What MOVIE(s) have you been....seeing? watching?

THE MITCHELLS VS THE MACHINES (Netflix?) is great. From Sony Animation, they have got to be considered a real player in this space now. INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE is no fluke, they have the best writing going. Honestly, DreamWorks can fuck off, but Pixar, Sony, and Laika are making some amazing animation.

If you want quirky, weird, kinda inexplicable, but curiously charming Tiptoes is a totally forgotten romcom from 2004 with Matthew Mconahey, Kate Beckinsdale, Gary Oldman, Patricia Arquette, and Peter Dinklage. 2 of these 5 actors are playing dwarves/little people. Almost every other dwarf actor working at the time rounds out the cast.

It touches on a lot of issues that are worthy of their own film, the experience of being a dwarf, having family that are different than you (Matthew is the "big person" who escaped the gene in his family), accepting differences, and the fear of passing on what you KNOW is a crippling condition. It contrasts those who revel in their condition with those who run from it.

But it doesn't stay on target with one thing, doesn't have enough humor to balance out the sadness/drama, and paints Matthew in a worse light than he should given his POV while Kate is practically angelic as his pregnant fiancee dealing with a potential dwarf child. Dinklage is hilarious but ultimately pointless and Oldman is incredible (as always) as Matthew's twin brother but what a bizarre role choice for him when Dinklage is like right there!

Also LTTP, but Crazy Rich Asians, Awkwafina aside, is as good as advertised, though folks I know from that culture don't care for it.

It was released at the very worst possible time in cinema history and it seems like most audiences were indifferent to openly hostile to it, but give it 20 years and Tenet will be regarded as one of the great thrillers. It immediately put me in mind of Rashomon, North by Northwest and Point Blank, and that’s a really good place to be. It also reminded me of Cronenberg- specifically the vague allusions to shadowy sci-if organizations like in Scanners and Videodrome.

I think it’s a masterpiece, it’s the best movie I’ve seen since Blade Runner 2049, and i thought it was just riveting. It is definitely not a movie for folks who complain about plausibility or expect film narratives to follow easily forecastable trajectories. It is also not for audiences who are unable to decouple from the expectation of realism. If you are the kind of person that thought The Matrix didn’t make sense or was hard to follow...maybe take this one out of queue.

But if you strap in, accept the completely absurd but vaguely quantum concepts, and let it take hold it’s an intellectual roller coaster. Everything in the film makes perfect sense- within the film. And that’s the only place it needs to or has to.

I just do not get the comments about it being confusing...the editing, which should have won an Oscar, keeps everything clear. Yes, there are sequences that are _intentionally_ disorienting. There are moments that are _designed_ to be difficult to follow or process. But if you give those moments time to develop, you’ll see that it all fits into place. Yeah, some of it borders on complete absurdity and there are key plot elements that disintegrate if you drag them out into the light of real-world logic. But you just can’t or shouldn’t do that with a sci fi picture that relies on good old suspension of disbelief.

There are a few sequences that I thought were utterly mind blowing -



I don’t feel like I need to see it five times or anything like that to catch it all, I felt like that incredible editing, the writing, and the photography did such a great job of keeping everything straight even when the rug was actually being pulled out. I loved how breakneck the pace was- there’s not time to linger on anything- you just have to go with it and fill in the blanks as you go. Don’t fiddle faddle around with the two stupidest questions a film viewer can ask - “how did they” and “why did they”- and everything you need to “get it” is right there.

What a movie. I really needed that after a year of mediocre streaming movies.

While I agree with most of what you are saying, the film itself felt very cold to me. There is no heart in it because it is so sterile and focused on the next big set piece.

When I saw it in imax it definitely had audio clarity issues. Maybe those have been fixed now or with subtitles. But the plot, such as it is, was extremely obtuse and hard to follow for me simply because most of the expository bits were lost in the noise. I could follow the ACTION quite well, but the connections between characters and the "why should I give a shit about them" elements were lacking for me (which is true for a lot of Nolan films IMHO) which when added to plot confusion really sunk this film for me.

I'll do a rewatch at home at some point to see if it improves. I do appreciate Nolan slipping in James Bond audition scenes in his films though, give that guy a go at it already!!!

I really loved Tenet (and talked about it many pages back in this thread), but I definitely found it confusing.



I enjoyed my first viewing quite a bit and the film stuck with me. My second viewing was even better. I really need to watch it again.

There are so many memorable scenes.

jason10mm wrote: When I saw it in imax it definitely had audio clarity issues. Maybe those have been fixed now or with subtitles. But the plot, such as it is, was extremely obtuse and hard to follow for me simply because most of the expository bits were lost in the noise.

Those are intentional choices by Nolan; he feels that sometimes (all the time?) dialogue should be in the background because it is not the focus of the scene.

Disgustipater wrote: Those are intentional choices by Nolan; he feels that sometimes (all the time?) dialogue should be in the background because it is not the focus of the scene.

And it is the wrong choice IMHO. Dialogue not meant to be heard (easily at least) shouldn't even be written, much less carry important info if you COULD hear it. There is a spectrum between obvious spoonfeeding and being too sly for your own good and I feel this film, with its ridiculously intricate backstory and plotting, was waaaaay to far into the "too sly" side. A few clear lines describing who, what, and why in a couple key places would have improved this films audience reaction score (which is still pretty good considering) and given folks (like me) a reason to root for the good guys because we would know the stakes.

But calling the lead "Protagonist", sheesh, that's some edgy film school nonsense right there

For me, Tenet felt more like a concept than a movie. I was interested in it but not engaged with it. When (and I don't think rises to the level of spoiler) one character gives a briefing and says, as much or more to the audience than the character being briefed, that you shouldn't try to understand it, just "feel" it, it gave me permission not to care. It's all clever enough and well edited enough that it doesn't bore or unintentionally confuse, but the stakes are so high and yet so meaningless, and the characters are cool to the point of dead.inside, that it feels like mostly a visual exercise, which isn't primarily what I want from a movie.

For my money, I'd prefer something along the lines of Edge of Tomorrow, which, while trodding over ground that's a little more conventional SF than Tenet does, does so with, for my money, more wit and depth.

A lot of the grievances are actually things I love about it- the stilted, absurdly “cool” characters, the highly stylized dialogue, the remoteness...these are all things that Kubrick did too, really.

“Protagonist” has to be a riff on Snow Crash, right? I kept thinking of the algorithm as Darkseid’s anti-life equation...

The muffles dialogue thing is a WTF though...he pulled that with Bane in DKR and I think he did in Dunkirk too. That is in fact a lousy decision. Maybe he’s thinking of an effect something like Altman’s overlapping dialogue? I dunno. At any rate, O didn’t have any issues with the sound at home.

It’s funny, because the central concept of the future sending things back to get something done in the past is...exactly what Anachrony is about. Talk about timing.

I don't think it was a Snow Crash reference. I think the lead needed that name/label because the whole film was an exercise in storytelling and story structure. It was as if The Protagonist was Nolan himself and he was demonstrating how the author/director is omniscient and can tell people all of these things that the regular characters can't, even though THEY are the ones "telling the story" on the author/director's behalf.

I was left a little empty after watching it. While I appreciate both his vision and his expertise (I think Christopher Nolan is one of the best directors in the business), I think this film was a little too self-indulgent. Yes, it's story at its most basic level but with all of these amazing trappings that make it look more complicated than it is. Great. Thanks for teaching us Film 101 again, professor. I'm not sure it was necessary but, OK. Refresher course!

Yes, it was entertaining and, yes, there's going to be a lot to unpack on subsequent viewings. But the central question to all of that should be: Is it worth it? Again, I'm a Nolan fan, so I'll certainly watch it again just to watch how he does his thing. But would I consider it a "landmark" film that everyone should see? No. It's just not that interesting for anyone who isn't already a fan or isn't interested in the basics of story structure. I suppose there are some people who think that time travel theorizing is fascinating, too. And, fair enough. Everybody's gotta have a hobby.

Another county heard from: I really couldn't have cared less about anyone in Tenet. After about 30 minutes of it I watched something else to wash the taste out of my mouth. I like a lot of what Nolan's done, but this was just boring.

NFW is this going to be a cinema classic in 20 years. "Interesting failure" at best. If I'm still on this side of the grave in 20 years, hunt me up and I'll announce to the world I was wrong, and give you $5 for your trouble.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

They did it. The bastards did it. They made two hours of action sequences. I can dig it. It's a little thing, but I do appreciate that things constantly go wrong for the team on the technical end. Despite all their magic technology, things still just don't work like they should. Two things hold it back: the weaker villains and a lackluster climax. You're setting the bar high with the prison break and Burj Khalifa sequences, and a fight in a fancy parking garage is not going to cut it.

I'd probably put it third on my list of Missions: Impossible. III comes first on the back of Philip Seymour Hoffman then Fallout. Then Rogue Nation, the original and II. Can't imagine that's too controversial a ranking.

I'm really due a front to back MI rewatch. It's what, 7 flicks over 20 years? I feel like the later ones have taken the stunt mantle from Bond quite decisively.

I pine for a return to the numbering of films. I can't remember which MI movie is which after the third one.

I think numbered sequels are done, at least if "the plan" is to have a shared universe. Marvel showed that for sure. It's nothing new obviously, Bond has always done it and Indy did as well. Maybe a brand spanking new IP (if any such thing exists anymore) has to for brand awareness purposes. Certainly once you have more than 4-5 numbering them seems tedious (Rocky falls out after V, right? And Rambo after III, maybe IV? Fast Five after F&F4? I no longer recall) No one really uses the star wars numerals for VII-IX or even the older ones anymore.

I'll be curious if the Avatar saga uses numbers or different titles, I've not actually seen any real press for avatar 2 but wasn't that supposed to be out by now? It's been over a decade now, they practically have to reboot public awareness of it.