I went to the cinema yesterday for the first time since January. I felt like a kid at Christmas. It was so exiting and I have missed it a lot! I don't think I have ever gone this long without going to the cinema either, it's part of some sort of routine I have that makes up part who I am, a lover of cinema and all that pretentious shit. Even though some have the audacity to believe it's going to go out of fashion, pfftt, weirdos.
So I watched Tenet, of course, it's like the only new film available to us cinephiles anyway so there wasn't much choice. Was this film anticipated by people? I actually don't know. Personally I've been in the meh category when it comes to this and I'm happy to say that I have at least gone from meh to 'this film is fine, and not like one of those well aged wines, but more like 'I expected nothing and it was better than that'.
This film has some problems for sure, I don't think I am the only one who thinks so either.
Okay, so I read somewhere that someone had described it as a Bond film for physicist, which yes, essentially that sums this film up. I don't actually mind the first half of the film, it's the part that makes enough sense that I can follow it. It's Nolan's take on a Bond film, a spy film and a heist film, pretty straightforward so to say. Or enough so that you know what kind of film you are watching. I really dig the opening sequence of the film, it's really cool and loud and the music is impressive. He's really good at his opening sequences Nolan, I'm thinking Inception and The Dark Knight Rises as other examples in his arsenal.
But, the first part of the film, well the whole film really has this issue, but there is so much EXPOSITION. And it's either exposition that makes no sense/are explained so bad they make no sense or there's SO MUCH information thrown at you that it confuses the hell out of you. It gets to the point where the information dump just makes a lot of the film feel incoherent and it's hard to keep track of things. Like for example, there is a whole thing about a painting that is made to make you feel exited, only for it to be completely irrelevant and have no relevance whatsoever to the plot. The main character for pretty much the first half of the film is led to one character that gives him information, only to then cut to him being in another place with another character where he receives information and badly and confusedly get things explained to him. My friend turned to me a few times during this film to complain about the fact that important information are so often relayed in public places, on a busy street in India, on a tram in Tallinn and so on. Like it doesn't exactly matter does it? But for the spy film part of this is, that just feels like a silly mistake.
But okay, first part of the film I can get on board with. The issues start to arise at the halfway mark and then after that I'm just lost. They rely on you as an audience to remember that heavy and confusing dialogue from the beginning of the film and apply it to the vague explanation that happens in the middle. Only I have already forgotten that because there was a part about a painting and some touching up in Italy and some falling off boats, and oh yeah some fight scenes and torture. It gets muddled so to say.
And that becomes the film biggest problem when we get to the third act. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautifully shot scene, and the landscape and world building is really impressive. Money has been thrown at it so to say. But because I've lost the plot already the third act feels hollow and confusing and the scale of everything has just been lost to us as an audience. You watch an invisible enemy that feels non threatening while you also feel like the stakes have been lost, how big or small are they? Someone explain it to me. Then there are three things happening all at once, except none of us really know what each of those have set out to do. Only time is ticking down and then the world will go under maybe? Or something? This part is essentially Inception but on crack.
At some point it felt like Nolan just went nah I don't even understand what is going on so why should you? It relies so much on spectacle this film, spectacle and experience, and while those two are impressive, plot, characters and coherence have been forgotten on Christopher Nolan's writing desk, where I imagine he has a huge leather chair with stacks of books about TIME piled on every available surface.
While we're at this lengthy rant of mine let's talk a little about the characters of the film. I have read in some places that people seem to think that the weaker link of this is the main dude, whose name is of course who the hell knows and has been named The Protagonist in a slightly arrogant manner. But hey ho I don't mind it too much and I actually like John David Washington in this role. He's charming and elegant and pretty funny too, the issue is as always with Nolan that his films are often not character driven and they just end up becoming squares and pretty uninteresting to look at. Rpatz as Neil (in a serious role too, who would have thought huh?) is probably the more interesting out of the two but he doesn't get more depth either, other than hints here and there. I like Elizabeth Debicki but her role is pretty meh too while Kenneth Branagh has such big associations with England for me that the terrible russian accent he has put on almost becomes funny.
It's like Nolan is in a battle with no other than himself about outdoing himself with the next film about time. I kind of feel it's time this man retires his obsession with it and just do something else, like a rom com. I would love a Nolan romcom.
Is it worth a watch, oh for sure. Is it better than Inception? No.
★★★ stars feels pretty fitting. I don't hate this film but I also don't like it too much. But I am thinking about it still so 3 stars feels fitting. So if you feel it's safe I would recommend watching it in the cinema at least.
0 kommentarer