Nay
Film TENET
- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
My favourite Nolan film for ages. I really liked it.
Why was the sound editing so bad.
Why was the sound editing so bad.
I was thinking about this and I wonder if it's because
the emotions were already in effect. The protagonist was like how we viewed the film, he was learning everything for the first time. But Neil wasn't, he was from the future so his abidance with the protagonist and chemistry was pre established. And I felt the wife had a good emotional side, given the domestic abuse and what not. Also curious whether the "Robert Pattinson is her son" theory has any weight to it. It would explain the big significance the soldiers gave to keeping her alive.
I mean very early on in that review she has missed the “lesson” from the opening scene when it is clearly spelled out numerous tines
How did this pass test audience screening without the sound mixing being balanced out for the general release?
Nolan's films already have a bad rep for the sound mixing, but this one is the worst yet by a distance.
A lot of lines got drowned out by cacophony and left most viewers I could see around me in the cinema nudging who they went with as they tried to decipher what some of the lines of dialogue were. My OH did this for the first 20 minutes and then I think she just gave up and started playing verbal charades guessing the blanks.
This one is perfect fodder for parody for that alone.
A subtitled re-watch is going to be in order for a lot of people, or better yet, they fix the sound before the home release.
Nolan's films already have a bad rep for the sound mixing, but this one is the worst yet by a distance.
A lot of lines got drowned out by cacophony and left most viewers I could see around me in the cinema nudging who they went with as they tried to decipher what some of the lines of dialogue were. My OH did this for the first 20 minutes and then I think she just gave up and started playing verbal charades guessing the blanks.
This one is perfect fodder for parody for that alone.
A subtitled re-watch is going to be in order for a lot of people, or better yet, they fix the sound before the home release.
Without spoilers, how does it compare to Inception?
poor sound mixing aside, I'm looking to seeing this again
For me Inception is his best, so it's not as good as this. But I would have it as an equally creative concept, albeit a lot more confusing than Inception. Inception was an evenly paced film in my opinion, Tenet I believe gathers a lot more pace in the final third of the film. I was equally impressed with the actors, which is interesting given how Tenet has no "massive" names. Visuals of both films were outstanding, I think Tenet has better action for me.
Pretty damming review tbh
I was going to write something similar but you summed up my thoughts well too. This was an excellent IMAX watch and very clever.
I got lost a bit towards the end but it was very enjoyable overall, nonetheless.
I think it’s a bit more fun than Inception if not quite as sophisticated.
To be honest, I didn’t notice the music / sound issues. Maybe the theater matters, as well? I’m not sure.
I think it’s a bit more fun than Inception if not quite as sophisticated.
To be honest, I didn’t notice the music / sound issues. Maybe the theater matters, as well? I’m not sure.
This is that most Nolan of all Nolan films. It's full Nolan. I enjoyed it.
People are right about the sound(track) drowning out the dialogue too. Was told it's because he uses IMAX cameras to shoot and needs to cover up the noise they make.
People are right about the sound(track) drowning out the dialogue too. Was told it's because he uses IMAX cameras to shoot and needs to cover up the noise they make.
Loved it. I didn’t understand all, nor did I expect to understand all, but I loved it. Great entertainment. Obvious flaws, but two intense and enjoyable hours.
Questions:
Questions:
Why didn’t Kat have to wear a mask when traveling back to take care of business on the boat?
Also, Pattinson is Max. Or? I think it’s obvious, some of my mates don’t.
Also, Pattinson is Max. Or? I think it’s obvious, some of my mates don’t.
Because they re-inverted her. The whole (second) hoopla at the airport was to invert her again so she could breathe/act normally. Don't ask how inverting someone magically knows to skip over any already-inverted parts.
@hungrywing Ah. I think I understand. But I probably don’t.
Join the club brother
We're told not to try understand it, it's OK.
Thanks for clarifying, I also struggled with that.
Also,
Why would Pryia want to kill Kat?
If one could bend time enough, like what was done with Kat, why couldn't Sator go back to a point when/where he could be treated for his cancer?
If one could bend time enough, like what was done with Kat, why couldn't Sator go back to a point when/where he could be treated for his cancer?
Yeah. This is the kind of stuff I was referring to earlier in the thread when I responded to Rn7 saying the movie was under-written.
Waaaaaaaaay too many of these 'Hang on a minute-' type questions. The scene was meant to show JDW superseding Priya/Priya realizing JDW is above her on the totem pole but there are other ways to do that.
Regarding Sator though, they did say it was inoperable pancreatic cancer, even in our non-climate-change-ravaged medical system.
That being said: IMO they missed a chance to have an eons-old character traveling back and forth through time, aging and de-aging.
Waaaaaaaaay too many of these 'Hang on a minute-' type questions. The scene was meant to show JDW superseding Priya/Priya realizing JDW is above her on the totem pole but there are other ways to do that.
Regarding Sator though, they did say it was inoperable pancreatic cancer, even in our non-climate-change-ravaged medical system.
That being said: IMO they missed a chance to have an eons-old character traveling back and forth through time, aging and de-aging.
Bolded part x10. This is the kind of stuff I was referring to earlier in the thread when I responded to Rn7 saying the movie was under-written.
Waaaaaaaaay too many of these 'Hang on a minute-' type questions. The scene was meant to show JDW superseding Priya/Priya realizing JDW is above her on the totem pole but there are other ways to do that.
Regarding Sator though, they did say it was inoperable pancreatic cancer, even in our non-climate-change-ravaged medical system.
That being said: IMO they missed a chance to have an eons-old character traveling back and forth through time, aging and de-aging.
Waaaaaaaaay too many of these 'Hang on a minute-' type questions. The scene was meant to show JDW superseding Priya/Priya realizing JDW is above her on the totem pole but there are other ways to do that.
Regarding Sator though, they did say it was inoperable pancreatic cancer, even in our non-climate-change-ravaged medical system.
That being said: IMO they missed a chance to have an eons-old character traveling back and forth through time, aging and de-aging.
Cheers!
Like many others, I'm also waiting to re-watch the movie, with subtitles. In no other movie have I missed so many parts of dialogue (although, I did enjoy the high volume of the sound). Maybe I'll just re-watch it in the cinema, I'm sure I'll understand a lot more on the second viewing.
While we're at it:
Regarding the cancer - I'm no doctor, but I think any type of cancer would be treatable if diagnosed early enough. So if time travel is possible in the "regular" sense, then Sator should be able to travel back enough in time to be treatable (or forward enough to an era with advanced technology and medical capabilities. Or is time-traveling forward impossible? 
).
Anyway, they could have chosen a different terminal illness other than cancer, perhaps something genetic and then I would have been more convinced that it's inoperable/incurable - even with time-travel capabilities.
).Anyway, they could have chosen a different terminal illness other than cancer, perhaps something genetic and then I would have been more convinced that it's inoperable/incurable - even with time-travel capabilities.
Saw this the other day and was massively underwhelmed.
Seems like it just attempted to be pretentious from the start and ended up disappearing up its own backside.
It's too long, too noisy (in the wrong places) and there are some awful continuity errors that I wouldn't expect to see in a film with 10% of the budget this had.
I think that given the same plot, they (or he) could have streamlined and simplified it a lot and it would have made for a much better film.
The general reaction amongst people I know that have seen it is meh.
Seems like it just attempted to be pretentious from the start and ended up disappearing up its own backside.
It's too long, too noisy (in the wrong places) and there are some awful continuity errors that I wouldn't expect to see in a film with 10% of the budget this had.
I think that given the same plot, they (or he) could have streamlined and simplified it a lot and it would have made for a much better film.
The general reaction amongst people I know that have seen it is meh.
The more distance I get from this, the more I think it might be my favourite Nolan. I'm not a huge fan of his anyway, I always find his films to be emotionally distant and so technically precise that they're almost robotic, but I think his concepts are strong enough to carry me through to the end. This does more than that. There's so much to love in Tenet's delivery of the concept he's come up with here - just breaking it down and investigating how it all pieces together - that I've been thinking about it ever since I saw it. The more it all clicks together, the more it makes sense, and I'm honestly still coming down from the entire second half. Still contains all the issues I have with him (emotionally distant, dialogue is deliberately quiet) but brings its parts together to create a real cinematic experience.
I enjoyed it - I think. I didn't understand everything, but the complexities that eluded me didn't spoil the overall "fun" I was having. There's a love of cinema and its techniques that is apparent in each Nolan film, this guy really likes making films, even when they end up being ridiculously convaluted or over the top, and it's usually an enjoyable ride. I think the "pompous" or "pretentious" critics he gets are totally unjustified, if anything I would say it's the contrary. Sure, he likes writing overly complex scenarios with gimmicky gimmicks for the sake of it, but seriously - so what? He's clearly having a lot of fun with it, like a kid who's just opened his Christmas presents and runs around the house playing with them.
Only criticism I can make of his films is that they lack some levity (everything is always super intense and serious - lighten up Chris!) and the emotional distance with the characters. I felt all the actors did a fine job, but it's pretty clear Nolan doesn't care so much about developing the emotional attachments or impact of certain events on screen, rather than establishing they're there (mother loves her son; woman hates her husband...) for pure narrative purposes.
Still, it's a pretty fine film and one that can be enjoyed with a sufficient amount of suspension of disbelief. I'll re-watch it some time (though not immediately) with pleasure and I don't regret having seen it at the cinema.
Only criticism I can make of his films is that they lack some levity (everything is always super intense and serious - lighten up Chris!) and the emotional distance with the characters. I felt all the actors did a fine job, but it's pretty clear Nolan doesn't care so much about developing the emotional attachments or impact of certain events on screen, rather than establishing they're there (mother loves her son; woman hates her husband...) for pure narrative purposes.
Still, it's a pretty fine film and one that can be enjoyed with a sufficient amount of suspension of disbelief. I'll re-watch it some time (though not immediately) with pleasure and I don't regret having seen it at the cinema.
Not seen this yet, but I think this is a good take on Nolan generally. On the humour as well, I think this may be why I'm fond of Interstellar, because TARS is quite fun. Maybe partly because he's actually voiced by a comedian. But yeah, he's actually making big budget original films in the age of sequels, remakes and superheroes, it's a good thing.
So who does the parody first? Rick n Morty or South Park?
The film is very much like a Rick n Morty episode!
Question
same person then? Rpatz grows up, joins JDW only to go back in time and sacrifice himself?
Some AV receivers have that capability. Yamaha has a line of receivers with a feature called Dialogue Lift. Others, I think, just have Quiet Mode or similar, designed to change the volume-ratio between dialogue levels and music/effects.
Cheers!
Like many others, I'm also waiting to re-watch the movie, with subtitles. In no other movie have I missed so many parts of dialogue (although, I did enjoy the high volume of the sound). Maybe I'll just re-watch it in the cinema, I'm sure I'll understand a lot more on the second viewing.
While we're at it:
Regarding the cancer - I'm no doctor, but I think any type of cancer would be treatable if diagnosed early enough. So if time travel is possible in the "regular" sense, then Sator should be able to travel back enough in time to be treatable (or forward enough to an era with advanced technology and medical capabilities. Or is time-traveling forward impossible?
Anyway, they could have chosen a different terminal illness other than cancer, perhaps something genetic and then I would have been more convinced that it's inoperable/incurable - even with time-travel capabilities.
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)
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)
Last edited:
Not a massive fan of Nolan. Momento was great but as Spoony said, it relied on a gimmick.
Inception wasn't bad as I wasn't expecting it to more or less hang together/make sense.
Not a superhero fan so the Batman films were just watchable popcorn to me.
Dunkirk was terrible - it didn't focus on the most interesting part of the story, which was the small boat evacuation. It didn't even show that some boats made multiple journeys. No idea how he managed to make it so dull.
So I'm not rushing out to watch this at the cinema
Inception wasn't bad as I wasn't expecting it to more or less hang together/make sense.
Not a superhero fan so the Batman films were just watchable popcorn to me.
Dunkirk was terrible - it didn't focus on the most interesting part of the story, which was the small boat evacuation. It didn't even show that some boats made multiple journeys. No idea how he managed to make it so dull.
So I'm not rushing out to watch this at the cinema
Yeah perhaps you don't like or see much value in Nolan as a filmmaker relative to others, which is fine. People like movies for different reasons! I think Prestige was missing in your post, if you haven't seen this I recommend it! I thought it was very good.
Inception is my worst Nolan. A crappy heist movie with a gimmick.
Love the Prestige. Liked the Batman trilogy. Thoroughly enjoyed Interstellar and Dunkirk.
Nolan and dodgy sound mixes, an iconic duo. Has he come out and said it was on purpose like he did with Intersteller yet?
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.
I thought he used IMAX cameras which although amazing quality are huge and really loud?
I'm pretty sure that dialogue scenes are a known nightmare on them and either need heavy ambient noise to drown it out, music overlaid or different cameras for those scenes with the resulting loss in picture quality and aspect ratio change.
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.
Last edited:
It’s definitely bloated and some plot points are yawn inducing. BUT it’s still a fantastic watch purely for the action sequences