|
Post by sdrew13163 on Sept 12, 2020 23:00:38 GMT
Since almost no one else seems into it enough to take the leap from “good” to “great,” I’ll do it. It’s really good at face value, but becomes great when you finally unpack everything. It’s ridiculously layered and intricate, but it works in the grand scheme of things. It’s a technically brilliant movie too. Edited beautifully to show the strange dynamic of the world and the action is shot extremely well. Goransson’s score is one of the best in years (count me as one of the idiots that doubted he’d do something as good as Zimmer could’ve). It works as a Bond movie with a Nolan twist. I mean, literally, it follows the (mostly Connery-era) 007 “formula” for stretches here or there. Different tone and specific story obviously, but very similar in many ways. It’s far from perfect, but it’s great imo.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 12, 2020 23:28:01 GMT
It is very good imo, but not great. One of Nolan's worst movies. Usually when someone says a movie is one of a director's worst movies that is a bad thing. In the case of Nolan, it isn't.
I described it as '60s spy movie with a Nolan twist. James Bond and the Harry Palmer trilogy.
One of my main problems is the first half starts to drag and the set-up becomes tiresome. Once the movie really gets into the visual time inversion it becomes much better. It is also his most emotionally distant movie, which makes it hard to connect with to a certain extent.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Sept 13, 2020 0:20:19 GMT
It is very good imo, but not great. One of Nolan's worst movies. Usually when someone says a movie is one of a director's worst movies that is a bad thing. In the case of Nolan, it isn't. I described it as '60s spy movie with a Nolan twist. James Bond and the Harry Palmer trilogy. One of my main problems is the first half starts to drag and the set-up becomes tiresome. Once the movie really gets into the visual time inversion it becomes much better. It is also his most emotionally distant movie, which makes it hard to connect with to a certain extent. I actually preferred the setup for the most part. It was sloppy in parts, but it’s fun watching it unravel. The final battle felt very forced. It was cool and well done, but it was also somewhat silly to have what essentially amounts to Good Army v Bad Army imo. I understand the character complaint and the feeling that it’s emotionally distant (it is), but I also really like the way Nolan writes his characters. The dry humor and dialogue has always connected with me, so I felt for all of the characters here.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 13, 2020 0:31:37 GMT
It is very good imo, but not great. One of Nolan's worst movies. Usually when someone says a movie is one of a director's worst movies that is a bad thing. In the case of Nolan, it isn't. I described it as '60s spy movie with a Nolan twist. James Bond and the Harry Palmer trilogy. One of my main problems is the first half starts to drag and the set-up becomes tiresome. Once the movie really gets into the visual time inversion it becomes much better. It is also his most emotionally distant movie, which makes it hard to connect with to a certain extent. I actually preferred the setup for the most part. It was sloppy in parts, but it’s fun watching it unravel. The final battle felt very forced. It was cool and well done, but it was also somewhat silly to have what essentially amounts to Good Army v Bad Army imo. I understand the character complaint and the feeling that it’s emotionally distant (it is), but I also really like the way Nolan writes his characters. The dry humor and dialogue has always connected with me, so I felt for all of the characters here. I can understand your complaint about the good army vs bad army being silly, but it fits the movie imo. The reason I like it so much is because it is cool and well done. It is entertaining and fascinating to watch the visual techniques and it is a very intense sequence imo. The set-up is fun watching unravel until it isn't. There is a point where it becomes tedious. The best parts of the movie are by far the plane scene through the highway inversion scene. The good army vs bad army is crosscut with the boat scene with Sator and his wife though, which is some of the best stuff in the movie imo. I think Tenet has the worst written characters and dialogue of his entire career so far, but if it works very well for you then it works very well for you. It probably has the best written female character of all of his movies though, so I'll give it credit there.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Sept 13, 2020 0:51:41 GMT
The ideas of time inversion and the deep layered storytelling, the cinematography, the stunts, and action sequences are all A+, but it would have been even greater if Christopher Nolan put more effort into writing stronger characters.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 13, 2020 0:54:32 GMT
The ideas of time inversion and the deep layered storytelling, the cinematography, the stunts, and action sequences are all A+, but it would have been even greater if Christopher Nolan put more effort into writing stronger characters. I find the cinematography to be very inconsistent and sometimes flat-out bland in Tenet. Visually it is Nolan's least interesting movie imo. Especially coming after Dunkirk, which is visually stunning in every way.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Sept 13, 2020 1:04:21 GMT
The ideas of time inversion and the deep layered storytelling, the cinematography, the stunts, and action sequences are all A+, but it would have been even greater if Christopher Nolan put more effort into writing stronger characters. I find the cinematography to be very inconsistent and sometimes flat-out bland in Tenet. Visually it is Nolan's least interesting movie imo. Especially coming after Dunkirk, which is visually stunning in every way. I've read people complain about the cinematography and it's true some of the photography looks like concrete and gray, but I still liked it.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 13, 2020 1:08:52 GMT
I find the cinematography to be very inconsistent and sometimes flat-out bland in Tenet. Visually it is Nolan's least interesting movie imo. Especially coming after Dunkirk, which is visually stunning in every way. I've read people complain about the cinematography and it's true some of the photography looks like concrete and gray, but I still liked it. It hurt the movie a bit for me, but it does have very good visual scenes here and there. The opening scene is visually interesting for example and reminded me quite a bit of the excellent grim/moody cinematography in The Dark Knight Rises.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Sept 13, 2020 4:34:51 GMT
I've read people complain about the cinematography and it's true some of the photography looks like concrete and gray, but I still liked it. It hurt the movie a bit for me, but it does have very good visual scenes here and there. The opening scene is visually interesting for example and reminded me quite a bit of the excellent grim/moody cinematography in The Dark Knight Rises. TDKR is Nolan’s best looking movie. It’s almost the sole reason why it’s one of my favorites of his.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Sept 13, 2020 5:15:48 GMT
I find myself liking it more and more as I sit with it. It has it's problems' I feel like Nolan has to change his "so what if people can't hear every that's being said" attitude, because there were conversations in the movie that were hard to make out; some of the explanations and rules of the movie don't necessarily hold up to close inspection; some things could have been made clearer (i.e. exactly what does the dead-man switch do? I've heard fans saying pretty confidently that it sends out GPS coordinates to the future on the location of the Algorithm, however the characters in the movie say that it ACTIVATES the Algorithm, while what we actually see on-screen is that the dead-man switch seems to set off the timer on the bomb that collapses the hypercenter). Still, I really loved the experience, and may watch it another time it two when I get a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 13, 2020 14:19:48 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 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jan 3, 2021 7:01:59 GMT
Bump because I’ve been seeing a lot of Tenet slander lately
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2021 23:27:32 GMT
It’s great, don’t get the complaints bc everything everyone complains about is present in his “magnum opus” entries to a far greater degree imo (Inception/TDK) except this one is far more exciting.
|
|