|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 5, 2020 20:19:49 GMT
I saw Tenet. Went in completelly blind. Liked it a lot. Solid mindfuck and quite complicated/confusing at times but HIGHLY entertaining - if you like scifi. Very good acting of Washington and Pattison too. Great chemistry.
8/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Sept 6, 2020 1:27:27 GMT
Glad you liked it. I liked it even more than you did, but it definitely has its issues. I can forgive them when the rest of the movie is so cool and ambitious.
Nolan still batting 1000 imo.
9/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 6, 2020 2:52:10 GMT
Glad you liked it. I liked it even more than you did, but it definitely has its issues. I can forgive them when the rest of the movie is so cool and ambitious. Nolan still batting 1000 imo. 9/10 Thats how I see it too. Weak motivativation of the bad guy is my nr 1 gripe then the fact the world doesnt have consistent or logical rules but overall I really enjoyed the entire movie and Loved the second half. Will be seeing it again for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 6, 2020 10:47:45 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 Nora on Sept 6, 2020 11:20:48 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 get what you are saying about the (seeming) lack of emotions, but in the rest our opinions differ. for example I am not bothered by movies using jump cuts at all. out of curiosity, which scenes do you feel like could have been left out? |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 6, 2020 12:00:14 GMT
which scenes do you feel like could have been left out? The opening scene immediately comes to mind. I know that there needed to be an opera house (to tie into the Sator Square), but Chris should've written it in a way that had real relevance beyond "It's just a test to showcase a character's abilities that we'll learn about later anyway." If the movie started with The Protagonist going to the lab and learning about the bullets, what would've changed?
There's also Michael Caine. If you're going to have a cameo, it either has to feel like the scene matters a lot or the actor must be given a chance to steal the scene. Neither one happens, since the information provided in this scene could've been explained in a throwaway line. It also feels odd to see an actor who has appeared in most of the director's movies in supporting but still main roles appear in a role that could've been played by anyone.
|
|
