Tenet : Another example of Nolan being style over substance, but I still enjoyed it.

Just like Inception, and even Memento (though Memento handles it better), Tenet has a fairly simple and generic plot, held up higher than it otherwise would have been by an interesting concept and brilliant visual storytelling. The sequences that involve time inversion are incredible to watch, and it genuinely left me wondering how they achieved it behind the scenes.

I'm glad I waited for a home-media release so that I could watch this with subtitles. Nolan's growing notoriety for terrible sound mixing is not exaggerated. That said, the soundtrack is pretty decent, and despite not being composed by Hans Zimmer, it does sound fairly reminiscent of other work Zimmer has done for Nolan's films in the past. You barely notice it wasn't him.

I'd rather re-watch this movie than Inception, but I would say that Inception is a slightly better film, mainly due to its characters and their backgrounds. Tenet is just less of a snooze-fest to sit through, despite suffering from similar exposition scenes that will grow more and more irritating on future viewings.

It's well-paced, competently written and acted (no real stand out performances, but no bad ones either), but the main reason to watch this movie would be its cinematography and editing.

It's a shame that this pandemic has resulted in this movie bombing in cinemas, because aside from the fact that subtitles are almost necessary to sit through this film, it would have been a very impressive spectacle on the big screen.

6/10.

It's a shame that this pandemic has resulted in this movie bombing in cinemas, because aside from the fact that subtitles are almost necessary to sit through this film, it would have been a very impressive spectacle on the big screen.

Yeah I know right? Black people can't catch a break. I think Tenet is the first film Nolan has done where the main character is black. As a matter of fact, I don't think Nolan has ever made a film where he created black characters.

This might deter him somewhat. I hope it doesn't though.

I doubt he'll attribute the film's lack of success to having a black protagonist.

I never said that anyway.

You're quite the miserable individual, aren't you?

That's the person who made this thread.

Oh, you're exceptionally clever. I hope your parents know how clever you are. Your hard work really shouldn't go unrecognised.

Clever little man. You deserve lots and lots of oral, clever little man. Would you like me to suck your dick, clever little man? You're so deserving of a treat and I am not worthy of being near you. Oh, how I wish I could be more like you. Oh, how I desire to be clever. Everyone should wish they were more like you because you are the pinnacle of the human experience. The summit. The cream of the crop, and everyone wants a taste of that cream. Especially me.

Okay

I find it to be Nolan's weakest movie, but the concept alone is brilliant, and even his execution is pretty good.

Nolan is for all intents and purposes creating a palindrome journey for the Protagonist. I do feel the editing could've used some work in certain areas. It seems to jump around, though maybe that was intentional, to play off the whole time inversion being disorienting aspect. But it still comes off as jarring.

That being said, I did thoroughly enjoy the experience and will happily rewatch it.

---

So many stories, so little time.

I actually still haven't seen "TENET" but I have heard a lot of mixed things about it.

I'd say it's worth seeing, but not worth getting hyped up over.

When it comes to All of the Movies that Christopher Nolan has made, These below are my own Top 5 Favorites.


1. The Dark Knight Rises

2. Inception

3. Batman Begins

4. The Dark Knight

5. Interstellar

I'm surprised Rises is your favourite in the Dark Knight Trilogy. But I like that Batman Begins ranks fairly high. It's definitely underrated compared to The Dark Knight.

If you haven't seen Memento or Insomnia yet, check them out. I'd say they're some of Nolan's best.

I have seen "INSOMNIA" (Good Movie, Robin Williams is terrific in it and so are Al Pacino and Hilary Swank) and bits and pieces of "MEMENTO".

I liked it as well

I can pay attention to almost anything and I did not care for this movie.

It was just too much going on and not enough reason why.

I honestly can't remember what the plot was.

Nolan takes on too much regarding ideas but doesn't think them out.

I HATED the trend around the time Batman came out that demanded "realism". Batman cannot exist in a real world as he is a science fiction character. So, it's best to go full science fiction, not no science fiction.

Anyway, the dumbest scene in Batman was where he's on the highway being chased by a police helicopter, then he turns his lights out and the copter can't see him. Then, Batman pulls into the woods!

Helicopters have lights, there's enough ambient light in any city to see in the dark on a highway very well, and you can't pull into the woods from the highway.

So, Nolan "didn't realize" that he created a giant plot hole with his stupid realism. Unless Batman has a flying vehicle he can never avoid detection or escape the police.

That scene summed up his recent movie.

Inception, who cares if it's a dream, you will wake up when you have to pee, etc.

Tenet, so much going on that none of it means much of anything. So, it's not a story.

I don't exactly disagree with you, except that I enjoyed the more "realistic" take on Batman. But we still have to remember that this is about a grown man dressed up like a bat, fighting men dressed up as a scarecrow and a clown. You have to suspend some disbelief regardless.

You need a logical story to suspend disbelief.

If cops can follow Batman in a helicopter anywhere very easily, your story sucks.

I read a Batman novel once that was good. Batman had an artificial muscle suit. That's a real thing people are trying to invent. A material that contracts like muscle fiber.

So, let's say a guy owns a tech company and they can make a muscle suit like that and they have levitation technology. They also have all kinds of other stuff but the owner has made his money of other stuff and wants to be Batman.

He could dress as Batman if he wanted and that would be that.

That's how you make the story "real".

It's "science fiction" which means what things might be like if scientific advances were real.

Nolan made a non science fiction Batman and created a plot hole.

He has a fairly realistic tank, a bulletproof military suit, and—-it's REAL!!

But, it's NOT because you can't do **** with a tank in real life.

It's literally retarded writing.

It's literally retarded writing.

A clear overstatement.

Plot-holes are unfortunate but so commonplace that I doubt many of your favourite films and TV shows are free of them.

There's no need for plot holes especially one that totally defeats your premise.

If that happens, you're an idiot and your idea sucks.

There's no need for plot holes especially one that totally defeats your premise.

You say this as though plot-holes are intentionally placed in stories and are not accidental.

If that happens, you're an idiot and your idea sucks.

It doesn't mean the idea sucks, it means the execution of the idea sucks. It can ruin a film, but often it's forgivable enough that you can turn a blind eye. Superhero movies are entertainment, not high art, so I don't understand why you're so offended by it. Nolan may have an air of importance around him, due to his films having interesting concepts and generally high quality cinematography and editing, but that doesn't change that many of his films, especially the Batman ones, are just popcorn flicks

I repeat, plot-holes are unfortunate but so commonplace that I doubt many of your favourite films and TV shows are free of them.

If you're writing a story you have to be a good storyteller.

If you come up with an illogical story, it's like talking to a five year old. Stories are a construction like a house.

It's not okay to build a story that doesn't make any sense.

I am PAYING to view movies and so are you.

If I am paying to watch something that stupidly done I am getting ripped off.

I am PAYING to view movies and so are you.

I only pay to watch movies that I know for sure that I'll enjoy. Otherwise I find other ways to watch for free.

If you come up with an illogical story, it's like talking to a five year old.

You brought up one scene in the Batman movie that is illogical and then concluded that the entire story is illogical because of that one scene. I think that's a bit extreme, but whatever man. Keep in mind that I don't actually think that Nolan is a great story writer. His plots are pretty bland and he only gets away with it because he has interesting concepts.

You are still paying for internet services, etc.

Movies aren't made for free or with that intention.

Plus maybe you are watching through someone's window but I'm not talking about you I'm talking about books, movies, etc across the board. Many of them are horrible inferior products.

Also movies and books are an art form, not just something for you to space out to. So, making inferior and stupid art hurts art.

You sure do nitpick and whine a lot.

It's barely hurting art as long as there are still people making quality art. It's like you're saying one bad apple spoils the bunch, and I don't think that applies to an entire world of film directors with their own ideas, experiences and inspiration.

Film may be an art form, but film is most commonly used to entertain and has done so for practically as long as the medium has existed.

I like arthouse just as much as any other nerd, but are you done bitching yet?

You're comments don't make much sense and you seem like you don't have any real standard by which you judge things.

That's an example of how ****ty products affect people.

You're comments don't make much sense

Go back to school if you can't read.

you seem like you don't have any real standard by which you judge things.

I judge things based on my overall enjoyment of the film. Lots of things contribute to that, whether it be in the writing, acting, cinematography, editing, colour-grading, lighting, set-design, practical and digital effects, etc. Shortcomings in one aspect can be ignored if other aspects are of a high enough quality. That's why one small illogical moment in a superhero movie doesn't bother me too much.

The Dark Knight Trilogy concluded in 2012.

Here are some examples of great films that have come out since then, completely unhindered by that one illogical scene in the Batman movie:

The Father (2020), I'm Thinking of Ending Things (2020), Soul (2020), Sound of Metal (2019), The Irishman (2019), The Lighthouse (2019), An Elephant Sitting Still (2018), Long Day's Journey into Night (2018), A Land Imagined (2018), Twin Peaks: The Return (2017), Bladerunner 2049 (2017), Get Out (2017), John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017), Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017), Split (2016), The Wailing (2016), A Silent Voice (2016), Silence (2016), Don't Breathe (2016), The VVitch (2015), The Lobster (2015), The Revenant (2015), Room (2015), The Gift (2015), Kaili Blues (2015), Ten Years (2015), Whiplash (2014), Nightcrawler (2014), Birdman (2014), It Follows (2014), The Raid 2 (2014), Prisoners (2013), Her (2013), Europa Report (2013), and Enemy (2013).

I think movies are doing fine. The problem is a lot of the most popular films that make the most money tend to be superhero movies and reboots of old film franchises. But I'd still argue there's nothing wrong with people just wanting to be entertained. As long as people can still make and release their independent films, and as long as people continue to come up with new ideas, then that's great.

Many of the films you listed are terrible and filled with stupid plot holes.

Are you another person on disability or having mental problems?

I've enjoyed this conversation very much. Thank you for your time.

Did they bring in a paid shill like they did for “Interstellar” to convice people how this is in theory possible .

---

Cum Here

I wouldn't know. I tend to judge films mainly on the content of the film itself, not the publicity.

I've not seen Tenant, but I've never heard Nolan being described this way.

Isn't Nolan the polar opposite of style over substance?

Nolan's films are typically well-written screenplays, heavy dialogue, labyrinthine plots, but lacking in visual flair.

His Batman films are highly regarded but the criticism he gets is it's lack of visual style, ie, not the best looking Batman suit nor Batmobile, bad choreographed fight scenes, Gotham City being basic Chicago as contrasted to with Burton's art deco Gothic Gotham City.

Tim Burton, Zack Snyder, and Baz Luhrmann would prime examples of style over substance.

You even pointed out that the sound mixing was bad. You're not wrong. But sound mixing is part of style, in some way. Nolan's more of a plot guy than how it looks on screen.

---

Monster, how should I feel? Creatures lie here, looking through the window.

Let's go over some of his most notable films.


Memento - Clearly style was important here, because it's more concerned with using time to convey the narrative, not too unlike Pulp Fiction, except here the manipulation of time is tied to the protagonist's memory related illness. The story itself is a fairly straightforward and familiar crime thriller.

Dunkirk - A fairly straightforward war movie that's primary concern is with spectacle and putting you in those intense moments. Various scenes shot in Imax for maximum "wow" factor. Doesn't say anything that other war movies haven't already said.


Inception & Tenet - Both examples of fairly generic thriller stories that are only allowed to stand out due to an interesting concept that gives it a unique style. The stories themselves aren't particularly new or deep and are pretty disposable. See any 90s or 2000s crime thriller and you'll see similar story-writing, minus Nolan's gimmicks.


He has made some movies that don't focus as much on just having an interesting visual concept, but there's nothing particularly ground-breaking about his stories.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Nolan's movies. I often find them to be pretty entertaining, and a lot of his unique concepts are great to watch and can leave you thinking about them for some time after (though I don't think he succeeds at this sense of lasting impression as much as some other directors do). I just think that the stories and characters he gives us aren't nearly as interesting as his stylistic choices and concepts.

He's like a first year philosophy student version of Michael Bay with slightly more ambition, and there's nothing wrong with That.