|
JazzFlight posted:Doesn't he also try to shoot himself? Real galaxy-brained stuff there. I’ve seen some guessing that he’s trying to empty the clip so he won’t shoot himself. This might be true since he disassembles the slide right after.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
He's also shooting to warn his past self that a fight is coming because he knows what those holes mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
You could either interpret that as trying to scare himself or as a bootstrap paradox. He remembers seeing the bullet holes there so he knows he has to make them. Of course, the real reason it happens is because it'll look good for the trailer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
gregday posted:I can’t decide if it’s clever or dumb that neither knows why they’re fighting. From both of their perspectives, the other guy started the fight. They fight because they fight. I mean, P and Neil just got done fighting a bunch of mooks. And now here are some more mooks in storm-trooper looking gear. JazzFlight posted:Doesn't he also try to shoot himself? Real galaxy-brained stuff there. I seem to remember feeling like there was a definite pause where P(new) was aiming the gun away from P(old)'s head before firing. e: I also want to add that I felt like the first time through, the mystery storm troopers shooting out of both sides of the turnstile at the same team was a neat visual. I really liked that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
I've got a blu-ray copy of this and the special features are very barebones. I was really hoping there would be a director's commentary on it but I don't think there is? The only special feature is a 70 minute doc on the making-of. You really get an appreciation for how much loving work they had to do for all of the choreography - the fight scene in particular. Where everyone is training for weeks to learn how to make yourself look as natural as possible moving backwards and punching backwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
There's a directors commentary audio track. Unfortunately Nolan is inaudible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 02:59
|
|
|
Nolan hasn’t done a commentary track in a long time. He’s also really big into not “showing the trick” which loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
gregday posted:I can’t decide if it’s clever or dumb that neither knows why they’re fighting. From both of their perspectives, the other guy started the fight. They fight because they fight. I also liked that as they fight from both perspectives the viewpoint we're seeing it from is both learning to fight better, while their opponent is unlearning and getting worse
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 04:22
|
|
|
blunt posted:There's a directors commentary audio track. Unfortunately Nolan is inaudible. On-brand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2021 12:28
|
|
|
That fight was incredibly boring. Choreography, lighting, sound, the pointlessness of it all, lack of emotional investment, everything. It's shocking. Compared to, I dunno, 60 year old Keanu Reeves shuffling around in John Wick but is immediately more exciting and dynamic and gets you on board.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 06:22
|
|
|
stratdax posted:That fight was incredibly boring. Choreography, lighting, sound, the pointlessness of it all, lack of emotional investment, everything. It's shocking. Surely I wasnt the only one to see a bit of Neo half-heartedly swatting away Agent Smith's punches during the second version of that fight? Anyhow, I just watched this and the flaws of the film are the flaws of the film and are so obvious I dont think theres really any disputing them. But I came away happy because I did what Nolan told me to do which was shut up, ignore most of the script and just enjoy the spectacle. It was neat, achieving one of the things that films are meant to do which is to make us ask "how did they do that?", and in our disenchanted CG world thats definitely something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2021 07:11
|
|
|
I saw this. I think when the director of the film doesn't bother to give the main character a name they're letting you know what they're focused on. While Nolan has some issues, "showing you the same old poo poo" ain't one of them. The end of this movie ends with a ten-minute fight done forwards and backwards, and of course if you write TEN forwards and backwards you get TENET. That's pretty much this movie in a nutshell: wowing you with a clever idea you didn't see coming. In a way this movie is a lot like a magic trick (and I don't think it's coincidence that Nolan made the Prestige - I will wager he really loves magic). There are some people who think "magic" (as in the type that's practiced by magicians Penn and Teller) is a stupid waste, because it's not really magical, it's psychology and endless dexterity practice, ultimately tricks to fool rubes and kids. Whereas people like me think that makes the magic even MORE impressive, because it's fooling you in ways you (probably) can't anticipate because it simply does not occur to you that someone could be that good with their hands and that practiced in misdirection. I appreciate the novelty and the appearance of the trick more than the reality, and accept that it's not actually "real". Tenet is a magic trick. I do think that the movie could have done some things better. For instance, the entire car chase had me completely lose track of the Algorithm and not know where it had gone; I had to watch a Youtube to understand where the piece went (it turns out it was grabbed off-camera by a henchman, something that should probably be communicated to the audience). And of course there's the idea that inverse damage to object has been there from the beginning since it rolled off the assembly line is one that I spotted immediately and grappled with; apparently there's a throwaway line about how "the winds of entropy" will always flow in the correct direction and coupling that with the Protagonists stab wound (which only starts to bleed a few minutes before the act, or after it as the case may be) it can be hypothesized that regular objects struck by inverse rounds slowly "heal" themselves as the reverse entropy damage is overwhelmed by the "real" entropy. And that somebody from Tenet goes and collects all these inverse objects that are left lying around where they fall. I think that Nolan is keenly aware that he's created a movie with a closed-loop deterministic universe, where Sator can't walk through the turnstile and do anything different to what he just saw himself do. That's where all the faith talk and whatnot comes in. You gotta do what you gotta do. Anyway this movie is ultimately about showing cool time-reverse stuff and thinking through some implications of the tech its using. It is content to hand-wave others big time, and for me that's ok. The final battle is a good example of this. It doesn't work very well at all and primarily seems to be about people sprinting around shooting their guns at nothing - absolutely inept action photography. But then there's the shot of that building being blown up by both inverse and normal rockets simultaneously and that shot was one of the dopest action beats I've ever seen. For that kind of ridiculousness I'm willing to let the rest slide. Some people clearly won't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The end of this movie ends with a ten-minute fight done forwards and backwards Which is something that should be absolutely dope. It isn't though. It's just groups of people with different coloured armbands running around a quarry as explosions go off occasionally, sometimes backwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
I mean I got a lot more of the impact of that battle a second time. When I realized that Blue Team is coming in on the explosion that ends the movie and that I could see the Protag and Neill in the shot, that Neill shoots at himself in the jeep, that the entire world is predestinated and somebody has SCP-like cleanup crews that go around collecting inverted objects after battles, etc. And yes I watched it like 3 times and the amount of "jog around shooting at nothing" is just totally unacceptable; I don't care if it's supposed to be like that because "the characters are shooting their guns largely on faith" or w/e, IMO if somebody spends 200 million dollars and put a huge action scene in the movie their primary goal (again IMO) is to make a great action sequence that's clearly comprehensible and exciting. The "shooting at nothing" scenes undermine the legit thrilling poo poo like "almost getting sucked into a building shot with an inverted explosive" or "the bad guys are laying traps, and only the inverted dude knows about it and since it's already been triggered in his past he has to do something else" or even "fuckin hell how does anyone get shot by an inverted enemy since (from their perspective) the dudes are running backward away from them and will step BACK into cover to shoot at them and vice versa? Unless you're in a box they should never be a threat to each other, the only scary people should be people going the same direction you are" which would be absolutely sick, but they never show any of it. However like I said at the end of the day I got to see a building get absolutely time-hosed and it's hard to completely poo poo on such ambition.
Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I mean I got a lot more of the impact of that battle a second time. When I realized that Blue Team is coming in on the explosion that ends the movie and that I could see the Protag and Neill in the shot, that Neill shoots at himself in the jeep, that the entire world is predestinated and somebody has SCP-like cleanup crews that go around collecting inverted objects after battles, etc. And yes I watched it like 3 times and the amount of "jog around shooting at nothing" is just totally unacceptable; I don't care if it's supposed to be like that because "the characters are shooting their guns largely on faith" or w/e, IMO if somebody spends 200 million dollars and put a huge action scene in the movie their primary goal (again IMO) is to make a great action sequence that's clearly comprehensible and exciting. The "shooting at nothing" scenes undermine the legit thrilling poo poo like "almost getting sucked into a building shot with an inverted explosive" or "the bad guys are laying traps, and only the inverted dude knows about it and since it's already been triggered in his past he has to do something else" or even "fuckin hell how does anyone get shot by an inverted enemy since (from their perspective) the dudes are running backward away from them and will step BACK into cover to shoot at them and vice versa? Unless you're in a box they should never be a threat to each other, the only scary people should be people going the same direction you are" which would be absolutely sick, but they never show any of it. However like I said at the end of the day I got to see a building get absolutely time-hosed and it's hard to completely poo poo on such ambition. I think that's the frustrating bit: There are interesting and weird implications to the mechanics, like seeing a body, not being sure if it was killed forwards or backwards, double tapping to be sure, and bringing it back to life. Or the inverse, of seeing a dead comrade, only for them to spring back to life and help you in some way. or running across an empty landscape, only to suddenly realise that there was a building that will be destroyed there in a few moments, and so you run out of the area as its pulled back together. Even if the exact mechanics don't quite make sense, you could do way cooler stuff and at least create some great images. A much smaller scene with a limited number of players in it, a smaller, clearer area would have let him play a lot more effectively and interestingly than how it played out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:However like I said at the end of the day I got to see a building get absolutely time-hosed and it's hard to completely poo poo on such ambition. I think the movie does a bad job of explaining that the red team's goal was going in there to fail/look like they failed, while Protag/Ives were going to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:I think the movie does a bad job of explaining that the red team's goal was going in there to fail/look like they failed, while Protag/Ives were going to succeed. See I understood this just fine. But it's literally one line of dialogue in a briefing. One more thing while I'm thinking about it: Neil's death is the only inconsistent thing in the movie if you give the film the benefit of the doubt on everything else (i.e. winds of entropy and clean-up crews). The reason I say this is because we are shown EXACTLY what happens when an inverted person is wounded by a non-inverted object. TP (The Protagonist) is injured on his arm by a non-inverted lockpick during his Freeport fight, and the symptoms are that he starts feeling sore in that arm a couple of days before, his clothes actually have a hole punched in them by the lockpick before he even suits up, and his wound opens up and starts bleeding a few minutes before he's stabbed. The film has just stated that an object's "natural entropy" overcomes the inverted entropy and in this case it appears true - TP is moving backwards so the damage that the foreign "normal" object does is mostly reversed within a few moments. (However, being shot by an inverted bullet while being in normal is a death sentence - not sure why). Anyway if you apply this to Neil, who is in the same general circumstance - an inverted individual shot by a regular bullet - how it should work is that a couple of days before the mission, he should be getting headaches, then a bullet hole would appear in his helmet as he ran down the tunnel, then the actual bullet hole would appear in his head and gradually worsen until he would collapse dead. So the question is, how did he manage to run down the tunnel and pick the lock when his head was literally splitting apart at the time? I don't think there's a good explanation beyond "Neil was really loving tough and could do it with his brains scrambled" which is a cop-out IMO. Snowman_McK posted:I think that's the frustrating bit: There are interesting and weird implications to the mechanics, like seeing a body, not being sure if it was killed forwards or backwards, double tapping to be sure, and bringing it back to life. Or the inverse, of seeing a dead comrade, only for them to spring back to life and help you in some way. or running across an empty landscape, only to suddenly realise that there was a building that will be destroyed there in a few moments, and so you run out of the area as its pulled back together. Even if the exact mechanics don't quite make sense, you could do way cooler stuff and at least create some great images. Yeah, I think that making the two teams these massive platoons was a gamble that didn't pay off. If you actually graph it out there's 8 possible interactions between combatants: Inverted combatant with inverted gun shoots regular combatant Inverted combatant with regular gun shoots regular combatant Inverted combatant with inverted gun shoots inverted combatant Inverted combatant with regular gun shoots inverted combatant Regular combatant with regular gun shoots inverted combatant Regular combatant with regular gun shoots regular combatant Regular combatant with regular gun shoots inverted combatant Regular combatant with inverted gun shoots regular combatant Regular combatant with inverted gun shoots inverted combatant All of these would really cool interactions to see and experience and like McCloud said you could have a lot of fun with "dead" guys popping up and dodging reverse rubble and having explosions suck people into their centers and poo poo. Another thing that I really really wanted to see was TP saying "get a grenade on that position!" and then the position exploding and a grenade flying back into one of his squaddies hands (regular combatants using inverted grenade). Just sick poo poo like that. Yes, it was very clever to see all the interactions between Neil and himself and TP but it's a drat time-rewind Call of Duty scene, let's see the time-rewind goods! Edit: I also want you all to know that I seriously considered making my first post "and see, this is why I can't discuss this with you people!" and then trying to make all my posts reverse, hoping that one of you would catch on and start writing potential "previous" posts to the posts that I had wrote. But this is a discussion forum and it doesn't seem like that gimmick would be very good for discussion. I really wanted to do it though. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 05:45
|
|
|
You explaining the gimmick also works as a future post in response to someone acting confused. But now I've ruined it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 07:04
|
|
|
Maybe he was playing dead now that I think about it. IDK the whole reverse bullet thing seems to throw people off and would be better if he left it out. Like the whole opera scene seems to only be there to have a "cool" set piece for the start, for trailers, and for the "mysteries" of the bullets and the man with the red string on his backpack. But all of that muddies things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 11:35
|
|
|
Yeah I think the concept can be fun until you really start to think about deadly wounds made through inverted means. The movie gets away with it because they focus on non-fatal injuries, but ultimately they are not consistent with the way things interact. A knife wound may conceivably heal on it's own as the movie showed in reverse, but you can also just as easily die from one. If you're shot in the head with an inverted bullet and it lodges in your brain how are you ever alive to make it to the occasion where you are killed when you are going through life with an inverted bullet in your brain?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
Ironically enough if they just use the "winds of entropy" explanation they give, inverted rounds are the perfect assassination weapon. Let's say that you are killed by a headshot from an inverted gun. The bullet goes through your head back into the gun, and within a few hours the bullet hole and damage is gone, but you're still dead because your heart stopped for over 10 minutes. All the damage the bullet did to the environment is gone too. Now of course the flaw here is that if the bullet gets lodged in your noggin, well it's been there forever before that point hasn't it? Doesn't make sense. Have to have faith.RBX posted:Maybe he was playing dead now that I think about it. IDK the whole reverse bullet thing seems to throw people off and would be better if he left it out. Like the whole opera scene seems to only be there to have a "cool" set piece for the start, for trailers, and for the "mysteries" of the bullets and the man with the red string on his backpack. But all of that muddies things. I mean, there's an actual movie called Los ChronosCrimenes (aka TimeCrimes) that has a similar premise. A guy is looping through time. On his second loop he sees what he thinks is his wife die by falling off the roof of his house and realizes he can't actually change anything (deterministic universe). So in his third loop he goes back, dresses a lady he met earlier in his wife's clothes and cuts her hair to look like his wife's haircut, then pushes her off the roof. With a big sigh of relief he goes downstairs and hugs his wife. So yeah Neil could go back, put blanks in that guy's gun, put a red dye packet in his helmet, and fake his death because that's what the Protagonist saw and there's nothing stopping him from doing that. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
In Timecrimes wasn't it his wife never fell off the roof and it was always him pushing a woman he made up to look like his wife. Been a long while since I've seen it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:In Timecrimes wasn't it his wife never fell off the roof and it was always him pushing a woman he made up to look like his wife. Been a long while since I've seen it. Right, let me make that clear. In the second loop he sees what he, and we the audience, think is his wife (it's after dusk and fairly dark at the time). The reveal is that on the third loop he decides to kill an innocent woman to save his wife because he thinks that he HAS to see somebody who looks like his wife fall off the roof. But it was never actually his wife. The idea that he could Just Not Do Anything and his wife and the innocent woman will live doesn't occur to him, because he's totally bought into the deterministic universe that must be obeyed. He's operating on Tenet Faith.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Ok, one more inconsistency: when the Protag rescues Kat from the inverted car going backwards toward the traffic jam he should have hit the accelerator to stop the vehicle, not the brakes. Assuming the reversing car is inverted (which it appears to be).
Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
Amarcarts posted:Yeah I think the concept can be fun until you really start to think about deadly wounds made through inverted means. The movie gets away with it because they focus on non-fatal injuries, but ultimately they are not consistent with the way things interact. A knife wound may conceivably heal on it's own as the movie showed in reverse, but you can also just as easily die from one. If you're shot in the head with an inverted bullet and it lodges in your brain how are you ever alive to make it to the occasion where you are killed when you are going through life with an inverted bullet in your brain? Pretty sure it just annihilates all the brain mass it passes through before it makes it back to the shell casing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:In Timecrimes wasn't it his wife never fell off the roof and it was always him pushing a woman he made up to look like his wife. Been a long while since I've seen it. Timecrimes was pretty drat clever, but I saw it shortly after 'Triangle' from 2009 or 10 (depends which release date you go off) and, not to have a go at Timecrimes, but Triangle makes it pretty half assed by comparison. It's not trying to do the same thing, but what it does is crazy impressive
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Well the issue there is that Timecrimes was made for pennies on the dollar compared to Triangle. So it's going to seem A LOT more mundane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Well the issue there is that Timecrimes was made for pennies on the dollar compared to Triangle. So it's going to seem A LOT more mundane. No, that isn't the issue. Triangle is just trying to tell a much, much weirder story. You could have switched their budgets and it would still be true. I'm not having a go at Timecrimes, it's just that old canard of the best being the enemy of the good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
I confess I don't think either story is weirder than the other, although I cannot deny that Triangle is far more complex and has a cooler gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Does Triangle have the three tiered loop she can't escape? Like she always goes through 3 stages over and over? I never can quite remember the gimmick of that one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
Yes, IIRC there are 3 loops but you only get to "experience" two through the protagonist. The third loop is her getting axe murdered by herself, I think. It's been a while, but at one point I remember sitting down and scribbling on a piece of paper - Looper was right about that one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:Doesn't he also try to shoot himself? Real galaxy-brained stuff there. Honestly, it was one of the few times in the movie where I was actually invested in what was happening because.I was all there on the stakes and mechanics of it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:Doesn't he also try to shoot himself? Real galaxy-brained stuff there. It looked to me like he was intentionally emptying the gun of bullets (firing in to the glass beside his head), to protect both of them. By that point he knows the fight is about to end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 02:27
|
|
|
We have now had this conversation twice, just like many things in this movie happened twice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
I finally saw this and holy poo poo I loved every minute of it. I love how much isn't force-fed to the audience and you can actually think about things. (of course everybody is complaining that it was too confusing  )To me this was Primer, but with a big budget. Not that these are movie ruining for me, but I do have a couple questions of what are possibly plot holes? Its glossed over how someone in the future invents "the algorithm" and then kills themselves to hide it. But... they also hide it in the past? Why do that? Why not just shoot yourself instantly? Isn't that basically guaranteeing that you aren't actually hiding the algorithm at that point? Why even shoot yourself if you go back in time and hide the alg? Maybe I'm missing something there. Similarly, its taken for granted that if they take the pieces of the algorithm, hide them someplace nobody knows, and then kill themselves, that nobody will ever find the algorithm and now the world is safe. But couldn't someone always end up inverting themselves and going back to that exact moment when the protagonists grab the algorithm, before they go and hide it, and intercept it? Maybe this always happened so you can't change things now, they discuss in the middle about whether paradoxes are allowed or not and its just like  lets not take the chance?And why do the future people even need Branagh? Couldn't they just invert themselves and go back and get the pieces? Do they not have enough inverted oxygen to live that long or what? Seems The Protagonist spends a lot of time inverted in the end. Also I knew that Robert Pattinson was aware of more things (and was recruited by The Protagonist, later on) instantly, but I was hoping the guess was at one point he was moving backwards but had learned to speak in backwards-English all along to hide it or something clever like that. I was very very pleased that I instantly guessed the man with the mask at the Airport was The Protagonist in the future and was totally correct. Fighting with your future self is such a cool mind-gently caress, once you're in the future you know you can't kill your past self but you can't let them kill you either. Its already happened, but you still have to go through with it. Just wild stuff. Snowman_McK posted:I think that's the frustrating bit: There are interesting and weird implications to the mechanics, like seeing a body, not being sure if it was killed forwards or backwards, double tapping to be sure, and bringing it back to life. Or the inverse, of seeing a dead comrade, only for them to spring back to life and help you in some way. or running across an empty landscape, only to suddenly realise that there was a building that will be destroyed there in a few moments, and so you run out of the area as its pulled back together. Even if the exact mechanics don't quite make sense, you could do way cooler stuff and at least create some great images. Its true, things like stepping on a piece of fallen building and then having it move backwards up into the building it exploded from, making you fly up into the air and nearly flipping you over, that's real clever. But much of the action scenes are just kinda shooting guns offscreen since its so hard to co-ordinate this stuff in both directions. Still, we get lots of cool things like the tower of the building having its bottom re-formed right as the top gets blown up, so its exploding in both directions of time at the same time, that's really cool and far out. Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Jan 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 07:01
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I think that's the frustrating bit: There are interesting and weird implications to the mechanics, like seeing a body, not being sure if it was killed forwards or backwards, double tapping to be sure, and bringing it back to life. Or the inverse, of seeing a dead comrade, only for them to spring back to life and help you in some way. or running across an empty landscape, only to suddenly realise that there was a building that will be destroyed there in a few moments, and so you run out of the area as its pulled back together. Even if the exact mechanics don't quite make sense, you could do way cooler stuff and at least create some great images. I agree. Also, while I really liked Mr. "This is cowboy poo poo!" constantly acting like time inversion was no big deal and you're a baby man for getting in his way, the fact that all of a sudden they have an entire platoon of dudes who are suited up and down with inverting time is a bit strange and surprising. Also don't you want to keep all this poo poo on the down-low if you're trying to prevent future people inverting time and causing paradoxes or ending the world or some poo poo? Its not implausible because with time inversion they effectively have forever to recruit their army, especially when you factor in the future Protagonist helping them do it in the past. And I do really love the idea of different people being recruited by future versions of each other and not even knowing who the person was that chronologically "started" it all. I've been thinking for awhile I'd love to see a plot about spies where everybody is talking to everybody else using code names, and a spy ends up getting an assignment to kill a target who he realizes is himself under another code-name, and then as he tries to peel back the layers and figure out who sent the order to have him killed he realizes that nobody actually is in charge and its all just an insane ouroboros of paranoia perpetuating itself. And this movie almost gets there. You could do some really wild things with the idea of a character meeting his own past and future self and not knowing which of them to trust, things like that. Tenet isn't a flawless movie but its drat inspiring. JazzFlight posted:Actually, you're right. When do those bullets appear there? Like, for instance, the bullets in the glass. When they installed the glass, did it already have bullets in it? Or the broken passenger sideview mirror on the car during the chase scene. I spotted it early, figuring it would be "repaired" by crashing into an inverted car later, but when was it broken in the first place? My problem with the side mirror is I spotted it right away and it bothers me that the Protagonist didn't spot it and realize something was coming. It could have been a cool "oh poo poo" moment. I guess there's not really much different he could do with that knowledge, so maybe he did see it? Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Jan 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 07:20
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:I love how much isn't force-fed to the audience Also said this before, but the best part is how "temporal" is usually a trigger word for "speak English, man!" in movie scripts, but here, the Protagonist just continues the conversation. Amazing
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 12:55
|
|
|
Ruffian Price posted:Also said this before, but the best part is how "temporal" is usually a trigger word for "speak English, man!" in movie scripts, but here, the Protagonist just continues the conversation. Amazing I kept waiting for the scene where everything would slow down and some Scientist Man would explain things with a chalkboard and that didn't happen and I really like it. I've seen that scene enough times thankyou.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
So when the British woman tried to kill her Russian husband the first time on the catamaran, what the hell was that? She cut the rope, he falls 3 feet into the water which is supposed to kill him. Did I miss something there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
Ego-bot posted:So when the British woman tried to kill her Russian husband the first time on the catamaran, what the hell was that? She cut the rope, he falls 3 feet into the water which is supposed to kill him. Did I miss something there? I don't think she actually expected it to kill him, she was just very pissed off. Protagonist though needed to try to get on his good side so went back to pick him up just in case. I will say that going from "I'm going to cut your balls off and stuff them in your mouth" to "hey lets go sail a catamaran together!" happened WAY too fast. That was tonal whiplash. All because he mentioned the Opera House? I get that maybe Branagh is willing to talk to him after that point instead of killing him right away, but "hey lets go sailing so we can have a private conversation" is just goofy. I will give Christopher Nolan credit that overall the movie is gorgeous, excellent cinematography and just beautiful shot locations. Every scene there's something beautiful going on in the background to look at. But I think he decided that "a shot of sailing will look really cool" and didn't worry much about how to fit it into the plot there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2021 21:04
|
|