Tenet (2020) review

 

Well, folks, I recently did something that I haven’t done for more than half a year; I went into a theater setting to see the latest film release. To be clear, I’m not referring to the traditional movie theater since I’ll admit that I’m not yet ready to go back to that just yet given the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic is still far from over. Instead, I’m referring to the timeless tradition that is the drive-in theater. Prior to this year, one could’ve viewed the art of going to the drive-in as something that was becoming outdated due to the decreasing amount of drive-in theaters in the United States (case in point, the Rustic Tri-View Drive-In, which is conveniently located not too far from my home in Rhode Island, is the only drive-in left in the state). However, due to the need for social distancing, drive-ins have become a lot more popular recently since they provide what is quite arguably the safest method of viewing films with a crowd outside of the ‘watch party’ options that streaming services have started to implement. And while much of this year’s new releases have either been delayed to next year or moved to streaming services, some films have been daring enough to get released theatrically despite the odds, with the biggest of the bunch being Tenet, the latest outing from director Christopher Nolan. At this point, Nolan is someone who needs no introduction as he has very much established himself as one of the top filmmakers in the industry with a wide array of hugely successful films. Not only is he responsible for the successful revitalization of the Batman film franchise thanks to his Dark Knight trilogy, but he’s also been big on delivering original screenplays in an age of sequels, remakes, and reboots with hits such as Memento, Inception, and Dunkirk. This is once again apparent in his new film, Tenet, which is another premier display of his directorial talents… even if his knack for complex narratives does prove to be a bit of a problem this time around.

After an undercover operation at an opera house in Kyiv goes wrong, a lone, unnamed CIA agent (John David Washington) ends up being the sole survivor of his team and is captured by Russian mercenaries. When the agent (who’s also referred to as ‘the Protagonist’) tries to take a cyanide pill to avoid revealing classified information, he learns that this was all a test and that he’s now under the employment of a secret organization known as Tenet. Through the instructions of his new boss Fay (Martin Donovan), the Protagonist learns that he’s about to partake in a mission meant to ensure the survival of humanity by preventing the start of World War III. To do so, he must confront Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh), a key member of the Russian oligarchy who’s on the hunt for a series of mysterious artifacts tied to the various countries that possess nuclear weapons. Aided by his new handler Neil (Robert Pattinson) and art appraiser Katherine Barton (Elizabeth Debicki), Sator’s estranged wife, the Protagonist finds himself in a race against time to prevent Sator from collecting all these artifacts in his efforts to destroy the world. In the process, however, the Protagonist discovers that there’s a lot more to this operation than he was initially led to believe. After experiencing a unique anomaly during that previously mentioned undercover operation where he witnessed a bullet being ‘un-fired’ by an unknown operative, the Protagonist learns about the process of ‘inversion’ where people and objects can travel backwards through time. And if that wasn’t enough, the Protagonist learns that Sator is just as well-versed with the process and fully intends to use it to accomplish his sinister plot.

Tenet is very much a Christopher Nolan film in every conceivable aspect of its production, especially when it comes to its technical merits. Nolan is, after all, well-known for his preference towards practical special effects rather than CGI, which is once again on full display here in many of the film’s signature moments, such as an actual Boeing 747 crashing into a hangar. And just like his previous two films, Interstellar and Dunkirk, Tenet boasts excellent cinematography from Hoyte van Hoytema. While the consequences of our current worldwide predicament meant that I was sadly unable to see this in 70mm IMAX (which I’m sure would’ve looked amazing), that doesn’t stop the film from being another visually stunning outing from Nolan. However, if there’s one thing that does hold this film back, it’s its screenplay which, in true Nolan fashion, is a deeply layered and fully complex narrative with all sorts of twists and turns. Now, to be clear, I’m not saying that the problem is that this film’s plot is too complicated to the point where it’s practically incomprehensible because, to be perfectly frank, that’s not even close to being the case here. At the very least, it does get its main plot-points across in a succinct enough manner. In fact, the best thing that I can say about this film is that it does an excellent job with how certain plot-threads that it builds up result in top-notch payoffs, which ties in quite nicely with the whole time-bending concept. Really, the biggest problem with the script is that, for the most part, it feels like a non-stop barrage of exposition, and that’s even when taking the film’s hefty two-and-a-half-hour runtime into account. In other words, while it doesn’t really drag at any point, its rapid pacing can often leave you feeling quite overwhelmed at the worst possible times.

Another thing that people tend to bring up when it comes to Nolan films is that he’s usually more of a story-driven filmmaker than a character-driven one, which often results in the argument that his films tend to be a bit lacking when it comes to character development. And while that is quite arguably the case with this film as well, it still boasts a phenomenal ensemble. John David Washington headlines the film nicely as ‘the Protagonist’ who, admittedly, is mainly just an audience surrogate without any substantial backstory but the role still lets Washington convey the kind of strong charisma that he clearly must’ve inherited from his father, Denzel. He also has great camaraderie with Robert Pattinson as the Protagonist’s handler Neil, who does get a bit more to work with character-wise once the film starts to reveal more information about Neil’s true connection to the Protagonist. Moving on to the film’s female lead, Elizabeth Debicki as the main antagonist’s estranged wife Katherine, there’s been some debate on whether ‘Kat’ is just a ‘damsel in distress’. This is something that ties into yet another recurring argument surrounding Nolan films where, apart from a few select exceptions such as Selina Kyle in The Dark Knight Rises and Murphy Cooper in Interstellar, their female characters don’t really get much to work with in the grand scheme of things. But with Kat, though, I’d say that this is one of those exceptions. There’s only really one stretch of the film where she has to be rescued by the Protagonist, and overall, she gets to play a considerably large role in the plot given her tumultuous relationship with her husband and how she’s mainly driven by her desire to protect their son. Finally, speaking of her husband Andrei, Kenneth Branagh is another big standout of the cast as a villain who’s appropriately sinister without being too over-the-top.

I’m about to say something that I honestly believed I would never say. For the first time ever, I left a Christopher Nolan film feeling… rather indifferent about it. However, this doesn’t mean that I think that Tenet is ‘bad’ because, well, it isn’t. From a technical perspective, this film is practically flawless. Whether it’s the excellent cinematography or top-notch action sequences that were entirely done on a practical level, Tenet is another prime showcase of Nolan’s talents as a director. Ultimately, though, the biggest thing that hurts this film is its script as Nolan’s habit of overly complicated narratives ends up being a major hindrance this time around. It’s not that this film is so convoluted that you can’t understand it. The problem is that it tries to cram in so much information without ever stopping to take a break, which is something that its substantially long runtime offered it plenty of opportunities for. And to be perfectly clear, I don’t think that this sort of thing was ever a big issue with any of Nolan’s other notoriously ‘complex’ films such as Memento or Inception. Ultimately, though, while it really could’ve benefitted from some steadier pacing, Tenet is still the very definition of a film that’s an absolute must-see on the big screen… you know, if you can. Yes, it’s time to address the elephant in the room that is the continuing devastation that’s been brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic. While Christopher Nolan may arguably be the staunchest defender of the cinematic experience, Tenet has been royally screwed over by COVID-19 just as much as all the other films that were slated to come out this year. Sure, it may have managed to end up being the first blockbuster release to come out after the nationwide shutdown of theaters back in March, but it was still forced to push back its release date three separate times. And even then, Warner Bros. had to release it internationally first since, let’s face it, folks, other countries are handling this pandemic a hell of a lot better than we are here in the U.S. Thus, as much as I hate to admit it, I probably won’t be able to see this film again until after it hits the home video market. Despite this, though, I assure you that I’m very eager to see it again to see if my initial thoughts towards it end up changing in any way.

Rating: 3.5/5

The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) review

In January 2008, audiences were treated to a new sci-fi monster flick known as Cloverfield. Produced by ‘franchise savior’ J.J. Abrams, written by Joss Whedon veteran Drew Goddard, and directed by ‘pre-Planet of the Apes’ Matt Reeves, the film was a major critical/commercial hit while also proving to be somewhat of a landmark entry in the ‘found footage’ genre. After that, though, it was unclear for a while if there would be a follow-up despite Abrams, Goddard, and Reeves all claiming that they were planning on making one. It wasn’t until 2016 when audiences learned that the series was set to continue, as 10 Cloverfield Lane was announced just two months prior to its March 2016 release. But despite this short time-span between its initial announcement and release, the film was another major critical/commercial hit that effectively paved the way for a fascinating new franchise that was intent on being reminiscent of the classic anthology series, The Twilight Zone. And now, this brings us to film #3 in the franchise, The Cloverfield Paradox. Initially named God Particle, this film was confirmed to be part of the Cloverfield franchise not long after 10 Cloverfield Lane’s release. However, the film’s initial fall 2017 release date ended up getting scrapped. Plus, like any major J.J. Abrams production, details about it were scarce for the following few months… that is, until this past Sunday when its first promo aired during the Super Bowl. Even more surprising, the promo revealed that the film would debut that very night on Netflix in lieu of a theatrical release. Thus, without further ado, let’s delve into the third installment of the Cloverfield franchise, which claims that it’ll uncover some backstory regarding the events of the original film that started it all.

In a not too distant future, the planet Earth is on the verge of a worldwide war due to an impending energy crisis. To fix this problem, all the major space programs of the world launch the Cloverfield Station, which is outfitted with a particle accelerator known as ‘the Shepard’ that will hopefully provide the planet with a new source of energy. However, the experiment ends up failing numerous times, resulting in the station’s crew being forced to prolong their stay up in space for at least two years as they must figure out why the Shepard keeps malfunctioning so that they can get it to work in time before a war breaks out back home on Earth. Eventually, the crew manages to achieve what appears to be a successful test, but in the process, they then find themselves in a troubling situation as the Earth mysteriously disappears from existence. This predicament is then further compounded by the unexpected arrival of a woman named Mina Jensen (Elizabeth Debicki), who claims to be a member of the crew and the best friend of crew member Ava Hamilton (Gugu-Mbatha Raw). In other words, the crew of Cloverfield Station soon come to realize that they’ve somehow ended up in an alternate dimension, which they must escape from before the damages to the station that were caused by the particle accelerator become too severe. Little do they know, though, that they must soon deal with the various dangers of this strange new world while, unbeknownst to them, the Earth of their dimension is dealing with a dangerous new threat of its own.  

While the potential was very much there for an interesting sci-fi story that further developed the universe of Cloverfield, this potential is ultimately wasted due to the film’s biggest issue of having a generally undercooked plot. Not only that, but it’s also quite derivative of several classic sci-fi films. Now I won’t be naming some of the biggest films that are clearly this film’s primary influences here because I fear that they would lead to some spoiler-y discussion about the events that happen in this film and I want to keep this review as spoiler-free as possible. Still, I’m 99.9% confident that you’ll know EXACTLY what films I’m talking about when you see this because, sadly, the similarities that The Cloverfield Paradox shares with those other sci-fi films are quite blatant. Now to the film’s credit, it does live up to its promise of delving into the mythos of its franchise, specifically by providing an answer to one of the key mysteries that was laid out in the ending of the original Cloverfield. Still, its attempts at connecting everything in the Cloverfield franchise ultimately feel just as underdeveloped as its main plot because it never really explores any of the story ideas that it introduces, especially the one that establishes the concept of alternate dimensions. And it’s a shame, really, because, from a technical perspective, the film is at least decently made. For a film that was originally meant to be released in IMAX but was ultimately relegated to being released on Netflix instead, it looks fine enough thanks to the solid cinematography from Bad Robot Productions regular Dan Mindel, who also did the cinematography for J.J. Abrams’ two Star Trek films and Star Wars: The Force Awakens. And just like the previous Cloverfield film, 10 Cloverfield Lane, this film sports an excellent score courtesy of the legendary Bear McCreary.

Alas, though, the various story issues of this film also end up affecting its cast of characters AKA the crew of Cloverfield Station. These characters are just as generic as the plot itself, with most of them getting little to no character development only to serve as a collection of stock horror film protagonists. Thankfully, this doesn’t apply to ‘all’ of them; specifically, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as main protagonist Ava Hamilton, who is easily the most well-developed character of the entire group. Obviously, that’s not really saying much given the lack of character development for everyone else but, to the film’s credit, her overall role in the story (which is all tied to an immensely devastating tragedy from her past) does yield its most effective moments of emotional poignancy. And this is only strengthened further by Mbatha-Raw’s excellent performance in the role; in other words, she’s easily the best part of the film. As for the rest of the cast, while they don’t get as much to work with by comparison, at the very least they’re all fine in their respective roles. Daniel Brühl is another major standout as Schmidt, who ends up being one of the more enigmatic members of the station’s crew, as is Chris O’Dowd as Mundy, who’s basically the film’s main ‘comic relief’ character. But again, without any decent bits of character development to work with, the two of them along with fellow co-stars David Oyelowo, John Ortiz, Zhang Ziyi, Aksel Hennie, and Elizabeth Debicki end up being just as stranded as their characters are in their current predicament.

From what I’ve read, it seems as if The Cloverfield Paradox’s fate as a Netflix release was due to Paramount, the franchise’s main studio, being uneasy about the final product and its potential profitability given its franchise-high budget of $45 million. J.J. Abrams himself was keen on trying to salvage the film in post-production but was ultimately unable to do so when he signed on to direct Star Wars: Episode IX. And overall, this does basically sum up this film in a nutshell. While it’s not outright ‘terrible’ (if anything, it’s not necessarily as bad as its abysmal 19% rating on Rotten Tomatoes suggests), it’s still a tragically underwhelming continuation of the Cloverfield franchise. Despite the potential for some interesting plot-lines, the film ultimately wastes them all due to its woefully generic sci-fi horror story that does little to further explore the franchise’s lore. This, in turn, wastes a perfectly good ensemble cast (save for Gugu Mbatha-Raw) that ends up being restricted to a bunch of stereotypical sci-fi horror roles. Ultimately, though, I will admit that I wasn’t ‘bored’ by this film at any point despite it being a clear hodge-podge of other films in its genre. Thus, if you are a fan of the Cloverfield franchise, then there’s a chance that you might like this film okay even if it’s nowhere near as good as its two predecessors. And despite this film’s disastrous critical reception, I don’t believe that this will be the end of the Cloverfield franchise. After all, there’s yet another Cloverfield film coming out later this year in October in the form of a WWII-set supernatural horror film called Overlord. Of course, it’ll probably get renamed soon so that it’ll have Cloverfield in the title, as was the case with 10 Cloverfield Lane (originally The Cellar) and this (originally God Particle). But thankfully, it’s been recently announced that it, along with other potential future installments of the franchise, will be theatrical releases instead of what happened here.

Rating: 2.5/5

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015) review

2015 has been a banner year for the spy genre and what’s even more impressive is the fact that all of the major spy films that have been released this year are all very much different in regards to execution. The year kicked off with ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’, which embraced the campier/over-the-top atmosphere of the genre that had been abandoned in recent years. Then in June there was ‘Spy’, a comedic flick that was surprisingly well-shot for a film of that genre. And just a few weeks ago, the ‘Mission Impossible’ franchise returned with a bang with yet another excellent installment in the form of ‘Rogue Nation’. Of course we have the next Bond film, ‘Spectre’, coming out later this year but for now we come to the latest 2015 spy flick, ‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E.’. Like ‘Kingsman’, it harkens back to the old-school era of the genre. In fact, this is actually based off of a TV series of the same name which ran from 1964 to 1968 on NBC and starred Robert Vaughn and David McCallum as American agent Napoleon Solo and Russian agent Illya Kuryakin, respectively, polar opposites who find themselves working together as part of the international espionage organization known as the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement (U.N.C.L.E.). Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer take on these famous roles in director Guy Ritchie’s modern-day adaptation. And while the film may ultimately lack the depth of the other spy films we’ve seen this year, it still manages to be a pretty darn entertaining action flick, mainly due to Ritchie’s talents as a visual director.

In the midst of the Cold War in 1963, CIA agent Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) helps German mechanic Gabby Teller (Alicia Vikander) escape from East Berlin in order to get her to help him and his superiors track down her father, a Nazi scientist who had recently been working for the U.S. government. But during their escape, they find themselves being pursued by KGB agent Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer), who they barely manage to get away from. The following day, Solo and Kuryakin suddenly find themselves being paired together by their superiors in a joint venture in order to investigate the owners of an Italian shipping company for whom Gabby’s uncle Rudi (Sylvester Groth) works for, Alexander (Luca Calvani) and Victoria (Elizabeth Debicki) Vinciguerra, a couple with ties to former Nazis who are using Gabby’s father to build them an atomic bomb. Despite their obvious contempt for one another, as well as the fact that they’re each given private instructions by their respective superiors to steal a vital piece of computer data for their governments and kill their partner if necessary, Solo and Kuryakin are forced to work together with the help of Gabby, who poses as Kuryakin’s fiancé, in order to prevent the Vinciguerras from getting the chance to use their nuke.

The film’s visuals are easily its biggest strength. Obviously the film’s production design is excellent in its period style, very much capturing the look and feel of the spy films of the 60’s just like how ‘Kingsman’ did a great job in harkening back to the more over-the-top tone and plotting of those films. Compared to some of the other spy films this year, this film is much simpler as far as the action sequences are concerned. In other words, you won’t be seeing anyone hang onto the side of a plane as it takes off from a runway or an all-out brawl break out inside a church. But Guy Ritchie more than makes up for that with his solid direction. The film moves at a solidly energetic pace and never drags at any point. Ritchie’s knack for visual flair also translates into the action sequences. Slick and kinetic, well-paired with a pulsating score by up-and-coming composer Daniel Pemberton, and from what I can tell mostly practical with both Cavill and Hammer doing a lot of their own stunts, these action sequences more than do their job in regards to thrilling the audience and for the most part make up for some of the film’s shortcomings as far as the writing is concerned.

Because admittedly, this film is sort of a major case of style over substance. In this case I’m not saying that this is a bad thing but it does mean that the film doesn’t have as much depth as something like ‘Kingsman’ or ‘Mission Impossible’. Each of the main characters get only very simple beats of character development (e.g. Solo’s criminal past, Kuryakin’s family history) and overall the story is generally straight-forward, not really pulling any major fast ones on us in terms of twists. But even with that said, the film definitely benefits from having an excellent ensemble cast. While Solo and Kuryakin spend most of their time bickering with each other, Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer have excellent camaraderie and the scenes of them going back and forth with each other are definitely one of the film’s major highlights. Both of them also prove to be very charming leads, with Cavill in particular showcasing off charm that would’ve made him a pretty damn good James Bond. Their leading ladies are even bigger standouts with both Alicia Vikander, in the midst of a breakout year having already garnered much acclaim for her performance in this year’s ‘Ex-Machina’, and Elizabeth Debicki, following her breakout turn as Jordan Baker in Baz Luhrmann’s ‘The Great Gatsby’, evoking classic Bond girls and femme fatales, respectively, with their performances. The film also features noteworthy cameos by Jared Harris as Solo’s CIA handler and Hugh Grant as Waverly who, minor spoilers for those who haven’t seen the show, becomes the head of U.N.C.L.E.

Unfortunately, it looks like this film is going to become one of the summer’s under-performers at the box-office, having only grossed $13 million during its opening weekend. It may not have been made on the type of budget that we see for superhero films nowadays, but that’s still not a solid number for a film that was made on a budget of around $75 million. And that’s sad because this film is pretty damn entertaining and is a prime example of pure film escapism. Sure it may also be a major example of a film that is style over substance but Ritchie’s style is so good that I can ignore that for the most part. The film is a fun thrill-ride from beginning to end thanks to its exciting action sequences and its solid cast, headlined by the charming trio of Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, and Alicia Vikander. Like ‘Mission: Impossible’, I’ll admit that I went into this without having seen any episodes of the TV show that it is based on but having now seen it, I’m now encouraged to check out the show in the future. Obviously because of this, I can’t really say anything about how much this film stays true to its source material, and for the record this is basically a prequel to the TV series, but I will say that I had a lot of fun watching this film and if you’re looking for a nice simple spy action-adventure flick, then I think you’ll like this film as well.     

Rating: 3.5/5