Tenet User Reviews/Reactions [Possible SPOILERS]

Christopher Nolan's time inverting spy film that follows a protagonist fighting for the survival of the entire world.
Posts: 647
Joined: November 2019
LarsVonDickhead wrote:
September 4th, 2020, 10:08 am
Wow.

I saw this on a late Thursday night. And... I have some thoughts. Spoilers ahead, so fair warning... don't tell me you weren't warned! :judge:
This has to be one of the most expensive arthouse films ever produced by a major film studio - if not THE most expensive one. It's messy, incomprehensible, convoluted... yet oddly beautiful, topical in a strange way (though that just might be my burgeoning interpretation,) and quite... moving?

I was honestly incredibly dismissive of the first hour or so of the movie; nothing was making any sense, the pacing felt rushed, the sound mixing was (as was said by many critics) pretty fucking ridiculous at points. And yet...

...the scene where the Protagonist and Robert Pattinson's character return to an earlier scene of the film happened. And suddenly, my view on the film changed. It reminded me why I love cinema as an art-form.

I'm still processing this movie; I don't think it's perfect, but there's something about it that feels much more experimental and bold than anything Nolan's done in his recent ventures. I'm curious to see what you guys have to think about the film on a conceptual/analytical level. Not too interested in figuring out the logistics of the film, so much as I am the theme. I have some theories/interpretations that I'm having trouble manifesting into words, so... please have at it! I'm insanely curious what you guys think.

(Sorry this seems like a relatively pointless post... like I said, I'm still digesting Tenet. It's a lot of movie. Just want to start a conversation is all!)
Thanks for letting us know your thoughts. I really like your emphasis on the experimental and bold part as well as the "expensive arthouse" comparison which is interesting. Didn’t read the part where you mentioned a scene though since I haven’t seen it.

It’s interesting how different the reactions to this film have been.

User avatar
Posts: 674
Joined: August 2019
I won't rate it because, to rate a movie honestly you need to have some idea or vision of what it could be.

Parts of it are top notch, ending is not satisfactory.

Elizabeth Debicki looks amazing.

Posts: 6
Joined: September 2013
I've seen TENET last week in IMAX and I must admit that it blew me away. So, naturally, I went again this Wednesday.
The IMAX room was about one-third full on both occasions (every other seat was available), so if you have the opportunity, be sure to go to IMAX.

This time around, Nolan's narration is rather traditional, especially in first hour. Then after inversion is introduced to a higher level, the whole thing might get a little confusing. In the best possible way.
I have to admit that during the first screening a few times I started having problems with small things, but either I was quickly catching up with my understanding or I was taking a leap of faith ( :D yeah) and solved the confusing parts after the screening. But this is a question for another thread. Overall, even if particular scene confuses you, it won't affect your perception of the whole thing. Nolan does his best, doesn't try to overcomplicate things, and the movie flows seamlessly.

Naturally, in terms of direction and technology, we are dealing here with the highest-quality craftsmanship. Nolan takes one of the oldest tricks in cinematography (forward vs reverse), gives it a meaning and role in the plot and puts it into a mix of B-class movies, spy movies and sci-fi, creating an explosive mixture.

The film looks and sounds phenomenal (the sound mixing did not bother me at all - it was great, risky and demanding). Hoyte van Hoytema had the opportunity to have fun with the camera & lighting and he used it masterfully (blue&red, Stalker homage). There are several action scenes and I will definitely come back to them many times - the whole sequence in Oslo, great car chase, final battle.

John David Washington has so much coolness and swagger in him that I didn't need any details of his character - his charisma was enough for me. The Protagonist (it's not his name! It's just his role) is just a cool, sardonic agent with mission on his mind. Anyway, for me it's always a stupid argument - the so-called lack of depth characters in movies. If the actor and the director do their best, each character can be interesting.
Pattinson is probably the MVP of the film - he is great and ironic as a specialist helping the protagonist in the next stages of his mission. The chemistry between the main characters is really fantastic.
Debicki and Branagh make an interesting couple - Kat suppresses her emotions to finally vent them; Sator, in turn, is a figure on the verge of exaggeration, but Branagh never exceeds it and balances perfectly on this border.

Jen Lame perfectly coped with the extremely difficult editing - both of the entire movie and action scenes. I have only one objection to a few dialogue scenes (not all, obviously) - sometimes there's too many cuts. Sometimes it would be useful to keep the shot on an actor(s) a little longer longer. It is partially Nolan's fault, who is probably too often satisfied with shot/countershot dialogue scenes (especially the scene on the hill in Amalfi, where apart from establishing shot, we have two talking heads when there's amazing landscape around).

I completely disagree with the accusation that the film lacks emotion. Of course, as it happens in a concept films, the characters have to stand a bit in the shade, but the film definitely has a heart, or even two. The mother and baby story is such a basic movie archetype that it doesn't need extra scenes ("I love You mommy" and stuff), while Washington and Pattinson's bromance gives an emotional kick towards the end of the movie.

Nolan's Tenet certainly made the most divisive movie of his career, but he clearly did it deliberately. You can see it in the reviews: "to much exposition" vs "too little explained and you can't hear anything". He created an original work woven in a very precise way and had the opportunity to implement it on his own terms. We, as an audience, must support the directors who are trying to give us something new.

After the first viewing I would give it strong 8/10, but now I can safely give 9/10.

User avatar
Posts: 674
Joined: August 2019
e-zee wrote:
September 4th, 2020, 10:49 am
I've seen TENET last week in IMAX and I must admit that it blew me away. So, naturally, I went again this Wednesday.
The IMAX room was about one-third full on both occasions (every other seat was available), so if you have the opportunity, be sure to go to IMAX.

This time around, Nolan's narration is rather traditional, especially in first hour. Then after inversion is introduced to a higher level, the whole thing might get a little confusing. In the best possible way.
I have to admit that during the first screening a few times I started having problems with small things, but either I was quickly catching up with my understanding or I was taking a leap of faith ( :D yeah) and solved the confusing parts after the screening. But this is a question for another thread. Overall, even if particular scene confuses you, it won't affect your perception of the whole thing. Nolan does his best, doesn't try to overcomplicate things, and the movie flows seamlessly.

Naturally, in terms of direction and technology, we are dealing here with the highest-quality craftsmanship. Nolan takes one of the oldest tricks in cinematography (forward vs reverse), gives it a meaning and role in the plot and puts it into a mix of B-class movies, spy movies and sci-fi, creating an explosive mixture.

The film looks and sounds phenomenal (the sound mixing did not bother me at all - it was great, risky and demanding). Hoyte van Hoytema had the opportunity to have fun with the camera & lighting and he used it masterfully (blue&red, Stalker homage). There are several action scenes and I will definitely come back to them many times - the whole sequence in Oslo, great car chase, final battle.

John David Washington has so much coolness and swagger in him that I didn't need any details of his character - his charisma was enough for me. The Protagonist (it's not his name! It's just his role) is just a cool, sardonic agent with mission on his mind. Anyway, for me it's always a stupid argument - the so-called lack of depth characters in movies. If the actor and the director do their best, each character can be interesting.
Pattinson is probably the MVP of the film - he is great and ironic as a specialist helping the protagonist in the next stages of his mission. The chemistry between the main characters is really fantastic.
Debicki and Branagh make an interesting couple - Kat suppresses her emotions to finally vent them; Sator, in turn, is a figure on the verge of exaggeration, but Branagh never exceeds it and balances perfectly on this border.

Jen Lame perfectly coped with the extremely difficult editing - both of the entire movie and action scenes. I have only one objection to a few dialogue scenes (not all, obviously) - sometimes there's too many cuts. Sometimes it would be useful to keep the shot on an actor(s) a little longer longer. It is partially Nolan's fault, who is probably too often satisfied with shot/countershot dialogue scenes (especially the scene on the hill in Amalfi, where apart from establishing shot, we have two talking heads when there's amazing landscape around).

I completely disagree with the accusation that the film lacks emotion. Of course, as it happens in a concept films, the characters have to stand a bit in the shade, but the film definitely has a heart, or even two. The mother and baby story is such a basic movie archetype that it doesn't need extra scenes ("I love You mommy" and stuff), while Washington and Pattinson's bromance gives an emotional kick towards the end of the movie.

Nolan's Tenet certainly made the most divisive movie of his career, but he clearly did it deliberately. You can see it in the reviews: "to much exposition" vs "too little explained and you can't hear anything". He created an original work woven in a very precise way and had the opportunity to implement it on his own terms. We, as an audience, must support the directors who are trying to give us something new.

After the first viewing I would give it strong 8/10, but now I can safely give 9/10.
What could it do to be a 10/10 in your book?

(Question to you and everybody else in this thread who rated it and rated it less than ten)

Posts: 17
Joined: June 2020
DarkChocolateOreo wrote:
September 3rd, 2020, 9:00 am
Great review Dobson. Agree with all your points. Really like your point about the Cg, only one or places (like the side mirror in the chase) can you tell Cg is used.
Dobson wrote:
September 3rd, 2020, 8:38 am

The only thing I'm not perfectly happy with is the editing, the movie rushes by way too fast, with little time to build atmosphere or to absorb the setting. It feels like a lot has been cut. As a consequence the film struggles to build this globe throtting adventure feeling that it tries to achieve.
You can tell there was some mandate to get the film to exactly under 2:30:00, probably by the studio. Its a 180 pg script, his longest ever. I think it was too much to edit down and I also think that Jen Lame (while great at editing smaller films) just didnt have the exp necessary for a film of this scale...maybe covid made a bad situation worse

It will never happen but I hope to god that Nolan does a directors cut on the blu-ray. This is the first time Ive really felt like so much was cut.
I’ve been thinking about this since I just saw it. It does feel like it was a bit rushed in places and cut down in places. I agree, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is an alternative/final cut (ala Blade Runner) in a few years.

Posts: 28
Joined: August 2019
I liked it but...

Unlike Nolan’s previous movies, the editing is very choppy, especially the first 40-50 minutes. You could tell there were some scenes missing here and there. I think this film was supposed to be longer but they cut down the runtime. A lot of scenes from the trailers was missing. Here's hoping they release extended cut blu-ray version.

User avatar
Posts: 1310
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Sadly guys, knowing Nolan, he doesn't ever do anything like that, and he won't. I want it just as much as any of you guys do, but no matter what it appears as or what we want to think, the cut was ultimately in his vision without any producer interference.

It is entirely possible that he himself decided that 150 minutes is the proper amount for this particular theatrical experience, and he won't change that for the UHD/Blu-ray/DVD/digital release at all even though it's a completely different viewing environment. That's why we get shifting aspect ratios on the UHD and Blu-ray as well, even though it doesn't at all mimic that of a true IMAX screen.

Editing seems like the hardest part of the job. Take Mission: Impossible - Fallout, for example. There were entire sequences cut out of that film for the sake of time. Listen to McQ's commentaries and podcasts about this. Despite the fact that millions of dollars were spent on something that didn't make a final cut, the pacing is always, always, always the ultimate consideration for that particular viewing experience. It might even be a better scene than those around it, but in scope it didn't enhance the film because of how it played alongside everything else. Leaving things out are difficult decisions to make when you're so heavily invested in your own creation.

And random, but it's funny how people thought that TDKR cut out like a half hour of footage, when really it cut out like eighty seconds. I'm not saying people are bringing that up here, but when it was brought up it was always interesting to see how misinformed people were on that (the screenplay and novelization can both attest to what was planned or shot originally).

Posts: 17
Joined: June 2020
MuffinMcFluffin wrote:
September 4th, 2020, 4:00 pm
Sadly guys, knowing Nolan, he doesn't ever do anything like that, and he won't. I want it just as much as any of you guys do, but no matter what it appears as or what we want to think, the cut was ultimately in his vision without any producer interference.

It is entirely possible that he himself decided that 150 minutes is the proper amount for this particular theatrical experience, and he won't change that for the UHD/Blu-ray/DVD/digital release at all even though it's a completely different viewing environment. That's why we get shifting aspect ratios on the UHD and Blu-ray as well, even though it doesn't at all mimic that of a true IMAX screen.

Editing seems like the hardest part of the job. Take Mission: Impossible - Fallout, for example. There were entire sequences cut out of that film for the sake of time. Listen to McQ's commentaries and podcasts about this. Despite the fact that millions of dollars were spent on something that didn't make a final cut, the pacing is always, always, always the ultimate consideration for that particular viewing experience. It might even be a better scene than those around it, but in scope it didn't enhance the film because of how it played alongside everything else. Leaving things out are difficult decisions to make when you're so heavily invested in your own creation.

And random, but it's funny how people thought that TDKR cut out like a half hour of footage, when really it cut out like eighty seconds. I'm not saying people are bringing that up here, but when it was brought up it was always interesting to see how misinformed people were on that (the screenplay and novelization can both attest to what was planned or shot originally).
I think you’re right, it’s highly unlikely that an alternate cut will come out (as I know he gets final cut on his films) it just feels like if there is one of his films that could get that treatment, it would be Tenet.

Regarding TDKR, the only shot from trailers that I wished had been in the film was Bruce walking into the gala as the rose petals fell.

User avatar
Posts: 1310
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
StuFish wrote:
September 4th, 2020, 4:22 pm
Regarding TDKR, the only shot from trailers that I wished had been in the film was Bruce walking into the gala as the rose petals fell.
I love that shot and was thinking of the same thing. Don't know how it would work with the pacing of everything else, but I know what you mean.

This is partially why I avoid trailers now before seeing the movie. No expectations going into it. Missing the Joker saying: "Kill... the Batman" instead of his "We, uh, kill the Batman" kind of threw me for a loop, as well as not getting that creepy low angle shot of him approaching Batman after he crashes his pod, knife engaged.

Nolan does make questionable shooting/editing decisions sometimes that I'm frankly proud of him showing some restraint with when some other director would go: "Look at me, everyone!" Like in Inception when Cobb is pulling off the Mr. Charles routine on Fischer in the hotel restaurant, so little is focused on the shift of the room's gravity. This is something they probably spent so much money on designing an entire room to move, and yet you have to look around at blinds and fishbowls that show it instead of having it call attention to itself. Like I said, he does this often... simply enough to create the effect, and less so to whore it out.

Posts: 1230
Joined: January 2019
Nolan had absolute control over the film. This is what he wanted to do. This is an experimental blockbuster. Now that I think of it, it's may be even more experimental than Dunkirk. Nolan doesn't care if people have time to understand or can hear the characters. He just want them to feel the movie.
It's all in the interview Nolan did for French Magazine Premiere two months ago:
-telling a story that can only be told through cinema
-the fact that film when you look at the successive frames, is the only way you can actually see time, like a fourth dimension, an idea that has obsessed Nolan
-having the "mise en scène" be entirely depending on the concept, and the concept being expressed through the "mise en scène" and not the plot (Inception) or the editing (Dunkirk, Memento).

Post Reply