Film TENET

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
17,606
I enjoyed it a lot. For now it's a tier beneath my favourites from him, but my opinion on it might change. While The Prestige and Dunkirk went up in my estimation after multiple viewings, Inception and Memento suffered on re-watch. And since the cinema is so goddamn expensive, the second viewing will have to wait until blu ray.
With most Christian Nolan films, I appreciate them more the 2nd time.
 

Rooney in Paris

Gerrard shirt..Anfield? You'll Never Live it Down
Scout
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
31,057
Location
In an elephant sanctuary
I enjoyed The Prestige as it was escapist popcorn rubbish. I don't hate Nolan but find much of his output flawed or boring. Insomnia and Memento probably work for me best. And Inception was fun when it should have been a disaster.

Interstellar was truly terrible - the science was garbage - hated it.
I mean... I can get hating Interstellar (I don't, I think it's probably my favourite by Nolan), but there's as many scientists who would defend it as there are scientists who would not. There's whole books about "The science of Interstallar", and it's certainly no more or less garbage than most sci-fi films (certainly less so I'd argue).
 

Ivor Ballokov

Full Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
11,344
Location
@arrowsleeper
I mean... I can get hating Interstellar (I don't, I think it's probably my favourite by Nolan), but there's as many scientists who would defend it as there are scientists who would not. There's whole books about "The science of Interstallar", and it's certainly no more or less garbage than most sci-fi films (certainly less so I'd argue).
Don't listen to Wibble, he liked Insomnia which was total garbage.
 

Wolverine

Full Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
2,070
Location
Leicester
I liked it, sound in the first half was horrible and annoyingly affected the exposition meaning I didn't fully grasp everything that was going on. Felt quite unique though in terms of visual style and to make something experimental like that with blockbuster/popcorn flick appeal was risky but they got it just about right. Acting was good too, ending was a bit underwhelming but overall apart from standing up as a decent film in its own right I have no idea how people who like going to the cinema wouldn't enjoy it after prolonged lockdown.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
75,566
Location
Get vaccinated or kill Penna you selfish bastards
I mean... I can get hating Interstellar (I don't, I think it's probably my favourite by Nolan), but there's as many scientists who would defend it as there are scientists who would not. There's whole books about "The science of Interstallar", and it's certainly no more or less garbage than most sci-fi films (certainly less so I'd argue).
Except it takes itself so seriously yet is so ludicrous that it makes it impossible to suspend your disbelief.

Probably the worst one Is that if wormholes were actually real they may be able to transport matter but only after ripping a person apart. They would not then magically reassemble a person at the other end. Communication through one would be equally impossible. And as for a blight increasing nitrogen and decreases oxygen on earth? Huh?

And some of the other planet's physic were silly. Planet around a black hole? Where was the light coming from. How could it possibly be in a stable orbit? Ice clouds on another? Clouds can't be made of ice as they would fall - hundreds of bits of lazy crap science just made it unwatchable. And that fecking bookcase.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
105,599
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Except it takes itself so seriously yet is so ludicrous that it makes it impossible to suspend your disbelief.

Probably the worst one Is that if wormholes were actually real they may be able to transport matter but only after ripping a person apart. They would not then magically reassemble a person at the other end. Communication through one would be equally impossible. And as for a blight increasing nitrogen and decreases oxygen on earth? Huh?

And some of the other planet's physic were silly. Planet around a black hole? Where was the light coming from. How could it possibly be in a stable orbit? Ice clouds on another? Clouds can't be made of ice as they would fall - hundreds of bits of lazy crap science just made it unwatchable. And that fecking bookcase.
Plus the epilogue.Which was a steaming pile of cheesy shite. How the hell did those 15 minutes make the final cut?
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
54,832
Location
Get to the chopppaaaa.
Except it takes itself so seriously yet is so ludicrous that it makes it impossible to suspend your disbelief.

Probably the worst one Is that if wormholes were actually real they may be able to transport matter but only after ripping a person apart. They would not then magically reassemble a person at the other end. Communication through one would be equally impossible. And as for a blight increasing nitrogen and decreases oxygen on earth? Huh?

And some of the other planet's physic were silly. Planet around a black hole? Where was the light coming from. How could it possibly be in a stable orbit? Ice clouds on another? Clouds can't be made of ice as they would fall - hundreds of bits of lazy crap science just made it unwatchable. And that fecking bookcase.

Sounds like Shamalayan wrote it.
 

Big Andy

Is really a midget
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
31,685
Absolute bilge. Could not get my head around it. I don’t go to the cinema to be confused, I go to to be entertained and enjoy myself.
 

OleBoiii

Full Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
2,396
With most Christian Nolan films, I appreciate them more the 2nd time.
For me it's the exact opposite. His dialogues are painful to listen to. That's why I consider Dunkirk to be one of his best movies.
 

SnowRoll

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
1,411
Location
Cheadle
Me too at the bolded part. The sound really was bad. Even though i'm 99% sure I caught everything. It was really annoying. And to top it off everyone in the movie was wearing mas- Hang on a minute. Is future Christopher Nolan trying to send us a message.

1. You're totally right regarding catching cancer early, but pancreatic cancer is diagnosed really late because it takes more time for symptoms to show. (By the time you feel it and go to the hospital, you're waaaaay past saveable) That being said though, I agree with you that it would have been more interesting for Sator to be caught between a rock and a hard place in that he controls inversion in the future but also in that future ravaged by climate change the support structure for modern medicine has broken down and he needs to risk coming back for something like gene-therapy, and when this too fails it's what leads him to opt for suicide 'in his happiest moment' and ultimately inadvertently threatens the spacetime continuum. This fits more with the determinism/free will theme. It's a huge dropping-of-the-ball from Nolan and a big 'win' for the "guys guys Nolan isn't as smart as the acolytes think' camp. Hope that answers your question about the pancreatic cancer thing: yes currently it's all pretty treatable if you catch it early but pancreatic is caught really really really late and that's very likely why Nolan chose it.

2. Also, no, you can't travel forward (or backwards, for that matter) faster than 'real-time' within the movie's logic. Even when you go "back", you're going back 'in real time'; AKA it'd take you forty years to go back forty years in real time. (IIRC when they invert inverted-bullet-wounded Kat and go to the airport (again) to re-invert, they plan it so that a few days elapse in 'backwards time' so she can heal) That's how the future Sator is sending himself inverted bullets, for example. He's burying notes saying: "Give me inverted munitions here in this spot" and many years in the future, the older Sator (who remembers himself making that request, like JDW remembers giving Kat the 'leave me a distress call anytime' message) is burying inverted munitions (sixty-year old bullets, for example) in that spot, upon which they slowly trickle back through time and arrive 'right away' (and in six-month old practically new condition) for past Sator. DONT ASK HOW FUTURE SATOR IS ALIVE IN THE FUTURE WHEN APPARENTLY ACCORDING TO THE MOVIE HE KILLS HIMSELF NOT TOO FAR FROM NOW (YES WE KNOW IT MIGHT NOT BE SATOR HIMSELF ACTING IN THE FUTURE BUT THE MOVIE CLAIMS IT IS)
Thanks. I think we agree on 1.
We can also agree that I've misunderstood the fundamental aspect of how the inversion works...I'm even struggling to grasp your detailed explanation...
Still, a very enjoyable movie. The fact that 3 days after watching it, I'm still thinking about it, is a testament. Hopefully, with another viewing or two, I'll better understand it.

I enjoyed The Prestige as it was escapist popcorn rubbish. I don't hate Nolan but find much of his output flawed or boring. Insomnia and Memento probably work for me best. And Inception was fun when it should have been a disaster.

Interstellar was truly terrible - the science was garbage - hated it.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
75,566
Location
Get vaccinated or kill Penna you selfish bastards
Because some of it was either accurate or at least possible that doesn't make the utter garbage go away. So much if it was lazy and/or impossible. Using some decent/possible science and setting itself up as being scientifically accurate made the rubbish stand out like dog balls.

And an advert for the film from the Discovery Channel does make that go away.

I'm going to watch TENET because I didn't hate Inception. I was actually sort of impressed that I got to the end and it sort of/more or less made sense.
 

jungledrums

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
2,525
Because some of it was either accurate or at least possible that doesn't make the utter garbage go away. So much if it was lazy and/or impossible. Using some decent/possible science and setting itself up as being scientifically accurate made the rubbish stand out like dog balls.

And an advert for the film from the Discovery Channel does make that go away.

I'm going to watch TENET because I didn't hate Inception. I was actually sort of impressed that I got to the end and it sort of/more or less made sense.
Did it necessarily set itself up as being scientifically accurate though? Genuine question.

I think, as an earlier poster said, it’s no more outlandish than many other decent sci fi films.
 

GBBQ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
4,192
Location
Ireland
I enjoyed it for the spectacle (and for it being the first time in months I was in the cinema) but I think he put too much weight in the concept and not enough in the actual story he was telling. I am sure there's layers of symbolism and deeper meaning that will be unearthed but for me its all cosmetic because the meat of the story just wasn't all that compelling

Questions:

So are there now 2 Kats living in the world? 2 protagonists?
Why was time travelling Sator not a tiny bit suspicious of his wife suddenly being loving at the exact moment he planned to kill himself?
 

Jev

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
5,540
Location
Denmark
I enjoyed it for the spectacle (and for it being the first time in months I was in the cinema) but I think he put too much weight in the concept and not enough in the actual story he was telling. I am sure there's layers of symbolism and deeper meaning that will be unearthed but for me its all cosmetic because the meat of the story just wasn't all that compelling

Questions:

So are there now 2 Kats living in the world? 2 protagonists?
Why was time travelling Sator not a tiny bit suspicious of his wife suddenly being loving at the exact moment he planned to kill himself?
Yes, there are two Kats for a brief moment, until the 'old' Kat gets shot and is inverted, thus ending the loop.

The other question, I was wondering that too. Was constantly waiting for him to reveal he knew exactly what was going on. You have to remember, though, that Kat had said she'd be loving to him that entire trip so his guards were probably down.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
17,606
I enjoyed it for the spectacle (and for it being the first time in months I was in the cinema) but I think he put too much weight in the concept and not enough in the actual story he was telling. I am sure there's layers of symbolism and deeper meaning that will be unearthed but for me its all cosmetic because the meat of the story just wasn't all that compelling

Questions:

So are there now 2 Kats living in the world? 2 protagonists?
Why was time travelling Sator not a tiny bit suspicious of his wife suddenly being loving at the exact moment he planned to kill himself?
Re Sator:

He shot her with an inverted bullet, which he believed she could not possibly survive at the time. So he probably thought there was no way he could be talking to the "future" Kat - at least initially. Then he did start to suspect as time went on

My question - we are all in agreement with this theory?

R Pats is Kat's son?
 

GBBQ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
4,192
Location
Ireland
My question - we are all in agreement with this theory?

R Pats is Kat's son?
i didn't cop it during the film but read the theory afterwards and I suppose there's enough signs there. Having a think back, one thing that jumped out was at the end of the film The protagonist says he'll keep away from kat. R Pats says something like are you sure you wont keep an eye on her, even from afar. At the time I was wondering if he was hinting that they would actually have a relationship but taking it a step further, Neil knowing this could be due to him being Max and The protagonist becoming his step father. Would give him even more reason to give his life to save him.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
105,599
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Did it necessarily set itself up as being scientifically accurate though? Genuine question.

I think, as an earlier poster said, it’s no more outlandish than many other decent sci fi films.
I don’t think it did but it’s more of a general Christopher Nolan blockbuster movie flaw in that it gives the impression you should take this all very seriously. You’re watching an intelligent movie, for intelligent people. Which makes obvious plot holes and silly science harder to take than in, say, Thor Ragnarok.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
17,606
i didn't cop it during the film but read the theory afterwards and I suppose there's enough signs there. Having a think back, one thing that jumped out was at the end of the film The protagonist says he'll keep away from kat. R Pats says something like are you sure you wont keep an eye on her, even from afar. At the time I was wondering if he was hinting that they would actually have a relationship but taking it a step further, Neil knowing this could be due to him being Max and The protagonist becoming his step father. Would give him even more reason to give his life to save him.
Yes, in fact I am now 99.9% sure that this is the case. Nolan I think spoke out on it refusing to rule it out.

There's actually a lot of hints which when looking back on it make it pretty obvious. I fecking love the film now :lol:
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
75,566
Location
Get vaccinated or kill Penna you selfish bastards
Did it necessarily set itself up as being scientifically accurate though? Genuine question.

I think, as an earlier poster said, it’s no more outlandish than many other decent sci fi films.
Yes - very much so. It prided itself on it.

Other sci-fi films skim over flaws or explain them with non-specific things like warp drive or teleportation, that allow you to suspend your disbelief.

But give me bullshit pretend facts mixed in with real and maybe real physics and I'll hate it.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
48,105
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Yes - very much so. It prided itself on it.

Other sci-fi films skim over flaws or explain them with non-specific things like warp drive or teleportation, that allow you to suspend your disbelief.

But give me bullshit pretend facts mixed in with real and maybe real physics and I'll hate it.
The Human Centipede claimed to be "100% anatomically accurate".
 

CassiusClaymore

Is it Gaizka Mendieta?
Scout
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
28,640
Location
None of your business mate
Yes, in fact I am now 99.9% sure that this is the case. Nolan I think spoke out on it refusing to rule it out.

There's actually a lot of hints which when looking back on it make it pretty obvious. I fecking love the film now :lol:
I'm not sure about this at all. I thought the way that time travel works in this film was that you can reverse it by going through one of the turnstiles and travel back but there's no jumping to a point in the past.

With that it mind let's say Robert Pattinson is 30 years older than the kid, he'd have had to have gone through the turnstiles 15 years into the future of these events (assuming you age the same going backwards) and then waited another 15 years in an inverted timeline to get to this point. That's a bit mental.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
48,105
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
You're saying it wasn't?
Hmm, apparently not.

“The whole experience can be quite nauseating for the victim. As anyone who has vomited knows, it is a violent process and likely to dislodge the staples. In addition, as there is not a place for vomit to go for two of the victims (B and C), they would likely inhale vomit. This would cause chemical injury to the lungs from stomach acid, difficulty breathing, and pneumonia.”
https://filmschoolrejects.com/horro...ipede-really-medically-accurate-84c1af7091e7/
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
48,105
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Oh come on, the whole article is nonsense. “Absolutely under no circumstances should people seek out or plan to do surgical procedures in a basement.”

I mean, where am I supposed to do it instead?
:lol:Just imagining the reporter explaining the premise of the film to the doctor, if she hadn't heard of it.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
17,606
I'm not sure about this at all. I thought the way that time travel works in this film was that you can reverse it by going through one of the turnstiles and travel back but there's no jumping to a point in the past.

With that it mind let's say Robert Pattinson is 30 years older than the kid, he'd have had to have gone through the turnstiles 15 years into the future of these events (assuming you age the same going backwards) and then waited another 15 years in an inverted timeline to get to this point. That's a bit mental.
Still think there is more credence to the theory being true, even noting the above. He could have gone back and forwards a year at a time, or, perhaps your body can revert to a younger self in time travel.

- He can de-crypt Estonian even when it's backwards (from the car-chase) - so he can speak both English and Estonian (coincidently Kat and Saito's native languages).
- Nolan confirmed Neil is not his real name, which begs the question why he would need to hide it in the first place from a man who he was supposedly "great friends" with.
- He takes joint interest with the protagonist in safeguarding the life of Kat. In reality I'd expect him to probably say "feck her life, you're risking the rest of the world". But seems to be wanting to save her just as much.
- There are other hints scattered around the film. Like the random line in Mumbai where he asks "would you risk a boys life" and "would you risk a womans life". I don't think its a coincidence that the Protagonist is actually faced with this predicament later down the line and Neil wanted to gauge his actions.

Full video:
 

NinjaZombie

Punched the air when Liverpool beat City
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
8,054
With most Christian Nolan films, I appreciate them more the 2nd time.
I was thinking that's how he gets studios to bankroll his films.

"I'll make a movie so confusing, people would pay money to watch them 3-4 times to understand them."

I'm planning to watch it a second time. Enjoyable film. Though I feel the dialogue was overpowered by the music at times, although that might be an issue with the cinema I watched it in.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
17,606
I was thinking that's how he gets studios to bankroll his films.

"I'll make a movie so confusing, people would pay money to watch them 3-4 times to understand them."

I'm planning to watch it a second time. Enjoyable film. Though I feel the dialogue was overpowered by the music at times, although that might be an issue with the cinema I watched it in.
Think it's a consistent criticism, wonder if WB can fix it retrospectively.
 

Ibi Dreams

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
4,648
Just watched this, didn't think it was very good at all.

I thought the plot was messy and confusing, and the time travel aspect was poorly explained, but most of all it just wasn't very entertaining. After an hour or so I just didn't find it exciting or interesting and I didn't get invested in any of the characters. Conceptually I think it was a good idea and I imagine that the timelines and temporal feckery would probably more or less hold up to scrutiny, it was just... dull. I was just waiting for it to end after 90 minutes. Stylistically I didn't really see anything that interesting, and that battle in the last 20-30 minutes was crap considering it was supposed to be the climax of the film and the climax of the time travel technology.

I liked Nolan's earlier films but I haven't really liked anything he's done since The Dark Knight. This felt a bit like Dunkirk, in the way that it presented something major and world changing but failed to actually make me connect with it on a personal level
 

Ibi Dreams

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
4,648
Oh yeah and the sound mixing was definitely shit. I'm in a foreign country and I was annoyed that everyone around me could read the subtitles for every line while I was wondering what the hell they'd just said.
 

Turnip

likes to be spanked with games consoles
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
1,858
Location
Beckham's right nipple
I loved Tenet's story, the action and the way it was shot was amazing too, and I don't think it was nearly as confusing as everyone said. However,
there were bits of science that made no sense, the main one being inverted bullet holes. A bullet shot by an inverted person goes into a window meaning it was there when the window was manufactured when going forwards in time? That window company needs better QA. Even if you could say they had a cleanup crew or something to make timelines consistent, which is unbelievable, what about the bullets in the stone near the beginning of the film where it was the bullets themselves that were inverted, how did they get there in the first place? Maybe that's why the scientist woman with the inverted bullets said not to think, because if you did you'd realise it makes no sense.

Despite more nonsensical pseudo science I loved the film and it's one of my favourites by Nolan straight away. I love that he's not afraid to make complicated action films, I want more of that, action doesn't mean that we have to have a boring story to justify it, but sometimes I wish he'd only leave science in there that isn't obviously nonsense.
 

Donut

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
4,198
Thanks for making me feel dumb as feck Nolan. Did not like this at all.
 

Libano

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
865
Location
Where the grass is greener
Form over content. At the end of the day the basic story was not very compelling (find the 'algorithm to save the world'). It was a high risk project that in my opinion did not fully pay off. An example of how timeline wizardry can enhance a story is his own masterpiece Dunkirk. That movie not only had me in its grip from start to finish, it also provided a deeper meaning of personal sacrifice for the greater good. Tenet felt like a tricked out high stakes heist movie, technically impressive but disjointed and emotionally uninvolving.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
is this a must see in cinema, or can I wait for the streams which will soon flood into waves, which of course I will report the the authorities.?
 

Salt Bailly

Full Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
1,254
Location
Valinor
This was awesome. No sound issues in the Cineworld I attended. Gutted to not see it in Imax.

Did anyone else think Aaron Taylor Johnson's character was obviously written for tom hardy but he couldn't do it for whatever reason?

Also, was there a subtle nod to this being Michael Caine's final nolan film? The last words Washington says to him are "Goodbye, Sir Michael". Nice touch if so.

Now to figure out where it fits in the ranking of Nolan flicks.
 

SS

Full Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
4,063
Location
UK
Like others have said, the audio mixing pissed me off. Really isn't the kind of film you want to be guessing lines in. Feel like I've got a good grasp of what happened regardless, but have a few questions.

If Sator dies, how does he even exist in the future? Or is it that the Sator about to kill himself was actually the Sator that travelled from the future, but reinverted?

After reinverting themselves at the airport, how did Cat (and I think the other two) invert themselves again to travel further back? The airport surely wasn't an option as they'd have to relive the explosion alongside their current selves and the other turnstiles are in Siberia and Estonia. Did Tenet just take over Sator's Estonia base from that point onwards?

Unrelated to all that, but did anyone else think Washington was slightly too smug for someone that didn't really have a clue of what was happening for a while? Not to the point that it annoyed me, but still.

Planning on watching it again anyway, maybe at the cinema or maybe at home with subtitles.

@Salt Bailly 100% thought the same thing about Ives. Assumed it actually was him for a split second.
 
Last edited: