tease our minds with. For instance, Mark Kermode who by all means seems to be a Nolan supporter, ended his radio review by saying that the movie did get him to ask questions but that they were all about the logistics and mechanics of the story and not about something deeper. That view seems to be shared by a lot of people but I don't think it's really fair.
It seems that some had their knives sharpened before the movie even came out because 'How dare Nolan go back to sci-fi puzzles after Dunkirk', despite the fact that sci-fi puzzles are clearly his primary field of fascination. I've never really understood that line of thinking that filmmakers should step outside their preferred modes of operation - no, the reason I love certain filmmakers is precisely FOR their obsessions with certain genres and FOR their explorations of favorite themes and stories throughout their filmography. 'Wouldn't it be great if Nolan did a romantic comedy?' is a question I've seen numerous times along the years of his success and the answer is clearly a resounding no. Of course it wouldn't be great if he was suddenly dropped into a realm he clearly doesn't give a shit about. Of course not everybody has to care about filmmakers' journeys and preferences - some people prefer to drift through movies and spot the stuff they like without attaching themselves to particular directors. I do not - filmmakers with strong voices are what I personally cherish the most and it's those voices that I want to hear time and time again, provided that they have something interesting to say. And I think it's fair to say that Nolan does. Maybe another reason people were slightly harsh towards "Tenet" is because they were annoyed with Nolan sticking to a theatrical release in troubled Covid times. Maybe it's because the uncompromisingly complex concepts were too much for them to bear. There's no specific answer but I can't help but feel that the somewhat muted reaction is a bit unfair towards this wonderful film.
And now to come back to its layers and meanings. Yes, one can get deep enough in examining the various complexities in the logic of inversion itself that there'll just be no time or desire to ponder the other layers that the film presents. But they are there for us if we reach out for them. And just because the movie doesn't have its characters sitting around and pontificating about those matters doesn't mean they're not there. On the contrary, the great strength of the film is that it features numerous fascinating and thought-provoking ideas without spelling them out or wasting too much time explaining them, the latter because Nolan obviously wants the audience to have their own point of view on those issues.
There's plenty of stuff to discuss about the problem of fate vs. choice - the film seems to suggest that everybody is in some way trapped within their preset fates and that free will is simply akin to faith which connects us with the line about feeling rather than understanding the goings-on. Nolan implies that thinking too much about what fate has in store for you will not do a person any good, despite fate indeed existing - the key to coming to terms with being a piece on a chess board of life is simply accepting it deep within yourself and trusting your inner instincts to guide you through that board. Pattinson's character is to me spiritually similar to Cliff Booth in that he has reached a sort of inner peace which allows him to fulfull his destiny without obsessing over the notion of having a destiny itself. He goes to die with a truly peaceful smile on his face, accepting and trusting his fate. And the journey of John David Washington's character is so fascinating because he's learning to deal with that throughout the film, eventually coming to the same spiritual and logical place. Some pretty compelling stuff if you ask me.
Another highly interesting angle to look at "Tenet" from is as part of Nolan's continuing examination of cinema itself through his high concept features. There've been lots of pieces on how "Inception" is actually about filmmaking, there're tons of things to consider in the same vein talking about "The Prestige" or "Memento" or "Dunkirk". And I think "Tenet" is yet another fascinating part of Nolan's on-going dialogue with the audiences who are willing to participate in it. Among other things, Nolan has often expressed that he tries to make even the most outrageous of his projects based in some concrete reality so that the audiences would feel a deeper involvement in them. It's true that he does that in "Tenet" too - despite the craziness of its ideas, the film is fairly grounded with its very limited CGI effects (I honestly can't think of any that I spotted which is insane for a film like this) and a bareboned feeling of plausibility which it elicits. The use of IMAX cameras is meant to fully draw us inside the story as if we were right there with the characters, absolutely, but there's another way Nolan links the spectators with the film which furthers and expands his dialogue with us.
As I've mentioned, John David Washington's main arc is gradually letting go of his inhibitions and preconceived notions about the logistics of the surrounding world to finally establish himself as The Protagonist - throughout the film his status as such is questioned and doubted even though he never loses his faith in being one. The moment he truly assumes the title of The Protagonist is at the very end of the film - when he finally stops seeing the world in the way he used to and is now on top of the knowledge of the new reality. Only through trusting his instincts and through feeling he finally understands. The journey takes time as well as going back in time a couple of times to finally complete, but he achieves it. And I think this is the journey Nolan also intends for us. JDW's character is called The Protagonist not only as a pretty bold move on Nolan's part. It's because the blank spot of his name is to be filled with our names after we finally feel properly confident in the mechanics of the new physical and temporal reality Nolan presents us with. Provided we care about that, of course. Those who do are treated gloriously by Nolan, in my opinion - this is exactly why he gives all the inversion information briefly and concisely throughout the film and why the main third act setpiece in Stalsk 12 may seem confusing even if you pay attention. Everything is there in the film, every question has an answer. It's just that those answers are more easily accesible only to those who finally catch up with a newly presented worldview that the film offers us. Just like The Protagonist, at the end of the film we are meant to reach an arc of our own as viewers. And in order to fully do that, we're probably gonna have to rewatch it a couple of times. Or in other words, we're gonna have to go through a sort of inversion ourselves. Only after inverting ourselves, or watching the film again, we get a fresher perspective and stronger confidence in that we finally grasp what's happening around us. After experiencing and feeling the events again we suddenly come out with a firmer understanding of them. Just like The Protagonist at the end of the film. This may be one hell of a sly way to get your audiences to rewatch your film but I think it's also a brilliant and unique way to keep the dialogue with the audience going. Despite what some may say, the puzzle has more dimensions than it seems. You just have to care enough to see them. And I understand those who don't - that's fair. But those who do have plenty of stuff to think about regarding "Tenet".
And on a less TLDR note: I just fucking love that final temporal pincer movement setpiece. It's gotta be one of the most extraordinary action sequences I've ever seen and I really cannot fathom how anyone could've actually made it possible. The movie has been referred to by naysayers as humorless and joyless but for me both of those things aren't remotely true: there's quite a bit of humor in it, particularly in JDW's terrific performance, and as far as the joy component is concerned...the temporal pincer movement sequence gave me the most cinematic joy I've felt in a long time through its audacity, awe-inspiring imagery and just the incredible uniqueness of it all. This is one action sequence I've truly never seen before. Which can be said about quite a lot of stuff in the movie really.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 23, 2020 10:39:09 GMT
I said on another thread that this film felt like a more pretentious version of Tony Scott's Deja Vu (with a worse script), and it turns out I'm not the only that found the films intrinsically similar. A number of articles and reviews have pointed out the similarities in both films .Solid article comparing the films (and saying why Deja Vu, in the writer's opinion is better than Tenet)mycreativeramblings.org/2020/09/21/deja-vu-2006-is-better-than-tenet-2020/Personally, I don't believe the similarities are coincidental. Christopher Nolan is an avowed fan of Tony Scott, and cited Scott's last movie Unstoppable as an influence on Dunkirk.thefilmstage.com/christopher-nolan-curates-bfi-series-on-the-influences-of-dunkirk/The casting of John David Washington on some level feels like it may have been a nod to his father being the star of Deja Vu.
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Sept 23, 2020 10:43:55 GMT
In my last post, I wasn't sure how to rate the film, but now I think a 7.5/10 seems about right. But in addition to deciding where it places in Nolan's filmography, I've also been thinking about where to rank it among the Craig Bond films, so my rating would put it below Casino Royale (my favorite Bond film) and Skyfall, but above Spectre and Quantum of Solace, so right in the middle. How would other people rank it with the Craig films? Good observation about the dialogues. This was an issue for me as well. Same for the cinematography.
I'd have it below Casino Royale and Skyfall, a bit ahead of Quantum of Solace and more clearly ahead of Spectre.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Sept 24, 2020 6:03:16 GMT
I said on another thread that this film felt like a more pretentious version of Tony Scott's Deja Vu (with a worse script), and it turns out I'm not the only that found the films intrinsically similar. A number of articles and reviews have pointed out the similarities in both films .Solid article comparing the films (and saying why Deja Vu, in the writer's opinion is better than Tenet)I've seen some other reviews call the film pretentious, but I don't see how it is tbh. On the contrary, I'd say it's arguably one of his least pretentious films, or the one that takes itself the least seriously. In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned how this feels like Nolan just letting loose and having fun making his elaborate Bond movie with almost a devil-may-care attitude towards some of the world building and story logic, embracing the nonsense of it. In the few interviews he's done for the film, he's talked about how he intended it primarily as escapist entertainment, and I believe him and don't think the film really presents itself as anything significantly more than that despite the convoluted mechanics. Perhaps the film's tone gives the impression that it takes itself very seriously, but to me it feels very much in line with many of Nolan's other films, which make more of an effort to communicate certain thematic points--often verbally in a heavy handed manner--and might therefore be considered more self-important than Tenet. Nolan has never really done "light" in terms of overall tone, but for me that alone doesn't equate to pretentiousness. As Jango mentioned, the film touches on things like fate, faith, and free will, but to me these ideas are just sort of given lip service and not really explored in a substantive way (as is sometimes the case with Nolan). I wouldn't call the film pretentious though because to me that would suggest that the film is posturing as something that meaningfully engages with these ideas, but I don't think they're actually framed in that way. The way I see it, the film feels very self-consciously superficial overall and wants to be a cool action movie first and foremost, despite its cursory presentation of the philosophical ideas mentioned above.
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Sept 24, 2020 10:14:31 GMT
I said on another thread that this film felt like a more pretentious version of Tony Scott's Deja Vu (with a worse script), and it turns out I'm not the only that found the films intrinsically similar. A number of articles and reviews have pointed out the similarities in both films .Solid article comparing the films (and saying why Deja Vu, in the writer's opinion is better than Tenet)I've seen some other reviews call the film pretentious, but I don't see how it is tbh. On the contrary, I'd say it's arguably one of his least pretentious films, or the one that takes itself the least seriously. In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned how this feels like Nolan just letting loose and having fun making his elaborate Bond movie with almost a devil-may-care attitude towards some of the world building and story logic, embracing the nonsense of it. In the few interviews he's done for the film, he's talked about how he intended it primarily as escapist entertainment, and I believe him and don't think the film really presents itself as anything significantly more than that despite the convoluted mechanics. Perhaps the film's tone gives the impression that it takes itself very seriously, but to me it feels very much in line with many of Nolan's other films, which make more of an effort to communicate certain thematic points--often verbally in a heavy handed manner--and might therefore be considered more self-important than Tenet. Nolan has never really done "light" in terms of overall tone, but for me that alone doesn't equate to pretentiousness. As Jango mentioned, the film touches on things like fate, faith, and free will, but to me these ideas are just sort of given lip service and not really explored in a substantive way (as is sometimes the case with Nolan). I wouldn't call the film pretentious though because to me that would suggest that the film is posturing as something that meaningfully engages with these ideas, but I don't think they're actually framed in that way. The way I see it, the film feels very self-consciously superficial overall and wants to be a cool action movie first and foremost, despite its cursory presentation of the philosophical ideas mentioned above. I generally get the feeling that Nolan is a guy, who thinks a lot about certain topics (not solely his obvious fascination with time) and is attracted by possible scenaries and moreover also has a powerful imagination. I personally think he just makes films about things and thoughts he really likes and loves it to let his films meander through what is on his mind.
|
|
|
Post by tastytomatoes on Sept 26, 2020 15:58:31 GMT
The similarity in some shots are...uncanny. I don't know who took inspiration from whom in inverted or normal time; but James Bond is the source of all.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 539
Likes: 227
|
Post by Pasquale on Oct 17, 2020 20:02:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Oct 18, 2020 8:21:20 GMT
Telugu is my mother tongue. The last one mentioned in the poster above but i never watch English movies dubbed but there's a good amount of people in India who watch dubbed movies. Hence Hollywood movies gets dubbed in India in at least 3-4 languages. Cinemas in India are officially given a go but many cinema chains (barring a couple) are not willing to open anytime soon.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 539
Likes: 227
|
Post by Pasquale on Oct 18, 2020 10:51:02 GMT
I could watch the film dubbed in your language and my jaw would still be dropped after the end credits.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 2, 2020 2:15:34 GMT
Finally got around to this and I gotta say, I quite liked it. It actually feels like Nolan taking the piss out of his critics -- he copped so much flak over Inception and Interstellar for his highfalutin proselytizing and high-handed exposition that necessitated characters that existed purely to receive information, and this time around not only does he create a protagonist (literally named The Protagonist) whose entire function is just to receive information, process it, and move on, he is shameless about it. Washington's character barely functions as anything more than a FPS character, a stand-in for whatever person is operating him at any given time in the presupposed video game that is the Tenet-verse. But with that said, there is a levity to Tenet that was sorely missing in previous Nolan films; this is the tone that Inception desperately needed. Washington has to operate on nothing but pure charisma and screen magnetism and he does very well (and to his credit, I don't see any of his father's style here; this is all John David, flying solo). Pattinson's delightful, riffing on Tom Hardy's Eames from Inception (the true MVP of that movie) and Elizabeth Debicki is always a welcome presence. Hell, I even quite liked Aaron Taylor-Johnson in his brief screentime. Could've used more Himesh Patel, and I really do think Branagh laid it on far too thick at times, but he was basically playing a Brosnan-era Bond villain and I took it for what it was: a lunatic premise in a lunatic movie, and I had a ball.
Also, maybe it's just my home setup, but the sound design was better here than in almost every other post-TDK Nolan film sans Dunkirk. I had the subtitles on but didn't really need them.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 29, 2020 4:52:45 GMT
Well, I finally watched this ("I ordered my new Nolan film six months ago"), and I can already promise that I will be watching it again in the next week or two with subtitles on. It is without a doubt the most nonsensical thing Nolan has ever produced, but also takes itself much less seriously than any of his other films. For once, Nolan isn't trying to force a sense of psychological or thematic complexity. He made a globe-trotting Bond homage built around a truly original & mind-being action sci-fi concept, with absolutely no sense of inflated self-importance beyond that. For me, I enjoyed it in much the same way I enjoyed something like Mission: Impossible -- Fallout. Once you realize the plot is nothing but a convoluted excuse for spectacle and set-pieces, it's just a matter of being along for the ride, and I most certainly was. Its best moments -- the first fight, the car chase, the first use of the turnstile, the entire finale -- just made me feel giddy with a special kind of cinematic wonder.
JDW gives one of the great action star performances in recent memory and is certainly one of Nolan's best heroes. The character is a deliberate blank slate, yes, but with his suave charm and ferocious athleticism, he is everything that he needs to be. An immensely watchable screen presence who is an absolute badass to boot. Pattinson swaggers in and out of the movie evoking Eames in Inception, but unlike Hardy he isn't stealing the movie every time he's on-screen. Rather, he builds a perfect chemistry with Washington, and the rapport they have sinks perfectly into the rhythm of the movie. Debicki is absolutely stellar too. I agree with a great deal of the criticism on the writing of her character, but to some extent it's a bit unfair; yes a lot of her function is as a stereotype and it's a bit frustrating that Nolan was too attached to a Bond-esque homage to add a bit more depth to his central female character, but at the same time, the men are just as underwritten! This isn't a character-based movie for anyone involved, it's a movie for watching beautiful people do cool shit, and it fulfills that purpose perfectly. Debicki probably gives the most outwardly emotional performance in the movie -- a role that could've brought the movie into a realm of dishonest sentimentality in a lesser performer's hands, but Debicki absolutely nailed it. And Branagh as the hammy villain, just great stuff!
Absolutely one of Nolan's most mesmerizing visual spectacles. Hoyte's cinematography is as gorgeous as ever and practically every set/location had me transfixed to the image. But what really stands out here are the effects and the action choreography, and as I've alluded to, they're absolutely unreal. I don't give a damn about "understanding" the concept of time inversion when Nolan is able to get so many exhilarating images and sequences out of it. This is a movie of pure bombast, and all of its elements -- Jennifer Lame's editing, Ludwig Göransson's banging score, even that notorious overblown sound design -- all succeeds in immersing you into its pure sensation. It may be ridiculous, over-the-top, infuriatingly obtuse, riddled with trite cliches, and at times just plain dumb, but for what Nolan wants it to be, a breathtaking & expansive cinematic experience, you can't say it doesn't succeed.
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Dec 29, 2020 16:48:33 GMT
Man, with this and Devil All the Time, Pattinson's hot streak is threatening to screech to a halt. At least he's blameless here.
I still give Nolan props for his ambition and originality, and Tenet boats some cool visual moments and a thrilling score, but is otherwise an empty exercise in convoluted spectacle. Early on, the line "don't try to understand it. Feel it" is dropped, and while I appreciate the self-deprecating nod to Nolan's penchant for the needlessly complex, I can't be expected to "feel" what's going on when the film is so utterly devoid of human characters or an emotional centre.
Before this, I'd said that Nolan was one of the most consistent directors working, even if his films tend to uniformly fall in the 'good' range rather than 'great'. This is his first real blunder for me - here's hoping it's just a brief dip in his record.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Jan 1, 2021 17:58:50 GMT
Might be Nolan's most dreariest subject to date. Its so loud and bonkers and involved in its own machinations that he managed to bring some thrill out of it and every time he put forward a big set piece, it's a spectacle to behold. Further cements my notion that he is one of the very few directors who can give a immersive cinematic experience and Tenet is just that, an immersive sci-fi/action movie but its ultimately shallow and its the only Nolan film i didn't take home with me, ruminate and have that sudden urge to watch again.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jan 5, 2021 17:47:35 GMT
I think I loved it. It felt very similar to Inception in a lot of ways (Inception is my favorite Nolan). Inception's plot is tighter and easier to understand which is why it works better but there was a lot to like here. I know people want Nolan to do something smaller but he's really one of the few filmmakers that can do something as bold and original as this on a large scale. I don't want to lose that. You can't match the spectacle.
1. Inception 2. Memento 3. The Dark Knight 4. Batman Begins 5. Dunkirk 6. Tenet 7. The Dark Knight Rises 8. Interstellar 9. The Prestige 10. Following 11. Insomnia
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Jan 5, 2021 18:47:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Jan 5, 2021 19:18:15 GMT
I honestly didn't know what to make of him in Devil All the Time. I definitely respect how out-there he went with that role, but part of me found it hilariously unconvincing and silly. At least it was interesting, unlike the rest of that film. I remember being intrigued by that, and I'm here for something that actually uses Debicki's (considerable) talent rather than insultingly wastes it!
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Jan 5, 2021 20:29:09 GMT
I honestly didn't know what to make of him in Devil All the Time. I definitely respect how out-there he went with that role, but part of me found it hilariously unconvincing and silly. At least it was interesting, unlike the rest of that film. I remember being intrigued by that, and I'm here for something that actually uses Debicki's (considerable) talent rather than insultingly wastes it! From the accent to the beer gut... it was a lot, but at least things were engaging when he was on screen. Debicki is really good in The Burnt Orange Heresy, as is Mick Jagger.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jan 7, 2021 5:17:43 GMT
Absolutely fascinating nonsense... and the first Nolan movie I’ve enjoyed since Inception.
I was proud of myself for working hard to grasp the plot and what the hell was going on in general for the first hour or so... and then it totally lost me at some point... but quickly won me back with some insane action sequence that made me forget about forgetting and just go along with it. Sounds like mumbo jumbo, but I think that fits the movie... lol. I think this might be the only movie ever that benefits from somewhat shutting your brain off... while still requiring you to pay very close attention to everything that’s going on.
I have no clue... but I was entertained.
Didn’t think any of the performances were anything special... though I liked the chemistry between JDW and Pattinson. And Branagh doing an impression of John Malkovich in Rounders was certainly an interesting choice.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 10, 2021 23:03:42 GMT
A little Tenet/James Bond music mashup that I made because I was bored:
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jan 11, 2021 6:31:56 GMT
That was pretty good!!
|
|