Reverse bungee jumping. Simultaneous backward/forward car chase. Bomb countdown. Girl on yacht. Monomaniacal baddie. Nolan must direct a Bond film (and write it).
It made my brain fall out. I'll need to see it again, preferably in reverse.
Couldn't follow it at all and was bored stiff for large parts. At the end I was expecting we'd been in there well over 3 hours, but it was only about 2 and a half.
I am really struggling to tell if it's a work of absolute genius or a colossal mess. Maybe the answer is a bit of both.
Nolan films are always packed with exposition. This one struggles because it has to A) keep the audience up to date with how the forward/ reverse time stuff is working and B ) explain to us how the convoluted mystery plot is unfolding.
I have to say, I struggled to understand both at different times. When it's a movie like, say, Tinker Tailor, I know that's my fault. That the film is based on a complex script that I can't quite follow because I am either not smart enough or not able to maintain my attention long enough. But with Tenet I was REALLY trying hard to understand what was going on, and I couldn't. Yet I don't think it was that complicated. By the end I can almost explain what happened and why, but during the film I was lost. And I am still a bit lost about some points.
Is that a failing on my part, or on the part of the storyteller? I think it's the latter. I will watch it again to try and get my head around it (Inception really isn't as complicated at it first appeared so maybe that applies here too) but I do think it has issues, not least the sound mix which, by many accounts, is abysmal in many cinemas you can see it in. And that's not the first time Nolan has had criticism for not making the dialogue audible.
What I am confident about criticising is the Nolan schtick. I said it about Interstellar, and I don't think much has changed - he has his way of weaving concurrent plot threads together until they hit a climax. And to me, it's becoming as cliche as an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Like Shyamalan, Nolan seems incapable of doing anything different. I suppose Dunkirk was about as different as he gets, and that's a film that is entirely based on weaving concurrent plot threads to a crescendo!
There are also some really inconsistent elements, particularly a lead character who is willing to die for the greater good... but willing to risk literally everything in the known universe to save a rich woman he sort of likes. And the Michael Caine scene can fuck off. Calling his character Sir Michael was just silly.
Ultimately I was entertained, and the action scenes were thrilling and brilliantly executed. At the very least you have a sense of urgency; you know the stakes are high because we have been told they are high, even if we don't entirely understand what the stakes actually are. Is that good enough? I don't think so, but at least I had fun.
With "Tinker Tailor......" Gary Oldman's character bought new glasses after being dismissed and so you could tell what was "then" and what is "now". Just need something simple like that to differentiate between the past, present and the future. Back to the Future used different clothing, cars etc but then Mcfly was going back 30 years.
I absolutely loved Tinker Tailor. I watched it twice. First time I failed to understand quite many points but on second viewing a lot of small details just became clear and meaningful. It's one of my favourite films.
I liked Nolan's Inception, Memento and Following. Dunkirk was decent too. But I didn't like Interstellar as to me it was a bit of a mess especially the latter part of the film. I guess I will fail to follow Tenet as well.... I think Tinker Tailor and Interstellar/Tenet are two different kinds of 'difficult to understand' films. With Tinker Tailor I was interested to watch it for a second time and I knew I would have a much better understanding of it/piece everything together on second viewing but I didn't watch Interstellar for a second time as I had no desire to.
Forget whether the films any good or not, are they selling drinks, and are the loos open?
Where we went you had to mask up and wash hands on entry, go up 6 flights of stairs (lift unavailable as too small for social distancing), buy tickets from a machine, wash your hands, give your address details to a human, show your tickets, arrive at screen for a short safety briefing...you can take your masks off for the film but you need to put them back on if you pop out for a pee or a £35 cup of cola. You MUST sit in your allocated seats as they’ve been distanced by algorithm and you MUST wait in at the end for a dude to come in and release you row by row to keep social distancing. To be fair it was the “safest” environment I’ve been in since this whole cockeroony kicked off.
Also really love the editing on the Wonderwoman 1984 trailer but that may just be because of New Order...
Forget whether the films any good or not, are they selling drinks, and are the loos open?
Where we went you had to mask up and wash hands on entry, go up 6 flights of stairs (lift unavailable as too small for social distancing), buy tickets from a machine, wash your hands, give your address details to a human, show your tickets, arrive at screen for a short safety briefing...you can take your masks off for the film but you need to put them back on if you pop out for a pee or a £35 cup of cola. You MUST sit in your allocated seats as they’ve been distanced by algorithm and you MUST wait in at the end for a dude to come in and release you row by row to keep social distancing. To be fair it was the “safest” environment I’ve been in since this whole cockeroony kicked off.
Also really love the editing on the Wonderwoman 1984 trailer but that may just be because of New Order...
I am really struggling to tell if it's a work of absolute genius or a colossal mess. Maybe the answer is a bit of both.
Nolan films are always packed with exposition. This one struggles because it has to A) keep the audience up to date with how the forward/ reverse time stuff is working and B ) explain to us how the convoluted mystery plot is unfolding.
I have to say, I struggled to understand both at different times. When it's a movie like, say, Tinker Tailor, I know that's my fault. That the film is based on a complex script that I can't quite follow because I am either not smart enough or not able to maintain my attention long enough. But with Tenet I was REALLY trying hard to understand what was going on, and I couldn't. Yet I don't think it was that complicated. By the end I can almost explain what happened and why, but during the film I was lost. And I am still a bit lost about some points.
Is that a failing on my part, or on the part of the storyteller? I think it's the latter. I will watch it again to try and get my head around it (Inception really isn't as complicated at it first appeared so maybe that applies here too) but I do think it has issues, not least the sound mix which, by many accounts, is abysmal in many cinemas you can see it in. And that's not the first time Nolan has had criticism for not making the dialogue audible.
What I am confident about criticising is the Nolan schtick. I said it about Interstellar, and I don't think much has changed - he has his way of weaving concurrent plot threads together until they hit a climax. And to me, it's becoming as cliche as an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Like Shyamalan, Nolan seems incapable of doing anything different. I suppose Dunkirk was about as different as he gets, and that's a film that is entirely based on weaving concurrent plot threads to a crescendo!
There are also some really inconsistent elements, particularly a lead character who is willing to die for the greater good... but willing to risk literally everything in the known universe to save a rich woman he sort of likes. And the Michael Caine scene can fuck off. Calling his character Sir Michael was just silly.
Ultimately I was entertained, and the action scenes were thrilling and brilliantly executed. At the very least you have a sense of urgency; you know the stakes are high because we have been told they are high, even if we don't entirely understand what the stakes actually are. Is that good enough? I don't think so, but at least I had fun.
With "Tinker Tailor......" Gary Oldman's character bought new glasses after being dismissed and so you could tell what was "then" and what is "now". Just need something simple like that to differentiate between the past, present and the future. Back to the Future used different clothing, cars etc but then Mcfly was going back 30 years.
I absolutely loved Tinker Tailor. I watched it twice. First time I failed to understand quite many points but on second viewing a lot of small details just became clear and meaningful. It's one of my favourite films.
I liked Nolan's Inception, Memento and Following. Dunkirk was decent too. But I didn't like Interstellar as to me it was a bit of a mess especially the latter part of the film. I guess I will fail to follow Tenet as well.... I think Tinker Tailor and Interstellar/Tenet are two different kinds of 'difficult to understand' films. With Tinker Tailor I was interested to watch it for a second time and I knew I would have a much better understanding of it/piece everything together on second viewing but I didn't watch Interstellar for a second time as I had no desire to.
Not sure if you are aware @Jessie but Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was originally a series on BBC in the late 70's & in fact had a 2nd series called Smiley's People. The BBC re-ran it again a few years ago after the film came out. Goes into more depth (as there are 6 or so episodes of an hour each) and is worth a watch.
I am really struggling to tell if it's a work of absolute genius or a colossal mess. Maybe the answer is a bit of both.
Nolan films are always packed with exposition. This one struggles because it has to A) keep the audience up to date with how the forward/ reverse time stuff is working and B ) explain to us how the convoluted mystery plot is unfolding.
I have to say, I struggled to understand both at different times. When it's a movie like, say, Tinker Tailor, I know that's my fault. That the film is based on a complex script that I can't quite follow because I am either not smart enough or not able to maintain my attention long enough. But with Tenet I was REALLY trying hard to understand what was going on, and I couldn't. Yet I don't think it was that complicated. By the end I can almost explain what happened and why, but during the film I was lost. And I am still a bit lost about some points.
Is that a failing on my part, or on the part of the storyteller? I think it's the latter. I will watch it again to try and get my head around it (Inception really isn't as complicated at it first appeared so maybe that applies here too) but I do think it has issues, not least the sound mix which, by many accounts, is abysmal in many cinemas you can see it in. And that's not the first time Nolan has had criticism for not making the dialogue audible.
What I am confident about criticising is the Nolan schtick. I said it about Interstellar, and I don't think much has changed - he has his way of weaving concurrent plot threads together until they hit a climax. And to me, it's becoming as cliche as an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Like Shyamalan, Nolan seems incapable of doing anything different. I suppose Dunkirk was about as different as he gets, and that's a film that is entirely based on weaving concurrent plot threads to a crescendo!
There are also some really inconsistent elements, particularly a lead character who is willing to die for the greater good... but willing to risk literally everything in the known universe to save a rich woman he sort of likes. And the Michael Caine scene can fuck off. Calling his character Sir Michael was just silly.
Ultimately I was entertained, and the action scenes were thrilling and brilliantly executed. At the very least you have a sense of urgency; you know the stakes are high because we have been told they are high, even if we don't entirely understand what the stakes actually are. Is that good enough? I don't think so, but at least I had fun.
With "Tinker Tailor......" Gary Oldman's character bought new glasses after being dismissed and so you could tell what was "then" and what is "now". Just need something simple like that to differentiate between the past, present and the future. Back to the Future used different clothing, cars etc but then Mcfly was going back 30 years.
I absolutely loved Tinker Tailor. I watched it twice. First time I failed to understand quite many points but on second viewing a lot of small details just became clear and meaningful. It's one of my favourite films.
I liked Nolan's Inception, Memento and Following. Dunkirk was decent too. But I didn't like Interstellar as to me it was a bit of a mess especially the latter part of the film. I guess I will fail to follow Tenet as well.... I think Tinker Tailor and Interstellar/Tenet are two different kinds of 'difficult to understand' films. With Tinker Tailor I was interested to watch it for a second time and I knew I would have a much better understanding of it/piece everything together on second viewing but I didn't watch Interstellar for a second time as I had no desire to.
Not sure if you are aware @Jessie but Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was originally a series on BBC in the late 70's & in fact had a 2nd series called Smiley's People. The BBC re-ran it again a few years ago after the film came out. Goes into more depth (as there are 6 or so episodes of an hour each) and is worth a watch.
Thanks. I didn't know. I guess I won't be able to find it though on any of the Chinese websites that I usut use for watching/downloading tv series and films. 😅 I thought about reading the book after watching the film but never got around to it.
Forget whether the films any good or not, are they selling drinks, and are the loos open?
Where we went you had to mask up and wash hands on entry, go up 6 flights of stairs (lift unavailable as too small for social distancing), buy tickets from a machine, wash your hands, give your address details to a human, show your tickets, arrive at screen for a short safety briefing...you can take your masks off for the film but you need to put them back on if you pop out for a pee or a £35 cup of cola. You MUST sit in your allocated seats as they’ve been distanced by algorithm and you MUST wait in at the end for a dude to come in and release you row by row to keep social distancing. To be fair it was the “safest” environment I’ve been in since this whole cockeroony kicked off.
Also really love the editing on the Wonderwoman 1984 trailer but that may just be because of New Order...
Forget whether the films any good or not, are they selling drinks, and are the loos open?
Where we went you had to mask up and wash hands on entry, go up 6 flights of stairs (lift unavailable as too small for social distancing), buy tickets from a machine, wash your hands, give your address details to a human, show your tickets, arrive at screen for a short safety briefing...you can take your masks off for the film but you need to put them back on if you pop out for a pee or a £35 cup of cola. You MUST sit in your allocated seats as they’ve been distanced by algorithm and you MUST wait in at the end for a dude to come in and release you row by row to keep social distancing. To be fair it was the “safest” environment I’ve been in since this whole cockeroony kicked off.
Also really love the editing on the Wonderwoman 1984 trailer but that may just be because of New Order...
Distanced by algorithm?? So everyone’ll be on each other’s laps then.....
I am really struggling to tell if it's a work of absolute genius or a colossal mess. Maybe the answer is a bit of both.
Nolan films are always packed with exposition. This one struggles because it has to A) keep the audience up to date with how the forward/ reverse time stuff is working and B ) explain to us how the convoluted mystery plot is unfolding.
I have to say, I struggled to understand both at different times. When it's a movie like, say, Tinker Tailor, I know that's my fault. That the film is based on a complex script that I can't quite follow because I am either not smart enough or not able to maintain my attention long enough. But with Tenet I was REALLY trying hard to understand what was going on, and I couldn't. Yet I don't think it was that complicated. By the end I can almost explain what happened and why, but during the film I was lost. And I am still a bit lost about some points.
Is that a failing on my part, or on the part of the storyteller? I think it's the latter. I will watch it again to try and get my head around it (Inception really isn't as complicated at it first appeared so maybe that applies here too) but I do think it has issues, not least the sound mix which, by many accounts, is abysmal in many cinemas you can see it in. And that's not the first time Nolan has had criticism for not making the dialogue audible.
What I am confident about criticising is the Nolan schtick. I said it about Interstellar, and I don't think much has changed - he has his way of weaving concurrent plot threads together until they hit a climax. And to me, it's becoming as cliche as an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Like Shyamalan, Nolan seems incapable of doing anything different. I suppose Dunkirk was about as different as he gets, and that's a film that is entirely based on weaving concurrent plot threads to a crescendo!
There are also some really inconsistent elements, particularly a lead character who is willing to die for the greater good... but willing to risk literally everything in the known universe to save a rich woman he sort of likes. And the Michael Caine scene can fuck off. Calling his character Sir Michael was just silly.
Ultimately I was entertained, and the action scenes were thrilling and brilliantly executed. At the very least you have a sense of urgency; you know the stakes are high because we have been told they are high, even if we don't entirely understand what the stakes actually are. Is that good enough? I don't think so, but at least I had fun.
With "Tinker Tailor......" Gary Oldman's character bought new glasses after being dismissed and so you could tell what was "then" and what is "now". Just need something simple like that to differentiate between the past, present and the future. Back to the Future used different clothing, cars etc but then Mcfly was going back 30 years.
I absolutely loved Tinker Tailor. I watched it twice. First time I failed to understand quite many points but on second viewing a lot of small details just became clear and meaningful. It's one of my favourite films.
I liked Nolan's Inception, Memento and Following. Dunkirk was decent too. But I didn't like Interstellar as to me it was a bit of a mess especially the latter part of the film. I guess I will fail to follow Tenet as well.... I think Tinker Tailor and Interstellar/Tenet are two different kinds of 'difficult to understand' films. With Tinker Tailor I was interested to watch it for a second time and I knew I would have a much better understanding of it/piece everything together on second viewing but I didn't watch Interstellar for a second time as I had no desire to.
Not sure if you are aware @Jessie but Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was originally a series on BBC in the late 70's & in fact had a 2nd series called Smiley's People. The BBC re-ran it again a few years ago after the film came out. Goes into more depth (as there are 6 or so episodes of an hour each) and is worth a watch.
Thanks. I didn't know. I guess I won't be able to find it though on any of the Chinese websites that I usut use for watching/downloading tv series and films. 😅 I thought about reading the book after watching the film but never got around to it.
The Le Carre books are very very good, and surprisingly the TV series weren't a disappointment. More of chess match than a PS4 game if you know what I mean. The Honourable Schoolboy was set in Hong Kong between Tinker Tailor and Smiley's people, when George was trying to get the Circus back on its feet. I'm not sure if you can get hold of such books though, given the content and potential portrayal of the regime..
I am really struggling to tell if it's a work of absolute genius or a colossal mess. Maybe the answer is a bit of both.
Nolan films are always packed with exposition. This one struggles because it has to A) keep the audience up to date with how the forward/ reverse time stuff is working and B ) explain to us how the convoluted mystery plot is unfolding.
I have to say, I struggled to understand both at different times. When it's a movie like, say, Tinker Tailor, I know that's my fault. That the film is based on a complex script that I can't quite follow because I am either not smart enough or not able to maintain my attention long enough. But with Tenet I was REALLY trying hard to understand what was going on, and I couldn't. Yet I don't think it was that complicated. By the end I can almost explain what happened and why, but during the film I was lost. And I am still a bit lost about some points.
Is that a failing on my part, or on the part of the storyteller? I think it's the latter. I will watch it again to try and get my head around it (Inception really isn't as complicated at it first appeared so maybe that applies here too) but I do think it has issues, not least the sound mix which, by many accounts, is abysmal in many cinemas you can see it in. And that's not the first time Nolan has had criticism for not making the dialogue audible.
What I am confident about criticising is the Nolan schtick. I said it about Interstellar, and I don't think much has changed - he has his way of weaving concurrent plot threads together until they hit a climax. And to me, it's becoming as cliche as an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Like Shyamalan, Nolan seems incapable of doing anything different. I suppose Dunkirk was about as different as he gets, and that's a film that is entirely based on weaving concurrent plot threads to a crescendo!
There are also some really inconsistent elements, particularly a lead character who is willing to die for the greater good... but willing to risk literally everything in the known universe to save a rich woman he sort of likes. And the Michael Caine scene can fuck off. Calling his character Sir Michael was just silly.
Ultimately I was entertained, and the action scenes were thrilling and brilliantly executed. At the very least you have a sense of urgency; you know the stakes are high because we have been told they are high, even if we don't entirely understand what the stakes actually are. Is that good enough? I don't think so, but at least I had fun.
With "Tinker Tailor......" Gary Oldman's character bought new glasses after being dismissed and so you could tell what was "then" and what is "now". Just need something simple like that to differentiate between the past, present and the future. Back to the Future used different clothing, cars etc but then Mcfly was going back 30 years.
I absolutely loved Tinker Tailor. I watched it twice. First time I failed to understand quite many points but on second viewing a lot of small details just became clear and meaningful. It's one of my favourite films.
I liked Nolan's Inception, Memento and Following. Dunkirk was decent too. But I didn't like Interstellar as to me it was a bit of a mess especially the latter part of the film. I guess I will fail to follow Tenet as well.... I think Tinker Tailor and Interstellar/Tenet are two different kinds of 'difficult to understand' films. With Tinker Tailor I was interested to watch it for a second time and I knew I would have a much better understanding of it/piece everything together on second viewing but I didn't watch Interstellar for a second time as I had no desire to.
Yes, the latter part of Interstellar is incredibly disappointing, otherwise it’s a good film. Have you watched The Prestige? It’s my favourite Nolan film, apart from Inception. By the way @Jessie nice to see you posting again.
I am really struggling to tell if it's a work of absolute genius or a colossal mess. Maybe the answer is a bit of both.
Nolan films are always packed with exposition. This one struggles because it has to A) keep the audience up to date with how the forward/ reverse time stuff is working and B ) explain to us how the convoluted mystery plot is unfolding.
I have to say, I struggled to understand both at different times. When it's a movie like, say, Tinker Tailor, I know that's my fault. That the film is based on a complex script that I can't quite follow because I am either not smart enough or not able to maintain my attention long enough. But with Tenet I was REALLY trying hard to understand what was going on, and I couldn't. Yet I don't think it was that complicated. By the end I can almost explain what happened and why, but during the film I was lost. And I am still a bit lost about some points.
Is that a failing on my part, or on the part of the storyteller? I think it's the latter. I will watch it again to try and get my head around it (Inception really isn't as complicated at it first appeared so maybe that applies here too) but I do think it has issues, not least the sound mix which, by many accounts, is abysmal in many cinemas you can see it in. And that's not the first time Nolan has had criticism for not making the dialogue audible.
What I am confident about criticising is the Nolan schtick. I said it about Interstellar, and I don't think much has changed - he has his way of weaving concurrent plot threads together until they hit a climax. And to me, it's becoming as cliche as an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Like Shyamalan, Nolan seems incapable of doing anything different. I suppose Dunkirk was about as different as he gets, and that's a film that is entirely based on weaving concurrent plot threads to a crescendo!
There are also some really inconsistent elements, particularly a lead character who is willing to die for the greater good... but willing to risk literally everything in the known universe to save a rich woman he sort of likes. And the Michael Caine scene can fuck off. Calling his character Sir Michael was just silly.
Ultimately I was entertained, and the action scenes were thrilling and brilliantly executed. At the very least you have a sense of urgency; you know the stakes are high because we have been told they are high, even if we don't entirely understand what the stakes actually are. Is that good enough? I don't think so, but at least I had fun.
With "Tinker Tailor......" Gary Oldman's character bought new glasses after being dismissed and so you could tell what was "then" and what is "now". Just need something simple like that to differentiate between the past, present and the future. Back to the Future used different clothing, cars etc but then Mcfly was going back 30 years.
I absolutely loved Tinker Tailor. I watched it twice. First time I failed to understand quite many points but on second viewing a lot of small details just became clear and meaningful. It's one of my favourite films.
I liked Nolan's Inception, Memento and Following. Dunkirk was decent too. But I didn't like Interstellar as to me it was a bit of a mess especially the latter part of the film. I guess I will fail to follow Tenet as well.... I think Tinker Tailor and Interstellar/Tenet are two different kinds of 'difficult to understand' films. With Tinker Tailor I was interested to watch it for a second time and I knew I would have a much better understanding of it/piece everything together on second viewing but I didn't watch Interstellar for a second time as I had no desire to.
Not sure if you are aware @Jessie but Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was originally a series on BBC in the late 70's & in fact had a 2nd series called Smiley's People. The BBC re-ran it again a few years ago after the film came out. Goes into more depth (as there are 6 or so episodes of an hour each) and is worth a watch.
Thanks. I didn't know. I guess I won't be able to find it though on any of the Chinese websites that I usut use for watching/downloading tv series and films. 😅 I thought about reading the book after watching the film but never got around to it.
The Le Carre books are very very good, and surprisingly the TV series weren't a disappointment. More of chess match than a PS4 game if you know what I mean. The Honourable Schoolboy was set in Hong Kong between Tinker Tailor and Smiley's people, when George was trying to get the Circus back on its feet. I'm not sure if you can get hold of such books though, given the content and potential portrayal of the regime..
I just looked it up on the internet and to my surprise all three books have been published in Chinese and can be read online for free. I'll take a look later.
I am really struggling to tell if it's a work of absolute genius or a colossal mess. Maybe the answer is a bit of both.
Nolan films are always packed with exposition. This one struggles because it has to A) keep the audience up to date with how the forward/ reverse time stuff is working and B ) explain to us how the convoluted mystery plot is unfolding.
I have to say, I struggled to understand both at different times. When it's a movie like, say, Tinker Tailor, I know that's my fault. That the film is based on a complex script that I can't quite follow because I am either not smart enough or not able to maintain my attention long enough. But with Tenet I was REALLY trying hard to understand what was going on, and I couldn't. Yet I don't think it was that complicated. By the end I can almost explain what happened and why, but during the film I was lost. And I am still a bit lost about some points.
Is that a failing on my part, or on the part of the storyteller? I think it's the latter. I will watch it again to try and get my head around it (Inception really isn't as complicated at it first appeared so maybe that applies here too) but I do think it has issues, not least the sound mix which, by many accounts, is abysmal in many cinemas you can see it in. And that's not the first time Nolan has had criticism for not making the dialogue audible.
What I am confident about criticising is the Nolan schtick. I said it about Interstellar, and I don't think much has changed - he has his way of weaving concurrent plot threads together until they hit a climax. And to me, it's becoming as cliche as an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Like Shyamalan, Nolan seems incapable of doing anything different. I suppose Dunkirk was about as different as he gets, and that's a film that is entirely based on weaving concurrent plot threads to a crescendo!
There are also some really inconsistent elements, particularly a lead character who is willing to die for the greater good... but willing to risk literally everything in the known universe to save a rich woman he sort of likes. And the Michael Caine scene can fuck off. Calling his character Sir Michael was just silly.
Ultimately I was entertained, and the action scenes were thrilling and brilliantly executed. At the very least you have a sense of urgency; you know the stakes are high because we have been told they are high, even if we don't entirely understand what the stakes actually are. Is that good enough? I don't think so, but at least I had fun.
With "Tinker Tailor......" Gary Oldman's character bought new glasses after being dismissed and so you could tell what was "then" and what is "now". Just need something simple like that to differentiate between the past, present and the future. Back to the Future used different clothing, cars etc but then Mcfly was going back 30 years.
I absolutely loved Tinker Tailor. I watched it twice. First time I failed to understand quite many points but on second viewing a lot of small details just became clear and meaningful. It's one of my favourite films.
I liked Nolan's Inception, Memento and Following. Dunkirk was decent too. But I didn't like Interstellar as to me it was a bit of a mess especially the latter part of the film. I guess I will fail to follow Tenet as well.... I think Tinker Tailor and Interstellar/Tenet are two different kinds of 'difficult to understand' films. With Tinker Tailor I was interested to watch it for a second time and I knew I would have a much better understanding of it/piece everything together on second viewing but I didn't watch Interstellar for a second time as I had no desire to.
Yes, the latter part of Interstellar is incredibly disappointing, otherwise it’s a good film. Have you watched The Prestige? It’s my favourite Nolan film, apart from Inception. By the way @Jessie nice to see you posting again.
Yes I've watched all of Nolan's films apart from Batman Begins. I enjoyed The Prestige right until the end.. I had no idea it was actually a sci-fi film.
I just watched it and thought it was great. Absolute hokum, but so were Inception and Interstellar and they were great too.
Had to explain it to my mate, so sent him this, for anyone struggling to follow it (spoiler alert)
In the future, a scientist has created an algorithm that allows the entropy of an object to be reversed so that it runs *backwards* in time, not forwards. The scientist realised how bad this was, so encoded it in nine separate objects, sent those back in time and hid them, and killed herself so nobody could ever get the algorithm out of her.
At some point later in the future future, the world is fucked, environmentally - and its our fault, and future future people think they're now clever enough to go back in time, wipe us all out and can somehow overcome the grandfather paradox (ie: kill us and they can't ever exist). Denzel's boy and the floppy haired twat out of Twilight are charged with protecting us.
Branagh has been working for the 'future future' dudes to find all the bits of the algorithm and assemble it, so that he can destroy the world because he's dying of incurable cancer and is basically a nasty, vindictive, selfish russkie prick who wants to be the one to end the world on his terms.
That's the basic plot - but don't try to understand the *mechanics* of it, because it all falls apart once you do (Nolan is a cheeky get here, as he actually writes it into the film when Clemence Poesy literally *tells* denzel junior not to think about it too much)
I thought the music was fantastic, and the two leads were good - Pattinson surprisingly, because he's always just reminded me of a more wooden Hugh Grant, Washington unsurprisingly because he was great in BlackkKlansman. Seriously got that quiet badass charisma down well - sacrilege for most people to mention him as a potential James Bond, but this was basically a James Bond movie anyway and I thought he was superb.
Technically brilliant but the story is so convoluted it disappears up its own backside. To the point where the audience doesn’t actually care about any of the characters. Technically brilliant like The Prestige, Memento, Inception and the Dark Knight franchise. But Nolan massively neglected the basic story telling in Tenet.
Tenet is a 7.5-8 out of 10 for me. Hollywood is dominated by generic superhero films so something with fresh ideas that asks the audience to think is not a bad thing.
I just watched it and thought it was great. Absolute hokum, but so were Inception and Interstellar and they were great too.
Had to explain it to my mate, so sent him this, for anyone struggling to follow it (spoiler alert)
In the future, a scientist has created an algorithm that allows the entropy of an object to be reversed so that it runs *backwards* in time, not forwards. The scientist realised how bad this was, so encoded it in nine separate objects, sent those back in time and hid them, and killed herself so nobody could ever get the algorithm out of her.
At some point later in the future future, the world is fucked, environmentally - and its our fault, and future future people think they're now clever enough to go back in time, wipe us all out and can somehow overcome the grandfather paradox (ie: kill us and they can't ever exist). Denzel's boy and the floppy haired twat out of Twilight are charged with protecting us.
Branagh has been working for the 'future future' dudes to find all the bits of the algorithm and assemble it, so that he can destroy the world because he's dying of incurable cancer and is basically a nasty, vindictive, selfish russkie prick who wants to be the one to end the world on his terms.
That's the basic plot - but don't try to understand the *mechanics* of it, because it all falls apart once you do (Nolan is a cheeky get here, as he actually writes it into the film when Clemence Poesy literally *tells* denzel junior not to think about it too much)
I thought the music was fantastic, and the two leads were good - Pattinson surprisingly, because he's always just reminded me of a more wooden Hugh Grant, Washington unsurprisingly because he was great in BlackkKlansman. Seriously got that quiet badass charisma down well - sacrilege for most people to mention him as a potential James Bond, but this was basically a James Bond movie anyway and I thought he was superb.
Also - Elizabeth Debicki is an absolute piece.
Watched it on Christmas Day and loved it ... Bond on acid.
My wife was very unsure about it. As with all Nolan films, needs another viewing.
I think he's often a bit too clever clever clogs .. but people are intrigued by his cleverness and how obscure he can get.. his movies do make LOTS of money though.. like Dunkirk .. $500 MILLION+ .. Tenet has made double its production costs
Loved it. Got it for Christmas on 4K and the spectacle was stunning. My missus fell asleep for 15 minutes about half way through and was totally f*****g lost for the last hour as a result, but I loved it and will watch it again soon.
Two and a half hour pile of nonsense. They wasted $220,000,000 on that. At best you could call it a third-rate Bond film. I would have turned off earlier but I had to see if it was that bad all the say through. And it was.
Two and a half hour pile of nonsense. They wasted $220,000,000 on that. At best you could call it a third-rate Bond film. I would have turned off earlier but I had to see if it was that bad all the say through. And it was.
How is it a waste? It's already made over $360million on a $205million budget. So it's already in profit, which is the primary aim of any Hollywood film. Whether you like it or not is immaterial,making a film is a business venture, and Tenet has been a success from that point of view.
Therefore we can see far from being a waste of $205,000,000, it was a decent investment, almost certain to make over 100% ROI.
I'm yet to see it, but I'm keen to having enjoyed Inception and Interstellar.
Loved it. Got it for Christmas on 4K and the spectacle was stunning. My missus fell asleep for 15 minutes about half way through and was totally f*****g lost for the last hour as a result, but I loved it and will watch it again soon.
Saw BladeRunner 2049 in the cinema late night with a mate, he fell asleep for the crucial 10 minutes in the early/middle of the film when Reynolds finds the horse toy in the factory place, after it was over he was like "It was alright, not a touch on the original, I didn't really get it" yeah mate I wonder why...
Comments
Reverse bungee jumping. Simultaneous backward/forward car chase. Bomb countdown. Girl on yacht. Monomaniacal baddie. Nolan must direct a Bond film (and write it).
It made my brain fall out. I'll need to see it again, preferably in reverse.
Couldn't follow it at all and was bored stiff for large parts. At the end I was expecting we'd been in there well over 3 hours, but it was only about 2 and a half.
Loved Dunkirk, but not this one.
Good to get back in a cinema though.
I liked Nolan's Inception, Memento and Following. Dunkirk was decent too. But I didn't like Interstellar as to me it was a bit of a mess especially the latter part of the film. I guess I will fail to follow Tenet as well.... I think Tinker Tailor and Interstellar/Tenet are two different kinds of 'difficult to understand' films. With Tinker Tailor I was interested to watch it for a second time and I knew I would have a much better understanding of it/piece everything together on second viewing but I didn't watch Interstellar for a second time as I had no desire to.
To be fair it was the “safest” environment I’ve been in since this whole cockeroony kicked off.
I thought about reading the book after watching the film but never got around to it.
Nice sountrack to,
Had to explain it to my mate, so sent him this, for anyone struggling to follow it (spoiler alert)
That's the basic plot - but don't try to understand the *mechanics* of it, because it all falls apart once you do (Nolan is a cheeky get here, as he actually writes it into the film when Clemence Poesy literally *tells* denzel junior not to think about it too much)
I thought the music was fantastic, and the two leads were good - Pattinson surprisingly, because he's always just reminded me of a more wooden Hugh Grant, Washington unsurprisingly because he was great in BlackkKlansman. Seriously got that quiet badass charisma down well - sacrilege for most people to mention him as a potential James Bond, but this was basically a James Bond movie anyway and I thought he was superb.
Also - Elizabeth Debicki is an absolute piece.
Technically brilliant like The Prestige, Memento, Inception and the Dark Knight franchise.
But Nolan massively neglected the basic story telling in Tenet.
Therefore we can see far from being a waste of $205,000,000, it was a decent investment, almost certain to make over 100% ROI.
I'm yet to see it, but I'm keen to having enjoyed Inception and Interstellar.