Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Weird - and I couldn't look away
I have viewed some really strange films in my day. When asked, I often mention MIRRORMASK (based on a Neil Gaiman story) and mother! (the Darren Aronofsky oddity) as the strangest films I have ever seen.
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Add Robert Eggers’ THE LIGHTHOUSE to this list.
Based on a real life tragedy from 1801, THE LIGHTHOUSE follows 2 isolated Lighthouse keepers as they interact with each other, slowly going mad in the process…or did they? Is one of them mad and the other sane? Are they both mad? Or…is it the viewer who is going mad? Eggers let’s you, the viewer, decide.
And…good for him. I have now encountered 2 films directed by former Production Designer Eggers - THE WITCH and now this film. In both cases, the movies are interestingly shot and intriguing to view but almost incomprehensible. The more so with THE LIGHTHOUSE, it is almost as if Eggers heard the criticism of THE WITCH of being incomprehensible and said “hold my beer”.
Besides the production values - which really are quite good (especially Eggers use of Black and White) - what holds this movie in high regards is the acting of the 2 people in film. These 2 characters are the only speaking parts in this movie.
Willem Dafoe portrays the older, veteran Lighthouseman who tells the tales of Mermaids and Curses and has a generally air of foreboding from the start. It is a masterwork by Dafoe - his best work of his career (and that’s saying something). He is unnerving to view from the start. The only thing the viewer needs to figure out is whether he is insane or very, very, very sane.
The surprise for me in this movie is the work of Robert Pattinson, the younger Lighthouseman who is in his first assignment. He is the audience’s eyes into this weird world and he is very much sane at the beginning. At the end…well…you decide. He was able to go toe-to-toe with DaFoe and held his own very well. This young actor has made a conscious choice following the Twilight films and with this movie and with Christopher Nolan's TENANT he is establishing himself as a darn good performer.
As for the film itself, my one recommendation for you is to not be too concerned of making sense of what is going on in the scene you are watching…you’ll drive yourself mad doing this (at least it was driving me mad). After awhile I just sat back and drank in the weirdness - and the quality acting and production values - that was enfolding in front of me and the ending was satisfying (enough).
All in all one of the stranger times I’ve had at the movies.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Good Time (2017) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Here is another example of a very watchable low budget film that may have passed by your radar undetected. It came to my attention in two ways. The first because I disliked Uncut Gems so much folk started telling me to watch Good Time to get a better idea of what the Safdie brothers were all about. The second because Robert Pattinson kept popping up and being good in things, when again, there was a time I wouldn’t have thought that possible.
Josh and Benny Safdie have a lot of energy as filmmakers it seems; if the two films I’ve seen so far indicate a motif then it is people forced to act without much thought when the stakes are pretty much life and death. A raw, desperate energy exists in their work that comes straight at you through the screen. In Uncut Gems I found they pushed that feeling too hard, and what we were left with was a massively uncomfortable experience that felt like drinking too much coffee and then being screamed at by someone you hated. Good Time tempers that a little by having a protagonist whose motives you can at least identify with, played by a better, less shouty, more subtle and more likeable actor.
The plot revolves around Pattinson’s Connie frantically trying to find and save his mentally challenged brother, Nick, played by co-director Benny Safdie, after forcing him to participate in a bank robbery that goes wrong. Safdie as an actor is superb and memorable in the role, as is Pattinson. The chemistry between the two is simultaneously edgy, heartbreaking and somehow genuine. You believe they are brothers and invest in it – feeling Nick’s guilt and need to atone driving every bad decision along the grimy path he treads through the seedier parts of the city.
The camerawork and direction make the lights and sounds of the city a character in itself. It may not be true, but I see this film in my head, now as I think of it, as being 90% at night, lit by flashing headlights. Certainly that feel of running head-on into traffic is a big part of it. But there are slower, more sensitive scenes that spring to mind too. Constantly we are being asked if we can forgive Nick, or at least understand why he is making the choices he is making. Essentially he wants the panic to stop, but can’t ever get himself to a place of peace. An idea beautifully illustrated in the scenes involving the female characters of Corey and Crystal (the former played by Jennifer Jason Leigh with typical edge); Nick wants to be loved and respected, but how will that ever be possible?
Contrasting Pattinson’s work here with other recent efforts, including Tenet, The Lighthouse and The Lost City of Z, you can see an impressive range where his true personality disappears into his character. Something not every actor can do by any means, and something Adam Sandler failed to do in Uncut Gems, for example. I continue to be more impressed by him from film to film, to the extent that if I saw him in a cast it would be reason enough to see something. He has that ability to make an average film watchable, often being the best thing about the project. And I have to admit that has surprised me. But I like Kristen Stewart too these days, so it just shows how much the Twilight franchise has to answer for!
I wouldn’t go mad recommending this to everyone, but there is a time and a place for it, and I’m pleased I can appreciate the talent and potential the Safdie Brothers have inherently. There certainly aren’t enough young filmmakers taking risks in this way any more. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see their formula strike true gold before too long.
Josh and Benny Safdie have a lot of energy as filmmakers it seems; if the two films I’ve seen so far indicate a motif then it is people forced to act without much thought when the stakes are pretty much life and death. A raw, desperate energy exists in their work that comes straight at you through the screen. In Uncut Gems I found they pushed that feeling too hard, and what we were left with was a massively uncomfortable experience that felt like drinking too much coffee and then being screamed at by someone you hated. Good Time tempers that a little by having a protagonist whose motives you can at least identify with, played by a better, less shouty, more subtle and more likeable actor.
The plot revolves around Pattinson’s Connie frantically trying to find and save his mentally challenged brother, Nick, played by co-director Benny Safdie, after forcing him to participate in a bank robbery that goes wrong. Safdie as an actor is superb and memorable in the role, as is Pattinson. The chemistry between the two is simultaneously edgy, heartbreaking and somehow genuine. You believe they are brothers and invest in it – feeling Nick’s guilt and need to atone driving every bad decision along the grimy path he treads through the seedier parts of the city.
The camerawork and direction make the lights and sounds of the city a character in itself. It may not be true, but I see this film in my head, now as I think of it, as being 90% at night, lit by flashing headlights. Certainly that feel of running head-on into traffic is a big part of it. But there are slower, more sensitive scenes that spring to mind too. Constantly we are being asked if we can forgive Nick, or at least understand why he is making the choices he is making. Essentially he wants the panic to stop, but can’t ever get himself to a place of peace. An idea beautifully illustrated in the scenes involving the female characters of Corey and Crystal (the former played by Jennifer Jason Leigh with typical edge); Nick wants to be loved and respected, but how will that ever be possible?
Contrasting Pattinson’s work here with other recent efforts, including Tenet, The Lighthouse and The Lost City of Z, you can see an impressive range where his true personality disappears into his character. Something not every actor can do by any means, and something Adam Sandler failed to do in Uncut Gems, for example. I continue to be more impressed by him from film to film, to the extent that if I saw him in a cast it would be reason enough to see something. He has that ability to make an average film watchable, often being the best thing about the project. And I have to admit that has surprised me. But I like Kristen Stewart too these days, so it just shows how much the Twilight franchise has to answer for!
I wouldn’t go mad recommending this to everyone, but there is a time and a place for it, and I’m pleased I can appreciate the talent and potential the Safdie Brothers have inherently. There certainly aren’t enough young filmmakers taking risks in this way any more. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see their formula strike true gold before too long.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Feb 28, 2022
In 1989 Michael Keaton was seen as a very controversial choice to wear the Cowl of Batman but soon proved his doubters wrong by turning “Batman” and its subsequent sequel “Batman Returns” into massive Box Office success before leaving the cape behind.
While four other actors have taken up the cinematic version of the character in the subsequent years, Keaton has remained for many the Gold Standard with Christian Bale likely being his biggest rival.
When Robert Pattinson was named as the new Batman, there was interest but concern as an actor who is largely known for playing Edward in the “Twilight” films seemed to be an odd choice. However, I would say that anyone who has seen some of his recent work including his performance in “The Lighthouse” would be playing him a disservice by saying he was not up to the part.
In “The Batman”, audiences are given a darker and more broken Bruce Wayne, an Emo recluse who is far from the Socialite he has been portrayed as for decades and a very sullen and withdrawn individual who does not exude charm or grace and even shows issues making eye-contact.
When the Mayor of Gotham is killed shortly before the election by a mysterious individual known as “The Riddler” (Paul Dano), the vigilante known as “The Batman” is called in to help the police by Lt. James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright). Gordon has been working with Batman for some time but it is clear that his association with him has not won him any favors with his fellow officers, many of which openly question his use and involvement in the crime scenes.
Further complicating matters are clues left at the various crime locales that are addressed to The Batman and cause many to believe that he may be working with the very killer they are attempting to stop.
As the investigation unfolds, the seedy side of Gotham City comes to light in the form of a missing girl who was photographed with the married Mayor and may well be the key to the investigation. Her disappearance leads her friend Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz), to take on her Catwoman persona and delve deep into an underworld that features deadly individuals ranging from Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), and The Penguin (Colin Farrell), amongst others as she and the Batman conduct their own investigations that at times overlap and further complicate matters.
As the body count rises and Batman races to find the true method behind the madness of The Riddler, the tone becomes darker and more sinister in a deadly race against time.
The film eschews the usual abundance of action sequences and glossy special effects which are common for Comic Book related films and instead gives audiences a slow-burning murder mystery that holds your attention from start to finish over its three-hour run time.
The dark and foreboding tone of the film is brought home by the haunting and sharp piano keys of the film’s theme that permeates the film and punches home that this is a film clearly aimed at a more adult audience.
Pattinson does a great job showing the deeply broken individual that is behind the mask and that Batman is the only form of escape or therapy that Bruce Wayne has due to his insistence on saving a city that many argue cannot be saved. He has strained his relationship at times with Alfred (Andy Serkis), caused damage to the financial stability and reputation of the family company in his quest for vengeance and justice, and has become a bitter and broken recluse in doing so. In many ways, it could be argued that his only socialization with others is as The Batman and his single-minded obsession is chilling to watch.
Pattinson also handles the action sequences well as the film spaces them out to put the emphasis more on the man than the gadgets as they are kept to a minimum even during a thrilling chase with the new version of The Batmobile.
The strong supporting cast works well with the film and Paul Dano gives a very compelling and disturbing version of his character which makes the film even darker and more engrossing.
Director Matt Reeves has crafted a dark and foreboding tone and visual style as a good portion of the film takes place in the darkness and his screenplay is not afraid to take chances by putting the emphasis on the characters and their flaws versus an abundance of action and effects.
I found this version of the character and interpretation more engrossing than prior versions of the film as the bold move to do a slow-burning and dark murder mystery versus an effect-laden action film reminded me of some of the better Batman stories such as Batman: The Killing Joke or Batman: The Long Halloween.
The film is not going to be for everyone, especially younger viewers and some may take issue with the casting choices, but their performances shine and as such, “The Batman” was a very engaging and unforgettable tale that for me serves as one of the best adaptations of the character ever.
4 stars out of 5
While four other actors have taken up the cinematic version of the character in the subsequent years, Keaton has remained for many the Gold Standard with Christian Bale likely being his biggest rival.
When Robert Pattinson was named as the new Batman, there was interest but concern as an actor who is largely known for playing Edward in the “Twilight” films seemed to be an odd choice. However, I would say that anyone who has seen some of his recent work including his performance in “The Lighthouse” would be playing him a disservice by saying he was not up to the part.
In “The Batman”, audiences are given a darker and more broken Bruce Wayne, an Emo recluse who is far from the Socialite he has been portrayed as for decades and a very sullen and withdrawn individual who does not exude charm or grace and even shows issues making eye-contact.
When the Mayor of Gotham is killed shortly before the election by a mysterious individual known as “The Riddler” (Paul Dano), the vigilante known as “The Batman” is called in to help the police by Lt. James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright). Gordon has been working with Batman for some time but it is clear that his association with him has not won him any favors with his fellow officers, many of which openly question his use and involvement in the crime scenes.
Further complicating matters are clues left at the various crime locales that are addressed to The Batman and cause many to believe that he may be working with the very killer they are attempting to stop.
As the investigation unfolds, the seedy side of Gotham City comes to light in the form of a missing girl who was photographed with the married Mayor and may well be the key to the investigation. Her disappearance leads her friend Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz), to take on her Catwoman persona and delve deep into an underworld that features deadly individuals ranging from Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), and The Penguin (Colin Farrell), amongst others as she and the Batman conduct their own investigations that at times overlap and further complicate matters.
As the body count rises and Batman races to find the true method behind the madness of The Riddler, the tone becomes darker and more sinister in a deadly race against time.
The film eschews the usual abundance of action sequences and glossy special effects which are common for Comic Book related films and instead gives audiences a slow-burning murder mystery that holds your attention from start to finish over its three-hour run time.
The dark and foreboding tone of the film is brought home by the haunting and sharp piano keys of the film’s theme that permeates the film and punches home that this is a film clearly aimed at a more adult audience.
Pattinson does a great job showing the deeply broken individual that is behind the mask and that Batman is the only form of escape or therapy that Bruce Wayne has due to his insistence on saving a city that many argue cannot be saved. He has strained his relationship at times with Alfred (Andy Serkis), caused damage to the financial stability and reputation of the family company in his quest for vengeance and justice, and has become a bitter and broken recluse in doing so. In many ways, it could be argued that his only socialization with others is as The Batman and his single-minded obsession is chilling to watch.
Pattinson also handles the action sequences well as the film spaces them out to put the emphasis more on the man than the gadgets as they are kept to a minimum even during a thrilling chase with the new version of The Batmobile.
The strong supporting cast works well with the film and Paul Dano gives a very compelling and disturbing version of his character which makes the film even darker and more engrossing.
Director Matt Reeves has crafted a dark and foreboding tone and visual style as a good portion of the film takes place in the darkness and his screenplay is not afraid to take chances by putting the emphasis on the characters and their flaws versus an abundance of action and effects.
I found this version of the character and interpretation more engrossing than prior versions of the film as the bold move to do a slow-burning and dark murder mystery versus an effect-laden action film reminded me of some of the better Batman stories such as Batman: The Killing Joke or Batman: The Long Halloween.
The film is not going to be for everyone, especially younger viewers and some may take issue with the casting choices, but their performances shine and as such, “The Batman” was a very engaging and unforgettable tale that for me serves as one of the best adaptations of the character ever.
4 stars out of 5
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Rover (2014) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Don't mess with a man's car!
If you have seen the current Netflix film, The King (hopefully watching this weekend), you will have seen a subsequent effort by writer/director David Michôd.
This film takes place 10 years after "the collapse", not really specified other than not many people around and the ones who are survive a desolate, isolated existence. The setting is the barren Australian outback wasteland where human beings are scarce and gratuity and benevolence are things of the past.
A lonely man (never spoke his name in the film) sees three men steal his vehicle after theirs is sidelined from an apparent crash. Incensed, the grizzled man takes off after the threesome rapidly wanted to reacquire it. The men are far in the lead down the infinity highway, but the man manages to catch them since they are unaware of the pursuit. After some cat and mouse along the highway, the man is unable to retrieve his vehicle at that time.
The makes his way through the harsh landscape eventually running across the wounded brother of one of his car thieves who he decides to bring along for the ride. The brother is willing to explain the possible destination of the thieves as well as he may want some sort of vengeance since his brother and companions left him to die on the side of the road.
Any post-apocalyptic film set in Australia immediately will remind you of the Mad Max films. Similar in setting only, this film is much less action and is an unlikely road film at its core. There are some well designed action scenes when the men encounter various scumbags and individuals along their route. You are never really sure why the man is so interested in getting his car back until the very end.
Guy Pearce shows he is up to the challenge of playing a very unlikable, hardened miscreant, while Robert Pattinson plays the simpleton sidekick role extremely well. His accent his so hard to understand at times (reminded me of Brad Pitt in Snatch) I actually had to rewind a few times because I missed the catchy dialogue.
The film does have a few dry spots, but I was very surprised how much I liked this.
This film takes place 10 years after "the collapse", not really specified other than not many people around and the ones who are survive a desolate, isolated existence. The setting is the barren Australian outback wasteland where human beings are scarce and gratuity and benevolence are things of the past.
A lonely man (never spoke his name in the film) sees three men steal his vehicle after theirs is sidelined from an apparent crash. Incensed, the grizzled man takes off after the threesome rapidly wanted to reacquire it. The men are far in the lead down the infinity highway, but the man manages to catch them since they are unaware of the pursuit. After some cat and mouse along the highway, the man is unable to retrieve his vehicle at that time.
The makes his way through the harsh landscape eventually running across the wounded brother of one of his car thieves who he decides to bring along for the ride. The brother is willing to explain the possible destination of the thieves as well as he may want some sort of vengeance since his brother and companions left him to die on the side of the road.
Any post-apocalyptic film set in Australia immediately will remind you of the Mad Max films. Similar in setting only, this film is much less action and is an unlikely road film at its core. There are some well designed action scenes when the men encounter various scumbags and individuals along their route. You are never really sure why the man is so interested in getting his car back until the very end.
Guy Pearce shows he is up to the challenge of playing a very unlikable, hardened miscreant, while Robert Pattinson plays the simpleton sidekick role extremely well. His accent his so hard to understand at times (reminded me of Brad Pitt in Snatch) I actually had to rewind a few times because I missed the catchy dialogue.
The film does have a few dry spots, but I was very surprised how much I liked this.
colin... (64 KP) rated Uncut Gems (2019) in Movies
Sep 30, 2020
The fact that the Safdie's landed Christmas is still absolutely wild to me. There were so many people in our theater that looked like they just DIDN'T belong there.
First things first, I'd like to get my negatives out of the way really quickly. My issue with this film, and why I view it as lesser than Good Time is one simple reason, and that is heart. I felt every moment of Good Time pulsating through my bones and truly felt for the ride that Connie went through. I saw the pain and remorse and emotion in his eyes grow with every passing moment. In Uncut Gems, I don't get the same gravitas and power of the emotion that is provided in Good Time. I never truly saw any remorse in Howard, nor that he really cared about anything else but himself, so when the emotional beats come when we are supposed to feel bad for him, I have a rather hard time doing that. He's not necessarily an unlikable guy, he just doesn't have that anti-hero vibe that Connie supplied. That is the main facet that significantly detracted from my appreciation for this film.
That being said, everything else is stellar. The grittiness of the cinematography works so well with the world we are being immersed in, with even the long shots being very unsteady and dirty looking in the way that the characters are framed. As everyone else is saying, Sandler puts on a magnificent performance (although if he gets nominated and Robert Pattinson didn't for Good Time, I'll be pretty frustrated) that reminds the public of why he demands the level of respect her does. However, the standout here for me is Julia Fox, who makes this film funnier than it has any right to be. She really carries herself in a way that I felt like I had met her before, or at least someone exactly like her. Going off of that, the humor really really works, so much so that I could argue that this is a black comedy instead of the crime thriller it is listed as. Everything from the situational comedy to the witty lines of dialogue just hits you in the chest.
Overall, a wonderful film that I hope will push the Safdie's into the mainstream like Hereditary did to Aster.
First things first, I'd like to get my negatives out of the way really quickly. My issue with this film, and why I view it as lesser than Good Time is one simple reason, and that is heart. I felt every moment of Good Time pulsating through my bones and truly felt for the ride that Connie went through. I saw the pain and remorse and emotion in his eyes grow with every passing moment. In Uncut Gems, I don't get the same gravitas and power of the emotion that is provided in Good Time. I never truly saw any remorse in Howard, nor that he really cared about anything else but himself, so when the emotional beats come when we are supposed to feel bad for him, I have a rather hard time doing that. He's not necessarily an unlikable guy, he just doesn't have that anti-hero vibe that Connie supplied. That is the main facet that significantly detracted from my appreciation for this film.
That being said, everything else is stellar. The grittiness of the cinematography works so well with the world we are being immersed in, with even the long shots being very unsteady and dirty looking in the way that the characters are framed. As everyone else is saying, Sandler puts on a magnificent performance (although if he gets nominated and Robert Pattinson didn't for Good Time, I'll be pretty frustrated) that reminds the public of why he demands the level of respect her does. However, the standout here for me is Julia Fox, who makes this film funnier than it has any right to be. She really carries herself in a way that I felt like I had met her before, or at least someone exactly like her. Going off of that, the humor really really works, so much so that I could argue that this is a black comedy instead of the crime thriller it is listed as. Everything from the situational comedy to the witty lines of dialogue just hits you in the chest.
Overall, a wonderful film that I hope will push the Safdie's into the mainstream like Hereditary did to Aster.
David McK (3207 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Apr 3, 2022 (Updated Oct 23, 2022)
"I am vengeance!"
Batman.
First debuting in DC Comics, 1939, and now one of the most popular superheroes of all, amongst the 'holy trinity' of Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman
It's often forgotten and/or overlooked in his numerous movies to date that those initials (DC) actually stand for Detective Comics, with Batman - on the pages - sometimes also known as The Worlds Greatest Detective.
This is the first of his movies that I can think of where that aspect of his character is portrayed - sure, there hints of it in 1989s Batman, but only hints. Here it's full force, front and centre, with Batman - only his second year as a Vigilante - working alongside Jim Gordon and a proto-Catwoman to track down and apprehend the serial killer known only as The Riddler, who is leaving clues behind at all his kills.
A very different portrayal of that character than Jim Carrey's version in 'Batman Forever'.
This is also a very long film - nearly 3 hours - that, I felt, is in danger of outstaying it's welcome, with very little in the way of superheroics. More of a police whodunnit with costumed characters, maybe. There's also a perfect 'cutting-off' point at just after the third act, with - I guess? - a studio mandate for the fourth act tacked on, which is probably more along the lines of what to expect from a Batman movie.
As for Robert Pattinson as The Caped Crusader? I kept expecting him to sparkle. Unfair, I know (to type cast him as the vampire from Twilight), but I do think he may have swung too far in the other direction when portraying Bruce Wayne; here very much an emo goth kid rather than the swaggering heir to the fortune he is oft shown as. In fact, there's very little of Bruce on display: he spends most of his time, in costume, as Batman. This was a conscious decision, or so I have heard, to show how Bruce is in danger of losing himself to that persona. I'm also struggling to think of a single key 'stand-out' moment in line with 'Batman Begins' rescuing Rachel or 'The Dark Knight' "he's the Hero we need ..." bit: the Penguin car chase, perhaps?
So, yeah, a very different cinematic take on The Dark Knight, indeed.
First debuting in DC Comics, 1939, and now one of the most popular superheroes of all, amongst the 'holy trinity' of Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman
It's often forgotten and/or overlooked in his numerous movies to date that those initials (DC) actually stand for Detective Comics, with Batman - on the pages - sometimes also known as The Worlds Greatest Detective.
This is the first of his movies that I can think of where that aspect of his character is portrayed - sure, there hints of it in 1989s Batman, but only hints. Here it's full force, front and centre, with Batman - only his second year as a Vigilante - working alongside Jim Gordon and a proto-Catwoman to track down and apprehend the serial killer known only as The Riddler, who is leaving clues behind at all his kills.
A very different portrayal of that character than Jim Carrey's version in 'Batman Forever'.
This is also a very long film - nearly 3 hours - that, I felt, is in danger of outstaying it's welcome, with very little in the way of superheroics. More of a police whodunnit with costumed characters, maybe. There's also a perfect 'cutting-off' point at just after the third act, with - I guess? - a studio mandate for the fourth act tacked on, which is probably more along the lines of what to expect from a Batman movie.
As for Robert Pattinson as The Caped Crusader? I kept expecting him to sparkle. Unfair, I know (to type cast him as the vampire from Twilight), but I do think he may have swung too far in the other direction when portraying Bruce Wayne; here very much an emo goth kid rather than the swaggering heir to the fortune he is oft shown as. In fact, there's very little of Bruce on display: he spends most of his time, in costume, as Batman. This was a conscious decision, or so I have heard, to show how Bruce is in danger of losing himself to that persona. I'm also struggling to think of a single key 'stand-out' moment in line with 'Batman Begins' rescuing Rachel or 'The Dark Knight' "he's the Hero we need ..." bit: the Penguin car chase, perhaps?
So, yeah, a very different cinematic take on The Dark Knight, indeed.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020 (Updated Aug 28, 2020)
Confusingly brilliant
When it comes to Christopher Nolan, I may be a little biased. I’ve loved every film he’s ever made, and most of his films feature in my list of favourite films of all time. So unsurprisingly, I loved Tenet even if it did completely mess up my head.
This film is a complete mind f**k. Excuse the language, but there’s no better way to describe it. Right from the opening scene, you can appreciate the sheer brilliance of this whilst being totally confused at the same time. And I’ll admit I spent the majority of this film wondering what on earth was going on, but that doesn’t make it any less of an enjoyable thrill ride. As with all of Nolan’s films, the cinematography is top notch and you really can’t fault it. The action scenes are epic and hugely impressive, especially when you consider that they’ve been done without CGI. I wish other filmmakers would take not when it comes to their over reliance on CGI! The score and soundtrack are fantastic too, so dramatic and really help with the increasing the suspense and tension.
Cast-wise, I had been concerned about John David Washington mainly because I haven’t seen him in much, but my concerns were unwarranted. He makes for a likeable lead and action hero and can definitely hold the weight of this film. Robert Pattinson, who I’ve never really liked thanks to Twilight, is also rather good and I actually wish his character had been in this more. And I spent the last part of the film debating if Aaron Taylor-Johnson was Ives (he was) who also should’ve been in this a lot more.
Despite my gushing, this film isn’t perfect, I found Elizabeth Debicki’s character Kat rather irritating at times and felt like her character could have been made into someone better. I also felt when there were dips in the action and the film ran into some quieter moments, my mind tended to wander to try and dissect and understand everything I’d already seen so far which probably made me miss more! The science behind the inversion is pretty deep and confusing, especially if you try and overthink it like I did.
That said, how this film unfolds and it’s ending are brilliantly done. There are a lot of lightbulb moments in this towards the end that made me go “ohhh” when I realised it explained or referred to an earlier moment in the film. And the ending itself was both unpredicted, genius, and also tugged on the old heartstrings a little. I loved this film a lot, but I definitely need to watch it again to really appreciate it fully.
This film is a complete mind f**k. Excuse the language, but there’s no better way to describe it. Right from the opening scene, you can appreciate the sheer brilliance of this whilst being totally confused at the same time. And I’ll admit I spent the majority of this film wondering what on earth was going on, but that doesn’t make it any less of an enjoyable thrill ride. As with all of Nolan’s films, the cinematography is top notch and you really can’t fault it. The action scenes are epic and hugely impressive, especially when you consider that they’ve been done without CGI. I wish other filmmakers would take not when it comes to their over reliance on CGI! The score and soundtrack are fantastic too, so dramatic and really help with the increasing the suspense and tension.
Cast-wise, I had been concerned about John David Washington mainly because I haven’t seen him in much, but my concerns were unwarranted. He makes for a likeable lead and action hero and can definitely hold the weight of this film. Robert Pattinson, who I’ve never really liked thanks to Twilight, is also rather good and I actually wish his character had been in this more. And I spent the last part of the film debating if Aaron Taylor-Johnson was Ives (he was) who also should’ve been in this a lot more.
Despite my gushing, this film isn’t perfect, I found Elizabeth Debicki’s character Kat rather irritating at times and felt like her character could have been made into someone better. I also felt when there were dips in the action and the film ran into some quieter moments, my mind tended to wander to try and dissect and understand everything I’d already seen so far which probably made me miss more! The science behind the inversion is pretty deep and confusing, especially if you try and overthink it like I did.
That said, how this film unfolds and it’s ending are brilliantly done. There are a lot of lightbulb moments in this towards the end that made me go “ohhh” when I realised it explained or referred to an earlier moment in the film. And the ending itself was both unpredicted, genius, and also tugged on the old heartstrings a little. I loved this film a lot, but I definitely need to watch it again to really appreciate it fully.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Twilight Saga has had a tough time in its short screen life. Constant comparisons to Harry Potter and now The Hunger Games have ensured that it has taken a back seat to these franchises. After 3 bitterly disappointing instalments in the series, Breaking Dawn Part 1 which was released last year lifted the bar and promised a fine end to the series. One year later, Part 2 has been released, but can it keep up the momentum set by its predecessor?
The answer, unfortunately is no and as Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner, (Jacob Black) and Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan) pull the curtains over the long suffering franchise, you can’t help but feel a strange sense of sadness. These films haven’t been as good as they could’ve.
Breaking Dawn Part 2 starts immediately where the last film finished as Bella Swan (Stewart) gives birth to her half-human, half-vampire child. For some bizarre reason, the blood and childbirth elements of the last film have been completely thrown to the wind as Bella awakens as a vampire and is better than ever. Not reminding viewers of what went before was a major oversight on the part of director Bill Condon and those not familiar with the books will have a hard time remembering what happened last year.
It just so happens that Bella and Edward’s daughter Renesmee is growing at an astonishing rate. To show this, the producers have created her with a CGI layering effect which means using a real baby with a CGI face. Unfortunately, this means that Renesmee is the creepiest baby you will have ever had the misfortune to see. Surely there must’ve been some money left over from the $120m budget to create a real treat for fans. As it is, the first time you lay eyes on Renesmee, there is a gasp of horror rather than adoration.
Unfortunately, the sinister Volturi have gotten wind of Renesmee’s existence thanks to a brief cameo by Maggie Grace (Taken 2) as Irina. She mistakenly believes that the child is a pure vampire which is, under no circumstances allowed. Michael Sheen is a highlight as Aro, leader of the Volturi, his camp, unbelievably over the top performance, highlighted perfectly in the film’s finale, is a breath of fresh air against the heavy breathing, downtrodden characterisations from the rest of the cast.
Special effects have never been a strong point for this movie franchise and things really haven’t improved in this latest instalment. We’ve already mentioned the horror of Bella’s demon baby, but the werewolves are pretty bad too and really don’t move the game on at all. In fact, in some sequences it’s like we’re back in the 90s.
It’s not all bad news however; a real highlight for me throughout the course of the films has been the excellent cinematography. The setting is absolutely wonderful, from the snow-capped peaks and plains, to the cliff edges and forests, everything looks fantastic and director Bill Condon really knows how to maximise the environment he has been given to work with.
Unfortunately, no amount of scenery can save a film which, ultimately is a bit of a damp squib. This is more apparent in the finale, which I can honestly say is one of the worst I have ever seen in a film franchise. This is, partly down to Stephenie Meyer’s amateurish writing in the novel, which ensures the final scenes which should’ve been a joy to watch, are completely disregarded and frankly, stupid.
So, there we have it, The Twilight Saga has ended and what a saga it has been. Three average films at best gave way to Breaking Dawn Part 1, which showed promise and could possibly have been the saviour of the franchise. However, the release of Breaking Dawn Part 2 has pushed things back to where it was before the 3rd instalment, Eclipse. The series’ passionate fans have deserved much better and when it should’ve been going out with a bit of bite, instead, we leave Twilight on a bit of a whimper.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/12/03/twilight-breaking-dawn-pt-2-review/
The answer, unfortunately is no and as Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner, (Jacob Black) and Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan) pull the curtains over the long suffering franchise, you can’t help but feel a strange sense of sadness. These films haven’t been as good as they could’ve.
Breaking Dawn Part 2 starts immediately where the last film finished as Bella Swan (Stewart) gives birth to her half-human, half-vampire child. For some bizarre reason, the blood and childbirth elements of the last film have been completely thrown to the wind as Bella awakens as a vampire and is better than ever. Not reminding viewers of what went before was a major oversight on the part of director Bill Condon and those not familiar with the books will have a hard time remembering what happened last year.
It just so happens that Bella and Edward’s daughter Renesmee is growing at an astonishing rate. To show this, the producers have created her with a CGI layering effect which means using a real baby with a CGI face. Unfortunately, this means that Renesmee is the creepiest baby you will have ever had the misfortune to see. Surely there must’ve been some money left over from the $120m budget to create a real treat for fans. As it is, the first time you lay eyes on Renesmee, there is a gasp of horror rather than adoration.
Unfortunately, the sinister Volturi have gotten wind of Renesmee’s existence thanks to a brief cameo by Maggie Grace (Taken 2) as Irina. She mistakenly believes that the child is a pure vampire which is, under no circumstances allowed. Michael Sheen is a highlight as Aro, leader of the Volturi, his camp, unbelievably over the top performance, highlighted perfectly in the film’s finale, is a breath of fresh air against the heavy breathing, downtrodden characterisations from the rest of the cast.
Special effects have never been a strong point for this movie franchise and things really haven’t improved in this latest instalment. We’ve already mentioned the horror of Bella’s demon baby, but the werewolves are pretty bad too and really don’t move the game on at all. In fact, in some sequences it’s like we’re back in the 90s.
It’s not all bad news however; a real highlight for me throughout the course of the films has been the excellent cinematography. The setting is absolutely wonderful, from the snow-capped peaks and plains, to the cliff edges and forests, everything looks fantastic and director Bill Condon really knows how to maximise the environment he has been given to work with.
Unfortunately, no amount of scenery can save a film which, ultimately is a bit of a damp squib. This is more apparent in the finale, which I can honestly say is one of the worst I have ever seen in a film franchise. This is, partly down to Stephenie Meyer’s amateurish writing in the novel, which ensures the final scenes which should’ve been a joy to watch, are completely disregarded and frankly, stupid.
So, there we have it, The Twilight Saga has ended and what a saga it has been. Three average films at best gave way to Breaking Dawn Part 1, which showed promise and could possibly have been the saviour of the franchise. However, the release of Breaking Dawn Part 2 has pushed things back to where it was before the 3rd instalment, Eclipse. The series’ passionate fans have deserved much better and when it should’ve been going out with a bit of bite, instead, we leave Twilight on a bit of a whimper.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/12/03/twilight-breaking-dawn-pt-2-review/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Jan 2, 2021
Nolan's PhD Thesis on time
And…on the first day of 2021…the BankofMarquis viewed the best film of 2020.
Christopher Nolan’s TENET is dense, beautifully shot, confusing, wonderfully acted, well staged, mind bending…and brilliant.
Starring John David Washington (Denzel’s kid - more on him later), TENET is Christopher Nolan’s “Spy Movie”. Much like what he did with the Murder Mystery genre (MEMENTO), the Heist Genre (INCEPTION), the Sci-Fi flick (INTERSTELLAR) and the war picture (DUNKIRK), Nolan takes the Spy film and turns it upside by playing with the one thing we all take for granted - time.
While all of these previous films were Nolan’s “warm up” to this film, TENET is Nolan’s PhD Thesis on playing with time - and the audience’s expectations of how time works. Not only does Nolan play with moving people and action forward and backwards through time, he also plays scenes where you don’t realize that the two folks talking are actually speaking at 2 different places in time.
It is a mind-bender to be sure - and I cannot imagine what the filmmakers, stunt personnel and actors went through in making it - but there is one thing I can guarantee you - you will be confused for (at least) the first part of the film while you retrain your mind to forget all preconceived notions on how time works.
But, if you are able to get your mind around this, Director Nolan has crafted a strong, well-acted, beautiful, exciting and action packed film that, in the end, is very satisfying.
Let’s start with the acting - top to bottom the performances are stellar. John David Washington (BLACK KkKLANSMAN) is “The Protagonist” (that is how he is billed, we never learn his name) and he is a charming and charismatic screen presence to experience this film with. Washington is a former professional football player and he uses this physicality throughout the film. But he is not a “lumbering brute”. He is intelligent and thoughtful as he learns things and adapts his plans as the audience learns them and helps lead us through the often complex plot and concepts throughout.
Elizabeth Debicki builds on her strong work in 2019’s WIDOWS (if you haven’t seen this film, check it out). Her character is much, much more than a “Femme Fatale” and goes mano-a-mano with the men in this film and more than holds her own. Nolan favorite Michael Caine (ALFIE) shows up as does Himesh Patel (INCEPTION), Dimple Kapadia (a major Bollywood star) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICKASS) - all 3 of them bring their “A” game to this film and supports the story very very well.
Kenneth Branagh (TV’s WALLANDER) shows that he still has his fastball - when he is interested - as the film’s main villain. He has some very intense scenes where he just acts the pants off the others in the room (this is a compliment). Sir Kenneth has had a long, storied career (including many, many Shakespearean roles) and he plays the villain as a Shakespeare villain - and is very successful doing so. I’m glad he didn’t waste his “villain turn” on a Marvel or James Bond flick - he saved it for the right film.
Special notice should be made to the work of Robert Pattinson (TWILIGHT) - he has spent his “post-Twilight” years reinventing himself as a performer, mostly working in small, actor-led independent films, and this performance bears the fruits of those efforts. He is charming and mysterious as The Protagonist’s partner and proves that he can, indeed, act.
Like most Nolan films, the Cinematography is mesmerizing and beautiful to behld. Hats off to frequent Nolan Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema who was able to create a mood and feeling of evil riding just under the surface of beauty - as well as to be able to distinguish those that are going forward in time versus those that are going backwards all while framing shots that are pictures of artistic beauty.
Nolan did not work with frequent musical collaborator Hans Zimmer on this film. He stated he felt that this film needed a “new, more modern” sound and turned to Ludwig Goransson (the Disney+ series THE MANDALORIAN) and he was smart to do so. The music/sound of this film is another character and helps drive the story forward in so many ways.
But make no mistake about it, this film is Nolan’s baby - and it is very “Nolan-y”. The action scenes are smartly put together, the plot and concepts are strong - but very dense - and the performances are strong. All trademarks of my favorite Director working today.
This film is not for everyone. The complexities of the plot are going to be too much for some folks, but if you just “roll with the flow” when your mind can’t quite catch up to the concepts, you will be rewarded with a very rich - very original - film experience. One that, I am sure, will become deeper and richer on the many, many re watches this film deserves.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Christopher Nolan’s TENET is dense, beautifully shot, confusing, wonderfully acted, well staged, mind bending…and brilliant.
Starring John David Washington (Denzel’s kid - more on him later), TENET is Christopher Nolan’s “Spy Movie”. Much like what he did with the Murder Mystery genre (MEMENTO), the Heist Genre (INCEPTION), the Sci-Fi flick (INTERSTELLAR) and the war picture (DUNKIRK), Nolan takes the Spy film and turns it upside by playing with the one thing we all take for granted - time.
While all of these previous films were Nolan’s “warm up” to this film, TENET is Nolan’s PhD Thesis on playing with time - and the audience’s expectations of how time works. Not only does Nolan play with moving people and action forward and backwards through time, he also plays scenes where you don’t realize that the two folks talking are actually speaking at 2 different places in time.
It is a mind-bender to be sure - and I cannot imagine what the filmmakers, stunt personnel and actors went through in making it - but there is one thing I can guarantee you - you will be confused for (at least) the first part of the film while you retrain your mind to forget all preconceived notions on how time works.
But, if you are able to get your mind around this, Director Nolan has crafted a strong, well-acted, beautiful, exciting and action packed film that, in the end, is very satisfying.
Let’s start with the acting - top to bottom the performances are stellar. John David Washington (BLACK KkKLANSMAN) is “The Protagonist” (that is how he is billed, we never learn his name) and he is a charming and charismatic screen presence to experience this film with. Washington is a former professional football player and he uses this physicality throughout the film. But he is not a “lumbering brute”. He is intelligent and thoughtful as he learns things and adapts his plans as the audience learns them and helps lead us through the often complex plot and concepts throughout.
Elizabeth Debicki builds on her strong work in 2019’s WIDOWS (if you haven’t seen this film, check it out). Her character is much, much more than a “Femme Fatale” and goes mano-a-mano with the men in this film and more than holds her own. Nolan favorite Michael Caine (ALFIE) shows up as does Himesh Patel (INCEPTION), Dimple Kapadia (a major Bollywood star) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICKASS) - all 3 of them bring their “A” game to this film and supports the story very very well.
Kenneth Branagh (TV’s WALLANDER) shows that he still has his fastball - when he is interested - as the film’s main villain. He has some very intense scenes where he just acts the pants off the others in the room (this is a compliment). Sir Kenneth has had a long, storied career (including many, many Shakespearean roles) and he plays the villain as a Shakespeare villain - and is very successful doing so. I’m glad he didn’t waste his “villain turn” on a Marvel or James Bond flick - he saved it for the right film.
Special notice should be made to the work of Robert Pattinson (TWILIGHT) - he has spent his “post-Twilight” years reinventing himself as a performer, mostly working in small, actor-led independent films, and this performance bears the fruits of those efforts. He is charming and mysterious as The Protagonist’s partner and proves that he can, indeed, act.
Like most Nolan films, the Cinematography is mesmerizing and beautiful to behld. Hats off to frequent Nolan Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema who was able to create a mood and feeling of evil riding just under the surface of beauty - as well as to be able to distinguish those that are going forward in time versus those that are going backwards all while framing shots that are pictures of artistic beauty.
Nolan did not work with frequent musical collaborator Hans Zimmer on this film. He stated he felt that this film needed a “new, more modern” sound and turned to Ludwig Goransson (the Disney+ series THE MANDALORIAN) and he was smart to do so. The music/sound of this film is another character and helps drive the story forward in so many ways.
But make no mistake about it, this film is Nolan’s baby - and it is very “Nolan-y”. The action scenes are smartly put together, the plot and concepts are strong - but very dense - and the performances are strong. All trademarks of my favorite Director working today.
This film is not for everyone. The complexities of the plot are going to be too much for some folks, but if you just “roll with the flow” when your mind can’t quite catch up to the concepts, you will be rewarded with a very rich - very original - film experience. One that, I am sure, will become deeper and richer on the many, many re watches this film deserves.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)