Tenet (Christopher Nolan) *spoilers from post 475*

Fysh

AllForIt wrote: »

Watched second third of the movie.

All I see is the The Matrix Reloaded which had a way way better speeding car scene.

Not sure if I'll watch the final third. Or is it turd.

There is a climactic action scene in the final third that is definitely worth watching, even if only to appreciate the (IMO under-realised) potential for the film's central conceit.

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

There is a climactic action scene in the final third that is definitely worth watching, even if only to appreciate the (IMO under-realised) potential for the film's central conceit.

the last 1/3 is the worst part of the film - if he didn't like what came before it's certainly not going to change minds.

of course that's one of the advantages of the cinema - no switching off 1/3 or 2/3 way through

even a poor enough film like Tenet should be watched in one go.

AllForIt

glasso wrote: »

the last 1/3 is the worst part of the film - if he didn't like what came before it's certainly not going to change minds.

of course that's one of the advantages of the cinema - no switching off 1/3 or 2/3 way through

even a poor enough film like Tenet should be watched in one go.

Actually I have walked out of the cinema 3 times in my life mid movie. Avatar, Terminator 5 and 3D Pirates of the Caribbean. When I've lost interested there is no going back.

Fysh

glasso wrote: »

the last 1/3 is the worst part of the film - if he didn't like what came before it's certainly not going to change minds.

of course that's one of the advantages of the cinema - no switching off 1/3 or 2/3 way through

even a poor enough film like Tenet should be watched in one go.

ForTunately, I didn't say it would change their mind on the film, just that it had IMO the best illustration of the potential of the film's central conceit At most, it can offer an idea of what the platonic ideal of the film might be, which if nothing else we can agree the released version was not.

One thing of miss about seeing films at the cinema is that it forces me to be selective about what I watch and makes me focus on it in a way that viewing at home (even on a projector) can't quite replicate. (It also leads to occasional games of chicken with my own bladder if I choose poorly re: film length and amount of pre-film beverages, so swings and roundabouts I suppose...)

pixelburp

I'd agree that the finale was the first time the key conceit was truly played with but by then I was mostly checked out, mentally. And the film did such a godawful job explaining the rules and world to the audience I could only watch said finale with a detached, technical appreciation. If the script couldn't care enough to eveb give its main character a name, I wasn't going to try either.

Watched this video recently that tried to parse the issue of Tenets exposition versus Nolan's other gimmick movies; thought it made a good breakdown of those issues of world building...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsqvmZbskGo

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd agree that the finale was the first time the key conceit was truly played with but by then I was mostly checked out, mentally. And the film did such a godawful job explaining the rules and world to the audience I could only watch said finale with a detached, technical appreciation. If the script couldn't care enough to eveb give its main character a name, I wasn't going to try either.

This was one of the biggest problems with Tenet - broke the first rule of cinema - keep the audience immersed.

Fuascailteoir

The battle scene at the end could have been good if anyone knew who was shooting at who or what was going on. Seemed to be two groups, one going forward and the other backwards and just randomly shooting and firing rockets and the odd fella in white camo appearing

Mark Hamill

So, for me, the problem is that this film is not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.

If you ignore the technical details and just look at the overall story, the basic plot is very straightforward - future wants to violently change the present to change the future, protagonist goes though events and then travels through time using the knowledge of the events to try and stop them.

This would largely work the exact same way if it was a standard time travel movie, i.e. if the protagonist just gets into a Delorean and travels back whatever number of weeks was required. The problem that is confusing people is that the conceit to try and make it more interesting does not work. The whole inversion thing just cannot be made to work consistently -e.g. as the Pitch Meeting video posted above questions, how does light work when you are inverted if oxygen doesn't?

In a way, fair play to Nolan to creating a conceit that is inconsistent and so poorly demonstrated that nobody can really follow it, but then having most people think it's down to them not being able to follow, and not Nolan having a consistent concept in mind.

I also think it's telling how little people seem to be discussing the big twist of the movie, that the protagonist actually created the whole Tenet group to stop the villain of the movie succeeding. It's doesn't say good things about the plot that the audience response to possibly the most important twist is a big "meh".

I'm a massive fan of Nolan, I love many of his movies (Batman 1 and 2, Prestige, Inception, Interstellar). But Tenet is a first draft of an idea, and if he continues like this, Nolan is going to end up dangerously like an unnecessarily convoluted version of George Lucas, circa the prequel trilogy (no one to tell him no when he makes bafflingly stupid decisions).




Lastly, to respond to this:

banie01 wrote: »

The soundscape is brilliant IMO, I know people complained regarding muffled dialogue in places, but I think that's deliberate and integral to how Nolan wants the story to play out.
It forces the viewer to choose a plotline, what does the viewer think was said?
How does that shape what the viewer thinks is actually happening?

Lol, no. The movie has subtitles throughout and they don't just say "muffled talking" for most of the movie. There is dialogue and the dialogue is there to inform the story. What is far more believable is that Nolan just thinks he is above making things clear for the audience and thinks that forcing you to work to follow his plots (down to having to work to hear what is said) is the same as creating immersion.
(Although, after how bad some of the sound mixing was in Interstellar, like when Michale Caine was quoting the poem, I'm wondering if Nolan is just embarrassed by his dialogue and doesn't really want you to hear it).

pixelburp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

[...]
I also think it's telling how little people seem to be discussing the big twist of the movie, that the protagonist actually created the whole Tenet group to stop the villain of the movie succeeding. It's doesn't say good things about the plot that the audience response to possibly the most important twist is a big "meh".

It's possibly one of the worst uses of "Tell Don't Show" I've seen in a modern, professionally made film in years. The feature was already creaking under the weight of all its exposition but this coda was dropped in a manner that (almost arrogantly) suggested the script somehow expected us to have come to this same conclusion - despite never once giving even the smallest hint towards this supposed "twist". It was hilariously inept writing, bordering on the lazy. A big reveal given from the back of a car - without even bothering showing some flashback "clues". The fact Nolan didn't even have the common courtesy to give his lead character a name - he's literally listed as "The Protagonist" - shows that for all Nolan's many strengths as a director, he can't write for shít; he needs to get his brother back.

flasher0030

pixelburp wrote: »

It's possibly one of the worst uses of "Tell Don't Show" I've seen in a modern, professionally made film in years. The feature was already creaking under the weight of all its exposition but this coda was dropped in a manner that (almost arrogantly) suggested the script somehow expected us to have come to this same conclusion - despite never once giving even the smallest hint towards this supposed "twist". It was hilariously inept writing, bordering on the lazy. A big reveal given from the back of a car - without even bothering showing some flashback "clues". The fact Nolan didn't even have the common courtesy to give his lead character a name - he's literally listed as "The Protagonist" - shows that for all Nolan's many strengths as a director, he can't write for shít; he needs to get his brother back.

That's rubbish. He didn't wake up some morning and decide that he couldn't be bothered trying to think of a name for a character - that he doesn't deserve a name.
There was some reason for it - maybe to make the main character seem anonymous, like reduce his perceived importance. That the setting and the story is the main focus. Or might be something as simple as just wanting to do something a bit different to create a media buzz. Gets people talking.

Whatever other faults associated with the film, you are being over picky dwelling on the fact that the lead character is not given a proper name.

I only half understood it first time I saw it. After reading lots of comments in the past month, I'm going to give it another viewing. I'll probably get better enjoyment from it, or at least I'll pick up on bits that I didn't get on the initial watch.

pixelburp

flasher0030 wrote: »

That's rubbish. He didn't wake up some morning and decide that he couldn't be bothered trying to think of a name for a character - that he doesn't deserve a name.
There was some reason for it - maybe to make the main character seem anonymous, like reduce his perceived importance. That the setting and the story is the main focus. Or might be something as simple as just wanting to do something a bit different to create a media buzz. Gets people talking.

Whatever other faults associated with the film, you are being over picky dwelling on the fact that the lead character is not given a proper name.

I only half understood it first time I saw it. After reading lots of comments in the past month, I'm going to give it another viewing. I'll probably get better enjoyment from it, or at least I'll pick up on bits that I didn't get on the initial watch.

*shrug* your speculation's as good as mine; it doesn't matter what he may or may not have thought, Nolan's last 2 movies have been without his long-time brother screenplay partner, Jonathan Nolan. Both these 2 movies have been more pronounced technical exercises where "character" has been almost absent. Now, while Dunkirk at least had a visceral immediacy amounting to its cast's need to get off a beach they may otherwise die on, Tenet had ... ... well, what? The Protagonist had no background, name, motivations, arcs, biases - nothing. Heck, it wasn't even clear if he was sexually attracted towards Elizabeth Debicki's character; at least that would have been a pretty simple, classic motivation. Like many writing duos, when one leaves it can reveal what it was they brought to the table (often especially obvious with comedy acts); Jonathan Nolan seems to be the one who put some flesh on the bones of Christopher's intellectual flights.

Honestly, Christopher Nolan doesn't need "buzz", he's arguably the most bankable, famous director on the planet - he has the clout to crash a 747 and build whole cornfields on a whim - but watching his older work such as The Prestige or Batman Begins, then Tenet, and to me there's a huge gap in terms of the humanity and basic screenwriting within the story. If Nolan wants to just make these big splashy conceptual movies, then cool! Dunkirk worked far better as a purely technical exercise and between it and Tenet, Dunkirk's the better movie.

But as a viewer who likes to be vaguely emotionally engaged with the human beings on-screen, yes even blockbuster fluff, Tenet had no pulse; asking me to spend 2+ hours with a character with no discernable characteristics got boring. To then go "aha, it was me all along from the future" without bothering to show any clues towards this? Yeah, that's just lazy, sloppy writing.

silverharp

this makes more sense than the movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t23ZEKqGHzs

beakerjoe

AllForIt wrote: »

Half way through and I put it on pause.

Absolutely no idea what this is about tbh. I thought I was going to be one of those ppl that 'got it' and say it was great but it turns out I could not be more disinterested.

All I see is echos of Batman and Inception but no actual movie. Haven't a clue. I can't even say it's bad because I don't know if it is good or bad, all I know is that I'm completely disinterested. I doubt watching the second half will change what I think of it.

For me it was enjoyable set piece film but bonkers logic.

Its ridiculous. Completely implausible. But I still enjoyed it as a spectacular action film.

Switch your brain off popcorn stuff.

sticker

Big Nolan fan... absolute pile of pretentious ****e

beakerjoe

sticker wrote: »

Big Nolan fan... absolute pile of pretentious ****e

Probably his worst film to date.

Its still got some gorgeous set pieces.

sticker

beakerjoe wrote: »

Probably his worst film to date.

Its still got some gorgeous set pieces.

My wife got me the 4k blu ray for the silly season. It's going to adverts...

beakerjoe

sticker wrote: »

My wife got me the 4k blu ray for the silly season. It's going to adverts...

I hope thats not all she got ya. If so, get the divorce lawyer on stand by:D

Muppet Man

silverharp wrote: »

this makes more sense than the movie

That was funny af

sticker

beakerjoe wrote: »

I hope thats not all she got ya. If so, get the divorce lawyer on stand by:D

It was sitting on a PS5 so not all is lost!

JoeExotic81

silverharp wrote: »

this makes more sense than the movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t23ZEKqGHzs

Thank you for posting this. I don't have to watch the film now, fvckin hell it looks beyond ridiculous. Video was hilarious.

WrenBoy

silverharp wrote: »

this makes more sense than the movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t23ZEKqGHzs

"yeah , yeah.. no I'll... I'll get there" that exactly what I said to myself a 1/3rd of the way through the film ha was just waiting for that "rosetta stone" moment that would make sense of the whole thing. Still waiting :pac:
Funny thing I found myself doing intially after seeing it in cinema was telling myself it was probably very good and I just needed to rewatch it to fully appreciate it and understand it. Nope, just not a very good movie. I had thought Nolan could do no wrong and I was the problem.

Retr0gamer

You can put as many crazy concepts in a film but none of it is interesting. What is interesting is characters and how these characters interact, react and deal with the situations you put them in.

Tenet unfortunately has robots in place of characters and one of them they didn't bother to name.

Gwynplaine

I've watched all of his films multiple times, but this one wont be getting a second outing. I had a pain in my head by the time it was over.

kerplun k

I've no idea what the f**k was going on, but I loved every second of this.

Captain Red Beard

kerplun k wrote: »

I've no idea what the f**k was going on, but I loved every second of this.

Couple of lads trying to stop another lad setting off a bomb.

Big Gerry

sticker wrote: »

Big Nolan fan... absolute pile of pretentious ****e

In fairness Inception was also pretentious sh1te.

kerplun k

Captain Red Beard wrote: »

Couple of lads trying to stop another lad setting off a bomb.

Told in epic fashion.

kerplun k

kerplun k wrote: »

Told in epic fashion.

one man's epic is another man's silly backward-playing muck.

eviltimeban

Watched this last night, probably in the opposite of how Nolan intended it (on a laptop, with earphones).

I thought it was really good! Not a patch on Interstellar, Inception, or TDK, but probably level with Dunkirk. I was worried that I was going to be so confused but I actually found it pretty easy to follow (I'd just come from binging 3 seasons of Dark, so my brain must've been well trained for anything!)

Dialogue / sound for me was fine. In fact, probably the fact I was wearing earphones helped.

R-Patz was good in it, I felt Washington was a little wooden at times, but at other times he was funny and engaging. Brannagh was chewing the scenery at times as is his wont. Debicki was good, similar role to the Night Manager and she played it well.

Good action, good effects, good car chases and shoot outs. It's basically a James Bond movie with added complexity and science fiction elements.

7/10.

CodeApples

just watched it. Not one to watch too late as i lost the will towards the end. Would say 6.5/10

Covid19

You need to see it twice. But, before the second viewing, watch one of the many explanation vids on YouTube first that run through many of the plot set pieces. It's only then you understand that there is an absolute tonne of things happening in the background that you will have missed at first watching. I think this was the intention. Armed with the knowledge of what to look out for, second viewing is a joy. I personally thought it was a work of genius.

olestoepoke

I was really looking forward to this movie as I loved his previous stuff but I was disappointed with it.

astrofool

Covid19 wrote: »

You need to see it twice. But, before the second viewing, watch one of the many explanation vids on YouTube first that run through many of the plot set pieces. It's only then you understand that there is an absolute tonne of things happening in the background that you will have missed at first watching. I think this was the intention. Armed with the knowledge of what to look out for, second viewing is a joy. I personally thought it was a work of genius.

Not sure about that, after watching it I was sure I had missed lots of things, but after checking online, realised I hadn't and the plot was just very shallow.

The backward timey effects are great, but it's like Nolan was trying to serve us a deconstructed film at the same time (the algorithm, the protagonist), even the way Pattinson played the sidekick meant there was no surprise.

I thought they would go a bit into what it would take to change destiny rather than the watching things that already happened from another angle that Harry Potter did much better.

eviltimeban

I agree the plot was thin as was the dialogue; the problem with watching Nolan movies now is that we're waiting for the big mind bending twist or crazy out-there element. Sure there was a twist in Tenet (the very end reveal) but in essence it was a globe-trotting action film, James Bond on acid as some reviewer said.

I'll happily rewatch it, knowing what I know (that there's really no great mystery to unravel). I don't think it'll be as rewatchable as Interstellar, which was all about the visuals and the music on a massive scale.

SuprSi

I tried to watch it over the weekend. I have a reasonable home cinema setup, and couldn't hear a word they were saying. Everything was muffled out by the background sounds. I've never had this issue with a movie before. I ended up resorting to a less-surround setting, which helped, but I really had to focus to hear the dialogue. I was glad to hear that others experienced similar problems as I originally thought it was an issue with my setup!

Anyway, by a long way my least favourite Nolan movie, not helped at all by the sound.

dubstepper

I watched it last night. I thought it was good initially, but the longer I think about it the less happy I am.

On the plus side:

- it looks good.
- it has some great set pieces.
- interesting idea
- JDW & RP act well in it

Negative

- it's trying waaaay to hard to be clever.
- fight scenes are more interesting than exciting
- the car chases again were more interesting than exciting.
- poor acting from Branagh
- why cast such a tall woman? it might be petty but every time I saw her I was just thinking "she's a good bit taller than them".
- the more I turned it over in my head the less sense it made

On the whole the premise and story just felt too brittle. I don't think Christopher Nolan is as clever as he thinks he is.

6/10

eviltimeban

dubstepper wrote: »

I don't think Christopher Nolan is as clever as he thinks he is.

Or, he's less clever than WE think he's trying to be, and he was just making an action movie with a twist.

Bacchus

Watched this last night. Having scanned through some comments here, I fall in to the same group thinking that it's a bit heavy on exposition but looks great, and the time travel stuff is head spinning (in a fun, I wanna figure it out way). The big army battle at the end was a bit of a mess though. Cool concept, and cool build up but I'd no idea what was going on, who they were shooting at, what was backwards, what was forwards.

I've two questions though...
1. The locked gate at the end. Pattinson has to go back at the end to "unlock" it. But he's inverted, so he's actually locking it. From his perspective it's open and he locks it. What am I missing here? If he never went back, the gate would have been open and The Protaganist's path would never have been blocked.
2. It seemed that while they were inverted, Pattinson and The Protaganist were able to just walk around (e.g. outside the airport) and no-one was like "hey what's up with those backwards people".

eviltimeban

Bacchus wrote: »

2. It seemed that while they were inverted, Pattinson and The Protaganist were able to just walk around (e.g. outside the airport) and no-one was like "hey what's up with those backwards people".

I can't remember it exactly, but I think they went through a turnstile once they'd gone back in time, which allowed them to move forwards again.

homerun_homer

eviltimeban wrote: »

I can't remember it exactly, but I think they went through a turnstile once they'd gone back in time, which allowed them to move forwards again.

The point bring made is in relation to for an example the airport scene revisited. The lads are walking/running backwards with the lady on the gurney. Everyone else in real time would be going forward dealing with the plane crash and no doubt some would think "what's going on with these lads running backwards?"

Sad Professor

homerun_homer wrote: »

The point bring made is in relation to for an example the airport scene revisited. The lads are walking/running backwards with the lady on the gurney. Everyone else in real time would be going forward dealing with the plane crash and no doubt some would think "what's going on with these lads running backwards?"

You can see at least one of the firefighters doing a double take at Washington/Pattinson during that scene.

Zak Flaps

I recently watched this movie in 2 months time.
I might watch it again last week.

newmember2

Absolutely terrible film on so many levels. For those saying it needed a second or third viewing to really 'get' what they had initially missed...that to me is the very definition of a badly made film.

dubstepper

newmember? wrote: »

Absolutely terrible film on so many levels. For those saying it needed a second or third viewing to really 'get' what they had initially missed...that to me is the very definition of a badly made film.

It does feel that if you need to watch it multiple times it is more of an intellectual endeavour rather than a movie.

Heckler

Gave it a try there. Might have enjoyed it if I could have heard a word people were saying. Whats that about ? Shocking sound. Background score dominating all the time. Is this a Nolan thing cos I couldn't understand a word out of Bane either. I'm an hour in and have absolutely no idea whats going on. Its bouncing around locations like a James Bond film with no continuity at all.

Engaging opening set piece akin to DK but the sound ruined it. Turned off.

Mad_maxx

one hour in watching this and im bored out of my tree , dreadful , thinking of bailing

The White Wolf

Mad_maxx wrote: »

one hour in watching this and im bored out of my tree , dreadful , thinking of bailing

I bailed about an hour in from the cinema because there's a point where you know where it's going to go and covid paranoia couldn't keep me there.

From a Nolan interest point of view I'm glad this film kind of disappointed, because it might wake him up a bit and try something daring as opposed familiar to him again.

The White Wolf

The White Wolf wrote: »

I bailed about an hour in from the cinema because there's a point where you know where it's going to go and covid paranoia couldn't keep me there.

From a Nolan interest point of view I'm glad this film kind of disappointed, because it might wake him up a bit and try something daring as opposed familiar to him again.

One could say that it's really about fooking time that he called time on the theme of time, at this time (of all times).

Mad_maxx

so I watched this again this morning and liked it a lot more the second time , its most certainly a movie you need to see twice , its every bit and more conceptual than Inception

its a complete and utter mind fcuk and you cannot switch your brain into lower gear for one second , at first i thought the movie was a cross between inception and the matrix but id add another , Back to the future 2

observing yourself in an alternative past space in time , also notice how Pattinson refers to how the fusing of the past and the future will eventually destroy everything

Doc Brown said the same thing in Back to the Future 2 , " if you come into contact with your other self marty , it will mess with the space time continuum and the result will destroy the universe "

Nolan is like a pretentious art house movie maker with a limitless budget at this stage

Hurrache

eviltimeban wrote: »

Watched this last night, probably in the opposite of how Nolan intended it (on a laptop, with earphones).

I watched it with earphones too and maybe that helps as I didn't find the movie confusing, all over the place or had issues with dialogue. Maybe because I had read so many people complaining about it I watched it more focused on paying attention than I usually would and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

No idea why people think it's pretentious though, it's a time travelling sci-fi movie, it's not much different in terms of theme compared to so many others.