Christopher Nolan's Tenet (August 12th, 2020)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yeah. It was a dumb movie dressed up in a tuxedo. Still dumb though.

All time travel movies are dumb. At some point or another, logic collapses. It simply doesn't work.
It was ridiculous awfull any movie were wou consistently have to keep explain the concept or logic of the movie isna bad movie.

He really took to far this time. It started with inception ok we can follow along . Then we upped even more with interstellar but still we kind of can follow. Tried to make a movie with a different perspective in dunkirk and now he full let me do whatever I want .

Give a break his movies look incredible but my good does he have to write his own stuff. Just adapt some noir story you have a knack for it. Leave scfi alone

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Christopher Nolan is on another plane of existence. Until you all accept that, you won't be able to understand his movies. :lol
 
Yeah. When you are saying a movie is dumb because you are too dumb to wrap your head around what is a simple idea, I think it shows your own mentality.
Also, Moose, once again, but using English this time?
 
Hands down the best film I?ve seen since The Matrix.

I didn?t get it first time I saw it at all. But there was something about that music and soundtrack.. that?s what brought me back to want to see it again, the sounds.. Then after a second viewing I could understand a little more and the soundtrack just kept making come back to see again. I saw it another 4 times and after the 4th time I could figure out everything and everyone for the most part. Some things are still very mysterious but that?s what makes a good story.

It was veery much like one critic had called it - James Bond on acid, but so much more.

The Swedish guy that did the sound mix did a great job, without it, I don?t think I would have given it a second viewing. The soundtrack was one of the main characters if you ask me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yeah. When you are saying a movie is dumb because you are too dumb to wrap your head around what is a simple idea, I think it shows your own mentality.
Also, Moose, once again, but using English this time?

The movie isn't dumb because the audience didn't understand the answers. The movie is dumb because some of these questions have no answers at all. You can theorize the answers to these questions all you'd like, but they were not in the movie. They are plot holes. And communicating clear and consistent internal logic is one of the most important elements that constitutes a good story.

To me, this movie is like a high concept architectural plan for a house which has some truly unique design elements, but is impossible to properly heat, doesn't meet building codes, and fails to put a bathroom into the blueprints; making it functionally unlivable.
Sure it is different and in that sense creative; but how genius can something really be if it ultimately fails to fulfill the basic purpose for which it is intended?
 
Last edited:
Yeah. When you are saying a movie is dumb because you are too dumb to wrap your head around what is a simple idea, I think it shows your own mentality.
Also, Moose, once again, but using English this time?

It's really telling that you keep saying "It's really simple" but you don't actually explain it.

The soldier explains the rules, saying "Air won't pass through your lungs" and "if you touch your other self, you will be annihilated". Was she wrong, or was the movie wrong?

Protagonist goes inverted, wears an oxygen mask for the next scene, then isn't seen wearing one for the rest of the movie, yet can still breathe.

Further, wouldn't it be more effective to just take off the Protagonist's oxygen mask, rather than light him on fire, which we're already told would make him cold instead of burn him? Which the villain should have known because he was inverted himself.

And further, why does fire make an inverted person cold? Fire isn't created by igniting ice. And the fire was started by another inverted person, so it's not even like the principle of heat would be reversed.

Also, when the wife is inverted and goes back onto the yacht, and confronts her husband, why can he understand her? How is the servant on the yacht able to understand her? To them, shouldn't she be speaking backwards. And why doesn't she need an oxygen mask?

When the wife sees herself diving off the yacht, that implies from her non-inverted POV that the inverted version of herself already killed her husband. But when she sees herself, she hadn't gone inverted yet, so that initiates the paradox of how she could see herself doing something she hasn't done yet, and why is she not caught in a loop from the point she went inverted? It seem like her life-cycle would always end at her going inverted to kill her husband.
 
Last edited:
Hands down the best film I?ve seen since The Matrix.

I didn?t get it first time I saw it at all. But there was something about that music and soundtrack.. that?s what brought me back to want to see it again, the sounds.. Then after a second viewing I could understand a little more and the soundtrack just kept making come back to see again. I saw it another 4 times and after the 4th time I could figure out everything and everyone for the most part. Some things are still very mysterious but that?s what makes a good story.

It was veery much like one critic had called it - James Bond on acid, but so much more.

The Swedish guy that did the sound mix did a great job, without it, I don?t think I would have given it a second viewing. The soundtrack was one of the main characters if you ask me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haven't bothered with it yet....but 4 times viewing to understand. Feck that.
 
It's really telling that you keep saying "It's really simple" but you don't actually explain it.

The soldier explains the rules, saying "Air won't pass through your lungs" and "if you touch your other self, you will be annihilated". Was she wrong, or was the movie wrong?

Protagonist goes inverted, wears an oxygen mask for the next scene, then isn't seen wearing one for the rest of the movie, yet can still breathe.

Further, wouldn't it be more effective to just take off the Protagonist's oxygen mask, rather than light him on fire, which we're already told would make him cold instead of burn him? Which the villain should have known because he was inverted himself.

And further, why does fire make an inverted person cold? Fire isn't created by igniting ice. And the fire was started by another inverted person, so it's not even like the principle of heat would be reversed.

Also, when the wife is inverted and goes back onto the yacht, and confronts her husband, why can he understand her? How is the servant on the yacht able to understand her? To them, shouldn't she be speaking backwards. And why doesn't she need an oxygen mask?

When the wife sees herself diving off the yacht, that implies from her non-inverted POV that the inverted version of herself already killed her husband. But when she sees herself, she hadn't gone inverted yet, so that initiates the paradox of how she could see herself doing something she hasn't done yet, and why is she not caught in a loop from the point she went inverted? It seem like her life-cycle would always end at her going inverted to kill her husband.


She wasn't inverted on the yacht. She inverted herself long enough to go back to when the events on the yacht happened and then reverted back to normal and went and did her thing.

Same with the protagonist. They were just using inversion as a means of time travel.

The oxygen thing was one of the few things they were actually consistent with during the film.
 
I don?t know why you would bother explaining the movie to anyone that?s not into it..?

The information is ready available in the film and the internet.

I also don?t know why you would need to argue against the film either.

You don?t get it, seek attention with something you do like elsewhere where you?re more at peace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The mere fact that I have to " study" this movie is right there proof this movie is too convoluted for it's own good.

I lost count how many times they had to explain the inverted concept with in the movie. Its scfi time travel it will never make sense but are least it ca be entertaining.

He makes beautiful looking movies but nobody said he can write his own stories. Hollywood is not known for its originality he should stick to adapting proven stories that lend themselves to his directing styles.

The movie was a shoot beautifully, but by the third act when they had the boy and red teams in the end I was completely lost. It was a joke.

I have heard this argument before you are to dumb to understand the movie that is the weakest excuse for a proorly written story, your simple feeble mind could not comprehend my mighty intellect, give me a break it's bad storytelling plain and simiple. What is nolan now a world renowned author now in addition to being a director.

I frankly only really have one desire when I go to see a movie was l entertained. And sadly I was not.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
She wasn't inverted on the yacht. She inverted herself long enough to go back to when the events on the yacht happened and then reverted back to normal and went and did her thing.

Same with the protagonist. They were just using inversion as a means of time travel.

The oxygen thing was one of the few things they were actually consistent with during the film.

Skipping through it again, watching for when they went through turnstiles, I'm caught up with everything. They were inverted going to the airport to save Kat, then reverted going through the turnstile at the airport. So, she was reverted on the yacht, then they inverted again on the freighter, to go on their climactic mission.

The thing that still doesn't make sense is the car explosion. How does the lighter work normally, but the explosion creates ice? Wouldn't icicles come out of Sator's lighter and not sparks?
 
This movie only exists cause Nolan had a cool image in his head of some stuff flying around backwards while other stuff kept moving forwards.

It's indeed a cool image. That's why the trailers looked cool.

But the problem was, he couldn't think of any good reason for it to happen. It sounds like he struggled with the screenplay for a long time and in the end just said "**** it" let's shoot it anyway.

I think he made it way too complicated for himself. If he wanted to shoot cool action scenes where some stuff is moving backwards for no reason, just have people fighting aliens who have advanced backwards ray-gun technology. No need to try to ground it in "reality"...that just makes it worse. Cause he ended up making a time travel movie, which is even lazier than "aliens did it."

Time travel is hands down the laziest, easiest cheat in all of storytelling. It removes all stakes or consequences and sucks any kind of drama out of everything. Why do anything when you can just turn back time and do it again? I'm looking at you, Endgame.
 
Time travel as a plot device is in equal parts cool and nonsensical. I agree that Nolan probably just wanted an excuse for these cool set pieces he dreamt up. I'm glad he did though
 
But it makes NO sense.

How is a bullet that goes back into the gun an effective weapon? You can't fire the bullet into a human, you can only catch it with your gun. Was it always in your victim, just waiting for decades for you to pull the trigger and "kill" him with it?
 
It really was. I'm afraid there's no salvaging it.

Seeing the trailer in IMAX was a better experience than actually watching the movie. I got to see weird backwards/forwards stuff and didn't have to deal with all the nonsense he tried to justify it with.
 
Back
Top