Not the significant event of a film I'd been counting on as a returning 'welcome back' gesture into a cinema, any cinema, after very nearly six months enforced absence.
For a film of 2 hrs 30 mins length one does expect a certain level of cohesion and cogency but I was, frankly, all at sea within minutes of the start. Just who were these characters? For whom were they working? What were they fighting over? That the entire world was at stake, I got, but the motives and plots behind the story remained a mystery to me throughout. To add to the confusion the final half hour or more is given over to a battle between two armies. Just who was fighting whom, God only knows! There was some race against time with thumping background score to keep us on the edge of our seats, but over what? Amid all the clamorous explosions, gunfire, as well as fist fights (and throwing near-at-hand objects at each other), most of the participants were for much of the time in head-to-foot camouflage gear, and helmeted and visored, so I got completely lost as to just who was who.
An original feature of this film (we are given a number of illustrations of it in the film's earlier stages) is that in several scenes time goes both backwards and forwards simultaneously, the direction of travel depending on the character, not only in the combat scenes but also in an extended car chase with lots of crashes which, in reverse time mode, the vehicles 'de-crash' themselves. And in the culminating noisy confrontation, blown-up buildings reverse their demolition. Presumably such is reflected in the choice of a palindromic word as the film's title. But putting that aside, was the film confusing? You bet! And what was the point of having this time reversal thingy anyway?
The main character - and the principal 'goodie' - referred to simply as 'The Protagonist' is played by the likeable John David Washington (above, so good in Spike Lee's 'BlackKklansman' of 2018) though here he's as invincible and as quickly recovering from injury as 007 would himself be.
So we know that 'The Protagonist' is going to save the world as we can surmise from his otherwise blank name, but the rest of the cast - Elizabeth Debicki, and even Robert Pattinson and Aaron Taylor-Johnson - can they really be trusted as to which side they are actually on even if they are colleagues of the 'Protagonist'? But there's no such ambiguity as to Kenneth Branagh's character, a nasty, sadistic Russian oligarch and megalomaniac (Boo! Hissssss!) who'd easily give Ernst Stavro Blofeld a run for his money. In addition, Sir Michael Caine makes an early two-minute (max) cameo.
I'd been wishing that I'd taken the trouble to have seen this film on an Imax screen, which would have been possible with a little travelling, but I doubt if it would have changed my ultimate opinion of it. But what might have made a difference is that I saw it at a cinema which does not have the best sound quality, making yet more pronounced my frequent difficulty of understanding much of the dialogue. I wish I'd seen it subtitled which I could have done but would have meant going out in the dark which is not feasible nowadays. That should have cleared up quite a bit of the confusion I felt on what the hell it was all about ought.
As you'd expect with this director, there are a number of visually impressive set-piece 'chapters', perhaps the most memorable being at the start in a crowded concert hall. However, I think that around two-thirds through a film which requires an amount of concentration, I was aware of my attention starting to flag and visual and aural fatigue gaining hold.
Despite 'Inception' also having itself many enigmatic strands, some never fully explained, I was at least glued to the screen and intrigued by what was happening throughout - and I paid to see it again on a cinema screen. Not so with 'Tenet'........6.
(IMDb................8 / Rott.Toms...........4.4 out of 5 )
I'm with you in liking Nolan films--Memento I can watch every day, forever--and I love some JDW, so I may have to venture out to a theater and see what's what. Hopefully I can make sense of it ...?
ReplyDeletePS Glad you're back and reviewing!
I hope that if you venture out to see this, Bob, it's in a theatre with good sound quality so that you can catch more of the dialogue than I did, thus giving it the plausibility which I found it lacked. The presence of JDW should ensure it won't be an entire waste o time.
DeleteNice to see you getting back in the saddle
ReplyDeleteI’ve missed your reviews raymondo
Thanks, JayGee, but I repeat that my reviews will be a rarer event from now on than before. Time eventually catches up on one.
DeleteI think many of us have missed you. Good to see you back with another beautifully written (as usual) review.
ReplyDelete'Ta' to you too Rozzie. I hope with the more scarce postings they don't disappoint. But they will now be films where the thought of them appeals to me before I see them rather than up to now my performing a 'duty' to include those I don't particularly wish to see but feel I ought to.
DeleteRachel also said this film was confusing and I saw a review in the Sunday newspaper, the first we have bought since lock-down began, which said the same. I have been looking forward to seeing your take on it. I am not sure I would have the patience for this film. I agree with Rozzie above and enjoyed your review.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking that there are many who saw it who were confused, and yet still liked it, Carol, and you could well be one of those. I just cannot believe that all those who give it a thumbs-up can say they understood it. I'm willing to bet that even the director himself can't make that claim. But then 'Inception' was also mightily puzzling yet I was enraptured by it, just as much as some seem to be by 'Tenet', though I'm unable to explain why. I always suggest to those who don't like the thought of seeing a particular film after reading reviews, mine or anyone else's, which made a negative impact [though I do give this one a '6'], to 'give it a go' and that would be my advice here. However, I would say to try to see it on as big a screen as you can, IMAX preferably, and somewhere with good sound - even if all that thunderous battle action had been starting to wear me down.
DeleteBtw - after declaring that my cinema visits will be less frequent from now on I've just seen that already there's another film starting in this same cinema from Fri, one which I've been determined to see since I heard about it. Oh well. that's just the way it goes. Heigh ho!
I forgot to ask if you had to wear a mask. I hope not for such a long film and it's length kind of put me off too. Don't worry about your reviews putting me off though as I would always see a film if I wanted to and Rachel still enjoyed it despite saying that it was confusing. I am pleased to hear that you are going to see another film and will look forward to your review of that one too.
ReplyDeleteIn the cinema I attended there were stipulations about the need to wear a mask only if one was leaving one's seat for refreshment-buying, toilet-visiting, or any other reason, as well entering and exiting, of course. Otherwise during the film one was not required to do so. There are some cinemas in this country who do have the rule of mask-wearing throughout, and some entire countries where it's the rule, so you'd need to check with the cinema first. I don't think I could have coped with mask wearing for the three hours or so which the whole programme took.
Delete