Tenet (Christopher Nolan) *spoilers from post 475*

tombliboo83

Just back from watching it and I really enjoyed it. One of Nolan's weaker efforts but thought Pattinson was the stand out performance, he's come a long way!I will watch it a few more times no doubt. Just so good to be back at the cinema after a few months break

gmisk

Heading to see this tomorrow in the lighthouse cannot wait!

branie2

It was very good

Easy Rod

2nd Row Donkey wrote: »

Went to see this in Vue, liffey Valley last night. Really enjoyed it.

After the movie, much like most of the patrons I made a dash for the toilets to relieve myself of the XL soda drink I'd been holding in my bladder for much of the 2hours and 50 minutes.

As I exited the rest room I have pretended to be 'inverted', walking out backwards and buttoning up my jeans and belt in reverse... Much the amusement of my wife and a few bystanders who got the joke (I hope!)

... Feel free to use that one.

No thanks

nix

I went to see this in screen 1 in Dundrum and had zero trouble hearing any of the dialogue, so maybe the cinema people went to that had issues hearing what people were saying were just sh!t cinemas? or the sound wasnt set up properly with the projector?

Anyway, i liked it but was a lot more confused throughout than i was expecting, i get the impression its the type of movie that will get better with multiple viewings. The acting was top notch, Pattinson was great, he gets a lot of stick over the twilight movies, but hes done a lot of good stuff since, ever since the Rover hes been killing it if ya ask me...

But yeah, overall, first viewing, storywise was underwhelming, but everything else top tier.

And eh CGI? There is pretty much zero cgi in the movie, its all natural effects,

they even crashed a real plane into a building

sydthebeat

Saw it yesterday night and was disappointed.

Visually it's interesting but not as mind blowing as inception...or as epic as dunkirk

The storyline is muddled and not at all polished, which, when dealing with the ultimate cataclysm, is jarring. Johnsons character comes out of nowhere to be a central figure. Washington goes from a black James bond to a bit part war soldier. Debicki gets way more emotional attention in the middle than her character is worth at that stage, brannagh is a bit of a mumbling stone to be honest.

Theres no big reveal, no great twist (and none that were not obvious before they happened ie in the freeport or the dive) , no gotcha moment, the clincher moment is extremely underwhelming....

Washington, Pattinson and Debicki are very good.

Glad to have cinema back, missed my butter pop corn.

This movie is on the bottom scale of nolans films in my opinion. Inception is a more rounded and polished story, interstellar has a far more emotional draw and plays with time in a more significant way. Memento is better, TDK is better.

But hey, this is better than insomnia.

sydthebeat

speedboatchase wrote: »

Also, can we all agree that

Neil is Sato's son?

I got a hint of that too

Not in the least surprising that they used a real jumbo jet.

747's are being decommissioned for age and bad fuel efficiency reasons so you can pick them up for peanuts

They didn't even need one that could fly!

Banjaxed82

Anyone know what format the film was shot in? Was it shot entirely in IMAX or some scenes, etc?

Sad Professor

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Anyone know what format the film was shot in? Was it shot entirely in IMAX or some scenes, etc?

Afaik it was a mixture of IMAX, 70mm and 35mm. Shooting entirely on IMAX isn't possible because of the noise.

Banjaxed82

Sad Professor wrote: »

Afaik it was a mixture of IMAX, 70mm and 35mm. Shooting entirely on IMAX isn't possible because of the noise.

Long story short, I'm assuming Nolan wants me to watch on IMAX/biggest screen possible?

Sad Professor

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Long story short, I'm assuming Nolan wants me to watch on IMAX/biggest screen possible?

I think he'd want you watch it on film. There's no IMAX format cinemas in Ireland, so the IFI in 70mm or the Lighthouse in 35mm and if those aren't possible then an IMAX branded cinema like Cineworld or just a cinema with good picture/sound.

gmisk

Loved that I have to say not perfect but i had a great time watching it.
Pattinson was excellent I thought.
I have to say I found it pretty reasonably easy to follow (I was expecting more twists), there was a propensity for characters to explain how things worked a lot but I kind of needed that tbh at times.
A couple of minor questions

why was the Singh woman who was in arms dealing so intent on killing Kat? Also there were some kind of rules around if you touched yourself...so to speak in the past...did protagonist not have a really long fight with himself? Does it have to be skin to skin? My head's in a bit of a whirl so I could just be confused!

I would definitely watch again.

Also I will say The Lighthouse was a pleasure to visit again spacing was terrific.
8/10

gmisk

speedboatchase wrote: »

Loved it, although thankfully my wife is a lot smarter than me and helped me catch up. I think after they explain that

Sato is using a machine in the freeports to communicate through time

it made a lot more sense to me.

Also, can we all agree that

Neil is Sato's son?

I think so

is it Sator? As in kenneth branaghs character?

TheDoc

Just back from seeing earlier on. Sound was a major problem in Odeon Point Village. It was obnoxiously loud. To the point where easily 1/2 the films dialogue was muddled and couldn’t be heard. Big problem for a film like this.


I enjoyed it, but had little to no idea what the story was or the plot points. Will wait for it to appear online for a second viewing but have to say having being so hyped for ages on this came away massively disappointed. Weird tbh I did like it and did enjoy it but I’m assuming it was the cinema being the problem and not the intention of the film. If so was a stupid decision

adrian522

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think he'd want you watch it on film. There's no IMAX format cinemas in Ireland, so the IFI in 70mm or the Lighthouse in 35mm and if those aren't possible then an IMAX branded cinema like Cineworld or just a cinema with good picture/sound.

Whats the difference between the IMAX in cineworld and a "proper" IMAX screen in London?

johnny_ultimate

adrian522 wrote: »

Whats the difference between the IMAX in cineworld and a "proper" IMAX screen in London?

Screen dimensions and aspect ratio tend to be one (the really good IMAX screens tend to be several storeys high with a very unique layout), but primarily a proper IMAX screen shows high quality 70mm film - the one in Cineworld is just a decent digital projector. London is a massive screen that looks and sounds superb.

Of course the London one does show digital films too if there’s no 70mm version of the movie, but that’s not an issue with Nolan’s films.

Goodshape

adrian522 wrote: »

Whats the difference between the IMAX in cineworld and a "proper" IMAX screen in London?

Most noticeably the size of the screen. Even the screen ratio is different.



Technically a "proper" IMAX projects from IMAX 70mm film. The screen in Dublin is an 'IMAX Digital' and uses a digital projector.

Their biggest similarity is the name and ticket price, really.

adrian522

Thanks, that's interesting, I saw the movie in the IMAX screen in cineworld last night and plan to rewatch in 70mm in IFI tomorrow so will be interesting to see the difference.

AllForIt

Goodshape wrote: »

I found it really entertaining in parts and good enough throughout, but not great.

It was all a bit paint-by-numbers James Bond at times, with the jet-setting (made my head spin more than the timey-wimey stuff), the "new" cold-war plot, and the evil Russian with his henchmen and world-ending scheme. The actual interesting stuff is mostly just exposition and set-pieces. Might have been good to see the ideas in this movie played out a little more thoughtfully, and without the toomanymillions of dollars budget.

Fun set-pieces though! And I'll be interested in seeing it again with an eye on the details.

Well, I suppose that's what made Inception good - set-pieces. The premise (dream within a dream) was ridiculous. But it worked in the end, somehow.

The problem is if Nolan continues to make movies that are different but the same. I haven't seen Tenet yet but it just looks like Inception II visually.

Batman TDK didn't have any time theme. But it had that distinctive Nolan look about it in the same way Spielberg movies do. I think he'll do himself a favour
not making movie's that are different but the same, like TDK.

santana75

Saw it tonight for the 2nd time. I loved it first time but I enjoyed it even more on the 2nd viewing. Made a lot more sense this time round, I think I'll need to see it at least another time before I start to really get it, theres so much going on. I'd love to see another adventure for the protagonist and Neil, as others have said Pattison puts in a great non showy performance and the bromance between the two of them is worth another movie.

ACitizenErased

Went to see it in the Omniplex in Mahon last night.
First hour is a load of "What the f*ck?" before things click.
Some of the dialogue was very difficult, particularly towards the beginning.
I would've liked some more character development, I feel as if they're kept at arm's length for the entirety of the movie.
You realise at the end how some of it makes sense, but also leave feeling completely and utterly mindf*cked.
I don't really know how else to describe it.

cdgalwegian

glasso wrote: »

Not in the least surprising that they used a real jumbo jet.

747's are being decommissioned for age and bad fuel efficiency reasons so you can pick them up for peanuts

They didn't even need one that could fly!

Not exactly peanuts, but I know where you're coming from. I mean, no NCT/MOT, a few scratches, fair bit of mileage, could be brought down to 50 mill. Not sure what they go for in the scrapyards.

cdgalwegian

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Not exactly peanuts, but I know where you're coming from. I mean, no NCT/MOT, a few scratches, fair bit of mileage, could be brought down to 50 mill. Not sure what they go for in the scrapyards.

https://www.aircharterservice.ie/aircraft-guide/cargo/boeing-usa/boeingb747-200f

, the Qatari royal family put their 474-200 on sale for £18 million UK. However, a similar plane was sold for scrap in the USA last year for a figure believed to be around $2million (£1.4million).

they would only have needed a scrap quality one

ACitizenErased

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Not exactly peanuts, but I know where you're coming from. I mean, no NCT/MOT, a few scratches, fair bit of mileage, could be brought down to 50 mill. Not sure what they go for in the scrapyards.

747-800 is the newest range of 747, they did not use anything even remotely worth that

As would have been expected they used the 747-200 which has been in active service since 1971, so pretty much dates back 50 years.

A tiny amount of 747-200s actually still fly

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vvdailypress.com/news/20191108/new-details-emerge-on-christopher-nolan-movie-filmed-at-scla%3ftemplate=ampart

cdgalwegian

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Not exactly peanuts, but I know where you're coming from. I mean, no NCT/MOT, a few scratches, fair bit of mileage, could be brought down to 50 mill. Not sure what they go for in the scrapyards.

but sure look you were only out by a factor ranging from 4,000% to 40,000%

maybe not destined for a financial career though.

TheDoc

TheDoc wrote: »

Just back from seeing earlier on. Sound was a major problem in Odeon Point Village. It was obnoxiously loud. To the point where easily 1/2 the films dialogue was muddled and couldn’t be heard. Big problem for a film like this.


I enjoyed it, but had little to no idea what the story was or the plot points. Will wait for it to appear online for a second viewing but have to say having being so hyped for ages on this came away massively disappointed. Weird tbh I did like it and did enjoy it but I’m assuming it was the cinema being the problem and not the intention of the film. If so was a stupid decision

I had the exact same experience in the exact same cinema. Hard to enjoy something when you don't know what people are saying.

cdgalwegian

glasso wrote: »

but sure look you were only out by a factor ranging from 4,000% to 40,000%

maybe not destined for a financial career though.

Bit tongue-in-cheek on my part there. Kinda thought it would have been a scrapyard choice. I mean, it makes sense.

Not going to see it until tonight, and haven't watched any trailers (though obviously I know about the plane scene), but anyone got any clue about how much the scene would have cost if done in CGI?
Even it was done for almost free, Nolan would still have opted for paying for the realism of the junk plane; just interested in the comparison.

cdgalwegian

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Bit tongue-in-cheek on my part there. Kinda thought it would have been a scrapyard choice. I mean, it makes sense.

Not going to see it until tonight, and haven't watched any trailers (though obviously I know about the plane scene), but anyone got any clue about how much the scene would have cost if done in CGI?
Even it was done for almost free, Nolan would still have opted for paying for the realism of the junk plane; just interested in the comparison.

Almost impossible to compare costs I would say. Even though the plane was not expensive and probably still was sold for scrap after, the plane paint job, the building, airport rental etc would not have been cheap.

CGI cost I don't know. Can run up to 5 million per minute or more but depends on many factors like detail level and complexity.