|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 16, 2020 16:34:36 GMT
I want to hear from a few of you before I get into it, but generally speaking I did like the movie a lot.
I love espionage films. I love Nolans brand of sci-fi, more cerebral, less explosions and bombast (though there a bit of that here too). I love that he almost always includes some visual quirks (tons of that here). And I love that his films makes you think more than the average movie.
John David Washington, Elizabeth Debicki and Kenneth Branagh were excellent too.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Sept 16, 2020 18:16:18 GMT
I loved it. I’m glad Nolan did this instead of a Bond movie. This works much better for his writing/directing style anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Sept 16, 2020 18:25:10 GMT
I should be watching it today. I'll give my thoughts on it later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Sept 16, 2020 18:31:52 GMT
I didn't understand anything, but I liked it anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 16, 2020 18:51:50 GMT
No, but if it's anything remotely like Inception I'll pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Sept 16, 2020 19:23:32 GMT
I thought it was very good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2020 19:36:41 GMT
It's a well-crafted film. It's also incredibly dumb.
The central conceit (travelling backwards in time) makes no sense if you think about it for more than three seconds, which is a shame because it's not using time travel to tell an interesting story; time travel is the story. You can't suspend your disbelief because the movie keeps shoving it into your face and wobbles between giving out nonsensical rules that it later breaks or fails to explain the rules at all when it probably should.
The dialogue is stock and gets drowned out by the soundtrack at points (perhaps a "the food is terrible and the portions are too small" complaint), the performances are mostly flat as per Nolan, and the story wrapped around the time travel is not that interesting.
If you're looking for a cerebral film, this ain't it. Nonsensical is not the same as cerebral.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Sept 16, 2020 20:16:09 GMT
No, theaters are closed
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 16, 2020 20:45:45 GMT
I don't want to encourage anyone to risk their lives. The only reason why I saw TENET is because the cinema I went to had the proper safety measures and because I live in Rome, where the COVID-19 cases aren't as high as other places (at least for now). If your situation is similar to mine, that's a whole other conversation. Now, the plot revolves around a secret mission. So secret that, a couple of times, the agents and the employers discuss it in public, including a ferry where they're surrounded by people. Wait, what? Like most of Christopher Nolan's works, we have a complicated plot involving a lot of real science and philosophy in our hands. Unfortunately, there's something missing that was present in his previous projects: Strong emotions that drive the main characters through their journey (a husband trying to kill his wife's murderer, a father who misses his son and daughter, a father who misses his daughter and I guess his son too, etc...). Here, we learn nothing about our hero. And don't tell me that's the point, like in DUNKIRK. That was because the soldiers served as vessels for the viewers to insert ourselves into, in order to feel what it's like to be in a war zone. Not to mention that 2017 hit was designed to be a complete visual and auditory experience. This one balances the images and the audio the same way most movies do, and the protagonist is presented as a real person. Without knowing what motivates him on a personal level (instead of just wanting to save the world), I couldn't connect with him and, by extension, with the movie. Also, he and a lot of the other characters are similar in terms of personality, whether they're displaying their inner strength, their intelligence or their sense of humor, so they don't stand out, unlike INCEPTION with its group of distinct individuals. Speaking of that 2010 classic, it didn't matter that the events were written as a traditional heist film, because they took place inside people's dreams. All kinds of unpredictable and imaginative things happened in each environment. Here, a special element is introduced early on, but it's not used to the fullest until the 2nd half. The 1st half is a traditional spy film (and not a very interesting one) that occasionally turns into science fiction. It would be easy to dismiss Jennifer Lame's editing as choppy. I mean, I can't remember a shot lasting more than 5 or even 2 seconds (to be fair, I wasn't actually timing them). There are even moments where a character is doing something and in the very next shot they're doing something else in another part of the room, indicating that at least a couple of seconds have passed. However, that and the near total lack of establishing shots makes me think that her hands were tied and she was just doing her best to reduce the running time down to 150 minutes. Honestly, I would've preferred it if she had deleted full scenes. Trust me: Not all of them were indispensable. No other aspect about this production is bad at all, but without something to get invested in, what's the point? 5/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Sept 16, 2020 23:23:18 GMT
I don't want to encourage anyone to risk their lives. The only reason why I saw TENET is because the cinema I went to had the proper safety measures and because I live in Rome, where the COVID-19 cases aren't as high as other places (at least for now). If your situation is similar to mine, that's a whole other conversation. Now, the plot revolves around a secret mission. So secret that, a couple of times, the agents and the employers discuss it in public, including a ferry where they're surrounded by people. Wait, what? Like most of Christopher Nolan's works, we have a complicated plot involving a lot of real science and philosophy in our hands. Unfortunately, there's something missing that was present in his previous projects: Strong emotions that drive the main characters through their journey (a husband trying to kill his wife's murderer, a father who misses his son and daughter, a father who misses his daughter and I guess his son too, etc...). Here, we learn nothing about our hero. And don't tell me that's the point, like in DUNKIRK. That was because the soldiers served as vessels for the viewers to insert ourselves into, in order to feel what it's like to be in a war zone. Not to mention that 2017 hit was designed to be a complete visual and auditory experience. This one balances the images and the audio the same way most movies do, and the protagonist is presented as a real person. Without knowing what motivates him on a personal level (instead of just wanting to save the world), I couldn't connect with him and, by extension, with the movie. Also, he and a lot of the other characters are similar in terms of personality, whether they're displaying their inner strength, their intelligence or their sense of humor, so they don't stand out, unlike INCEPTION with its group of distinct individuals. Speaking of that 2010 classic, it didn't matter that the events were written as a traditional heist film, because they took place inside people's dreams. All kinds of unpredictable and imaginative things happened in each environment. Here, a special element is introduced early on, but it's not used to the fullest until the 2nd half. The 1st half is a traditional spy film (and not a very interesting one) that occasionally turns into science fiction. It would be easy to dismiss Jennifer Lame's editing as choppy. I mean, I can't remember a shot lasting more than 5 or even 2 seconds (to be fair, I wasn't actually timing them). There are even moments where a character is doing something and in the very next shot they're doing something else in another part of the room, indicating that at least a couple of seconds have passed. However, that and the near total lack of establishing shots makes me think that her hands were tied and she was just doing her best to reduce the running time down to 150 minutes. Honestly, I would've preferred it if she had deleted full scenes. Trust me: Not all of them were indispensable. No other aspect about this production is bad at all, but without something to get invested in, what's the point? 5/10 I swear I’ve seen your review posted at least 20 times lol. |
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Sept 17, 2020 1:05:36 GMT
I don't want to encourage anyone to risk their lives. The only reason why I saw TENET is because the cinema I went to had the proper safety measures and because I live in Rome, where the COVID-19 cases aren't as high as other places (at least for now). If your situation is similar to mine, that's a whole other conversation. Now, the plot revolves around a secret mission. So secret that, a couple of times, the agents and the employers discuss it in public, including a ferry where they're surrounded by people. Wait, what? Like most of Christopher Nolan's works, we have a complicated plot involving a lot of real science and philosophy in our hands. Unfortunately, there's something missing that was present in his previous projects: Strong emotions that drive the main characters through their journey (a husband trying to kill his wife's murderer, a father who misses his son and daughter, a father who misses his daughter and I guess his son too, etc...). Here, we learn nothing about our hero. And don't tell me that's the point, like in DUNKIRK. That was because the soldiers served as vessels for the viewers to insert ourselves into, in order to feel what it's like to be in a war zone. Not to mention that 2017 hit was designed to be a complete visual and auditory experience. This one balances the images and the audio the same way most movies do, and the protagonist is presented as a real person. Without knowing what motivates him on a personal level (instead of just wanting to save the world), I couldn't connect with him and, by extension, with the movie. Also, he and a lot of the other characters are similar in terms of personality, whether they're displaying their inner strength, their intelligence or their sense of humor, so they don't stand out, unlike INCEPTION with its group of distinct individuals. Speaking of that 2010 classic, it didn't matter that the events were written as a traditional heist film, because they took place inside people's dreams. All kinds of unpredictable and imaginative things happened in each environment. Here, a special element is introduced early on, but it's not used to the fullest until the 2nd half. The 1st half is a traditional spy film (and not a very interesting one) that occasionally turns into science fiction. It would be easy to dismiss Jennifer Lame's editing as choppy. I mean, I can't remember a shot lasting more than 5 or even 2 seconds (to be fair, I wasn't actually timing them). There are even moments where a character is doing something and in the very next shot they're doing something else in another part of the room, indicating that at least a couple of seconds have passed. However, that and the near total lack of establishing shots makes me think that her hands were tied and she was just doing her best to reduce the running time down to 150 minutes. Honestly, I would've preferred it if she had deleted full scenes. Trust me: Not all of them were indispensable. No other aspect about this production is bad at all, but without something to get invested in, what's the point? 5/10 I swear I’ve seen your review posted at least 20 times lol. He does love to post his reviews. Sadly even if he knew what a paragraph was, I don't think they would be any better.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Sept 17, 2020 3:04:10 GMT
I swear I’ve seen your review posted at least 20 times lol. He does love to post his reviews. Sadly even if he knew what a paragraph was, I don't think they would be any better. I hate to pile on the man, but what’s the point of posting it twenty times on the same couple of boards? |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 17, 2020 8:10:46 GMT
I hate to pile on the man, but what’s the point of posting it twenty times on the same couple of boards? By that logic, I should ask you "What's the point of 20 users creating a thread on the same topic?" In fact, I'm pretty sure no one who replied here said anything they hadn't already said in the other threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Sept 17, 2020 13:47:03 GMT
Probably Nolan's weakest film since The Prestige in my opinion. I won't necessarily say it's bad, but definitely lesser Nolan for sure. It's well-filmed, has slick action, and the performances are fine enough, but it's maddeningly convoluted in terms of story/plot. So much so that it can make your head hurt. And this "time in reverse" thing isn't as good as it should be. I'd probably give it a B- at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Sept 17, 2020 18:03:44 GMT
I liked how that woman was taller than everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Sept 17, 2020 18:31:19 GMT
I've seen it twice in theaters and my last time was yesterday. The cast was good, but the characterizations were thin. Robert Pattinson and Elizabeth Debicki were exceptional in this film. The film employs some interesting ideas about reverse entropy and time inversion, and it's not too hard to follow but it does require heavy attention-to-detail from the viewer. I did love the action sequences and the stunt work was amazing. Overall, while I liked it, it ranks on the lower end of Christopher Nolan's filmography.
|
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Sept 18, 2020 6:35:12 GMT
I hate to pile on the man, but what’s the point of posting it twenty times on the same couple of boards? By that logic, I should ask you "What's the point of 20 users creating a thread on the same topic?" In fact, I'm pretty sure no one who replied here said anything they hadn't already said in the other threads. It's not the same thing at all and if you are unable to grasp that you are even more slow witted and obtuse than I thought. Do you seriously not grasp how you posting the same review 20 times is much more annoying and pointless than 20 different people posting 20 different threads that happen to be about the same movie or tv show? Have you ever heard the phrase familiarity breeds contempt? Also maybe if you learned how to use paragraphs a few people would at least bother to read a few of your reviews as opposed to glancing to the bottom seeing your usual 4 or 5 that you rate everything and laughing at you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 18, 2020 9:16:37 GMT
It's not the same thing at all and if you are unable to grasp that you are even more slow witted and obtuse than I thought. Do you seriously not grasp how you posting the same review 20 times is much more annoying and pointless than 20 different people posting 20 different threads that happen to be about the same movie or tv show? Have you ever heard the phrase familiarity breeds contempt? Also maybe if you learned how to use paragraphs a few people would at least bother to read a few of your reviews as opposed to glancing to the bottom seeing your usual 4 or 5 that you rate everything and laughing at you. You know what I love about forums? When someone replies with "If you don't understand, then you're an idiot" or something like that, because it actually translates to "I'm too stupid to think of a proper counterargument, so I'm going to hide behind a condescending attitude and expect the other user to drop the subject." And for the record, I only use paragraphs when I write movie reviews (because they're longer), not movie comments like the one about TENET.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Sept 18, 2020 11:17:23 GMT
Its a trash movie. The plot cannot be followed smoothly. The audio is horrendous. And there's no depth to any of the characters. Its Nolans worst movie by a mile. Come back Johnathan Nolan and save us from your brothers total creative freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Sept 18, 2020 14:40:38 GMT
I don't think it's Nolan's best, but it's good. It's a plot-driven film for it's spectacle rather than really a character one.
On a technical level, everything was great. Nolan always delivers when it comes to effects. Performative-wise, it was fine. I don't think Nolan has ever directed a bad performance. But there wasn't any huge standout either. As great as Nolan is, he isn't exactly a writer of emotion or really getting you emotionally invested in anyone during his films. Plot-wise, it makes sense to me now only because after watching, I've went thru Reddit, looking for explanations of stuff that confused me. But, I don't think that is really a sign of a good film if you have to look it up. The sound mixing though was a huge problem throughout that really drowns out the dialogue early on that would have really helped later on, so maybe that was part of the issue, that I missed a lot of information to help understand the film. But overall, I liked it. Nolan is always trying new and original things with filmmaking, which I can appreciate. It's definitely his take on the spy/Bond genre since he is definitely a fan favorite for directing a Bond film. The whole inverse/time travel was cool even if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but at least it set out with it's own rules and followed them. What bugged me is the fight scenes. It just turned the whole inverse into a gimmick. Among other things Nolan isn't very good at are fight scenes. Overall, I'd give it a solid 6/10.
But if someone could please answer, the one thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense and kinda got forgotten about half way thru, is what was the point of the painting??
|
|
