(sigh) So what's the big gimmick in this one?
Nolan always has to show off, so what's the big deal with this average movie this time?
How is it average when its not been released ?
share
MovieChat Forums > Tenet (2020) Discussion > (sigh) So what's the big gimmick in this...
You seem to be just dissatisfied with his films in general. Why bother understanding or even trying to if you won't even remotely feel interested in it in the first place?
shareCos Chris Nolany-wolany's movies SUCK.
Interstellar SUCKED.
Inception SUCKED.
Prestige SUCKED.
Dunkirk SUCKED.
The only ones that didn't suck were the Batman movies, cos it's very difficult to make Batman suck.
You don't like his movies. So what? Don't watch them.
shareIt is another time thing. He likes that.
You liked TDKR but don't like Prestige, Inception, nor Memento? I agree that Interstellar and Dunkirk sucked but I don't understand the TDKR love. I read your post and I felt like Chaka, from Land of the Lost, befuddled with confusion.
I said it's difficult to make Batman suck, but Batman Begins does suck: the whole microwave emitter thing is stupid, it would make people pop in gory messes.
TDKR was OK, I haven't really rewatched it, to be honest. Bane was AWESOME, but his death was so dumb and rushed.
Gosh, I liked all of those....
shareInterstellar is ok
Inception is awesome
The Prestige is very good
Dunkirk is very good
OK:
Interstellar was interesting, not least of all for the Tesseract and the mind-warping way it worked, but the rest was schmaltzy sentimentality on how the human species was saved through love.
Inception has some awesome moments, but needs a lot to remember.
The Prestige had the most annoying thing I'd ever seen, that somehow, Tesla's technology could cause matter to be copied, to reproduce lots of top hats, which is ludicrous beyond belief. I only saw it once, but that's what really infuriated me.
Dunkirk, I felt, was lacking, in the sheer scale of the rescue effort. As far as I knew from history, the soldiers were scattered all over the beach with their equipment, trying to find cover where they could, not stood neatly and patiently in lots of lines where Luftwaffe pilots could machinegun them with ease. And there were a LOT more soldiers than portrayed in the movie. Aside from that, it looked OK to me.
OK:
Interstellar: Plays like it was written by 4 different people with no contact with each other. Scientists trained to operate trillion dollar equipment behave like idiot children and make the WORST decisions. "Love is the answer" makes an appearance. They never solve the problem at home (which was a pretty one dimensional problem). The problems with Interstellar are numerous.
Inception: Could have been a little better script-wise here and there but a good movie. (another that cribs from a great anime)
The Prestige: Great movie and well written/directed/acted. If you think it really was about copied matter then you didn't even watch it. Or perhaps you are one of those people who washes dishes and does laundry while """watching a movie"""
Dunkirk: I agree with you 100% on Dunkirk. What a mess. It started off alright but got sloppy. Looked great though. Had I been shown only 5 minute clips from assorted parts of the film, I would think it was going to be a masterpiece (as long as that stupid kid splitting his head open from a 2 ft fall wasn't one of them)
Begins & TDK: Good movies soiled by regular dumb stuff. Still thumbs up from me but they, like all live Batman movies, suffer from the Curse of the TV Show.
TDKR: Not 5 minutes can go by in this movie without something to roll the eyes at. The writing is atrocious. The acting is drab. It is radioactive with stupid.
Memento: Great movie. Brilliantly directed. It has some thin bits, story-wise but it is a singular film.
Insomnia: Merely OK. Has good moments but underwhelming.
Inception and the prestige were pretty good. His Batmans Sucked mostly and I will agree with you on interstellar and Dunkirk.
shareInterstellar SUCKED.
Inception SUCKED.
Prestige SUCKED.
Dunkirk SUCKED.
The only ones that didn't suck were the Batman movies, cos it's very difficult to make Batman suck.
That says it all really, leave the grown up films to the grownups, you carry on with your 'men in costumes' films, there's probably yet another Spiderman out this week.
Excuse me, I can't stand the MCU movies neither.
Ignore Foebane, he mostly a complete and utter tool on these boards and offers nothing to the conversation.
shareThe Prestige was good, but yes...all of those others sucked. The man hasn't made a decent film since The Dark Knight, and even that one is flawed beyond all reason. Give me Following, Memento, and Insomnia any day.
shareThe others sucked according to who?
shareAccording to Tom and Lawrence.
shareExcuse me?
shareTom and Lawrence.
shareAnd they are credible because?
shareTom and Lawrence love movies. Those guys have probably seen like 200 of them.
shareSo have other critics that rated those films you said were bad. So um?
shareI wouldn't go that far, but the worst thing about Nolan are his insufferable fanboys.
shareNolan is utterly incapable of writing compelling characters these days, so he needs to have some gimmick to make his stories seem 'bold' and 'exciting'. After Inception he's given up on writing characters that are conceivably interesting on their own, he just uses them as vehicles to convey his 'intriguing' ideas.
shareIt's true that Nolan's characters are not particularly compelling. But they're coherent and well defined, which is enough in the kind of movies he makes. Nolan is very similar to Hitchcock: you take all the thriller elements from Hitchcock movies, and neither the character or the drama are compelling. His movies wouldn't work as a drama of characters. However, they're well defined enough to be a part of the movie as a whole and not to screw it, and they allow Hitchcock to tell the story he wants to tell. The same thing happens with Nolan.
shareI'm inclined to agree with you, but I think there's a key difference. Most of Nolan's stories are, on the most basic level, driven by character motivations—think DiCaprio in Inception, Jackman in Prestige, McConaughey in Intersteller and so on. Yet, it's difficult to be engaged in any of their motives to any degree since they're essentially non-characters, mere functions that are required to make the overarching ('cerebral') story work. Nolan is only interested in the latter, yet his conceptual framework is grounded in the characters, which he pays no attention to. Hitchcock, by comparison, very much cares about his characters—'Rebecca' being one of the more profound examples.
shareI don't agree about that being a key difference.
Many Hitchcock movies are equally driven by character motivations: curiosity and nosiness in Rear Window, James Stewart's obsession with Kim Novac in Vertigo, Cary Grant's obsession with Eva Saint Marie in North by Northwest, kleptomania in Marnie, past traumas in Psycho, and so on. And however, these characters are essentially non-characters too. If you take away all the tricks Hitchcock used, the mastery that made him famous, what remains is very shallow drama and very shallow characters.
I'd say that the only exceptions where the characters were well written in Hitchcock's were Rebecca (the one you named) and Notorious. And I'm afraid the merit is to be attributed to the writers. The same you can say The Dark Knight has very well written characters, probably the best characters in a Nolan's movie, but that merit is to be attributed to Alan Moore. Nolan, the same as Hitchcock, they have great characters only when they're served to them. Both are masters when it comes to intricate thrillers... creating great characters? not so much.
I agree with you with the exception of Hitchcock's The Rope. The characters are the movie.
shareAgreed. However, the merit is to be given to the stageplay. The movie just follows it closely.
I suspect that Hitchcock choose to make the movie look like one single shot to add some personal touch. Since the play unfolds in a single location and in a short window of time, Hitchcock barely had any margin to add personal tricks, so the 'one shot' became his trick. Hitchcock was a master when it came to that kind of stuff, but characters weren't his key strength.