For me, I think this is the end of a beautiful friendship
Another interpretation of the director’s favorite theme of doubles and augmented reality, and, as is often the case with Nolan, nothing is clear, but very interesting. Traditionally, it is accompanied by a mandatory viewing of discussion and fan theories on the Internet, because even knowledge of the main spoilers is unlikely to facilitate your perception of the plot the first time. I would like to mention a few important points:
1. Excellently selected actors and prescribed all types; Robert Pattinson, because of which the viewing of the tape was postponed for a year, first liked the role.
2. Subjectively: the execution of the main idea of the film could be performed better, somewhere even more dramatic, as, for example, in key scenes with Neil in the finale of the film, where everything happened very quickly.
3. Regarding the second point: the last conversation between Neil and the Main Hero hinted at the continuation of the story, at the “future in the past”, and at first left a feeling of understatement or even an open ending. But then you realize that their last conversation is the most correct logical conclusion, and then, as they say, time will tell.
4. Regarding music, it is very, very strange not to hear such a familiar Zimmer. Hopefully this is the last time he and Nolan don't have the same schedule.
5. I wanted to see a film dedicated exclusively to that very uncustoms vault at Oslo airport with a warehouse of genuine and not very works of art, the topic is intriguing, but not disclosed.
5 out of 10
Intellectual cinema for the masses. Nolan again put a warm for both cheeks to the viewer, but the viewer does not care, he will not understand, the viewer will swallow, rub and ask for supplements. And if he does, he'll try to forget that two-hour movie junk.
Incomprehensible but interesting. I love them, but smart people say that it’s not because they’re smart, but because there’s no connection. But I don't care.
1. I think that the logic of the sequence of what is happening can be fully appreciated and understood only if important scenes are broken down into pieces and compared on two screens. Because many heroes are free to travel back and forth in time and can meet their “inverted” double, and the double has its own level of knowledge (one knows more than the other) and slightly different motives. 2. Many important dialogues and actions that clarify the background, the motives of the characters, prevent their future actions, are delivered at such a high pace that you simply do not keep up with the logic of what is happening. I stopped and watched a few scenes for 5-10 minutes. In the moments of "inverting" the antagonist, as well as during the battle with a mass meeting of "inverted", even a stop does not allow you to fully realize who, what and why is doing something. I don’t know how people at the cinema understand anything. This is such a high-budget arthouse form.
Imagine yourself as a university student sitting at the first lecture in higher mathematics. You are told that you will encounter matrices, factorials, integrals, limits and so on. However, the school hell of mathematics has passed, and your humanitarian brain cannot materialize these words, so there is no reason to worry. And yet, as you go through them, the lack of understanding of the material due to its complexity and colossal volume accumulates, and it becomes increasingly difficult to take exams. Here is the comparison described above: sitting, listening to Professor Nolan give another lecture on a complex topic. But in addition to himself in the audience (that is, in the cinema) and among the rest of the audience there is another student - the main character. In this picture, the protagonist, unlike Cooper from Interstellar, who does not need to explain much, since he in fact was already in the topic, lays out information on shelves, because now he is on an equal footing with the viewer. This is a plus of the film: to put yourself in the place of the main character is nowhere easier, the latter does not even have a name. However, the flip side of the coin is bad. All ' the studied material' you have to almost forcefully hammer into your head, trying to understand what is happening on the screen, and the character digests every complex information obtained simply, he was trained for many years. Hence his unemotional impression at the beginning of the film of the possibilities of this technology. The phrase “he saw some” fits here, because it is not surprising.
Hence, at first glance, the acting of the son of a famous actor does not look too expressive. It is understandable that the character of John Washington is a very different special agent of the intelligence service, which we viewers are not used to seeing. There's no Bond charisma, no punching like Bourne and no recklessness like Hunt. He's more real and puts himself into full force, realizing how much he's risking his life to save people's lives. In part, Robert Pattinson overshadows the main character with his presence and a wonderful smile every scene of the film. And not far behind him Kenneth Branagh, as always played not bad already cliched badly Russian. The experience from Jack Ryan: Chaos Theory came in handy. But the experience from another project already actress, Elizabeth Debicki, was, to put it mildly, not good. I bet she fit in well, only her character - Kat - very much resembled the character from the miniseries "Night administrator" - Jed. Both heroines are in the same position with the same goals, and during the viewing it was impossible to remember, which distracted from immersion in the story. Anyone who has not watched the series will not notice, but in my case I will reset for this point.
Speaking of history. The story is not easy to understand after the first view. I think after a couple of those, the whole picture will clear up in my head. There are not big flaws and inaccuracies that self-remove if you digest what you see again. In other words, Nolan's genius didn't fail here. But I failed with the editing. Sudden and sometimes rapid transitions from one location to another create the impression of truncated film. Maybe something was cut for the sake of not a small timekeeping, then in this case it is done confusedly, because you pay much attention to it, since it does not cause great visual discomfort, and some scenes remained in limbo without beginning and end. Minus another point, as well as another for staging shootouts, shown too absurd. There was no such thing in any serious action movie. You may be surprised and surprised by this.
Only this all pales in the background of the quality of visual special effects. This is the main support of the film, not allowing the latter to fall in the eyes of the audience. Even after not a single viewing looks inversion into a curiosity. I know it's an experiment. Christopher Nolan once again laid down a philosophy in his film, when reflecting on which the viewer should realize that he is not participating in a visual attraction, but should include his head. For this, you can love a British director who leaves behind beautiful paintings like Thomas Arepo.
What does this film have in common with 'Interstellar' and 'Dunkirk'? A crazy story, curated by Christopher Nolan himself. Only in this film is nonsense raised to the absolute. I love the films 'The Prestige' and 'The Beginning' which I am willing to review because they are fascinating and after the plot ends, the laws of the universe of each of these films work to the very end. Even the trilogy of ' The Dark Knight' I treat with kind condescension because it shows a peculiar story about a character from the classic comics. And I take into account that I didn't see Nolan's early work. But it seems that Nolan has listened to hype reviews about the originally voiced films and did exactly what he is now praised for. It is not for me to judge them, but I am not one of them.
I will not go into judgment and I will go into judgment.
Familiar cast and normal visual are perhaps the only and at the same time insignificant advantages of the film because its shortcomings significantly cover them. And the theme of the film itself is interesting.
Nevertheless, the theme of reality inversion and time travel in the context of this film is worthless at all because there are no certain conventions to adapt to them, because for the sake of the plot and for the characters, these conventions work according to different rules and this is all from the point of view of the laws of physics, biology and common sense. For example, the film 'Time Patrol' 1994, where there are conventions that are observed throughout the film without any questions and looks much simpler. There is also no causal relationship. If you recall the series '11.22.63.', then there it is present throughout the plot and it is possible that any wrong action in the past can affect the events of the present. Well, of course, sophisticated phrases and their local definition, which are only mentioned and do not affect anything. For such cases, there is a film ' Beginning' where essentially everything happens in dreams and at the same time all concepts, definitions and events are understood by the viewer because all conventions work until the very end, and there are no questions left.
Nolan's biggest mistake in this movie is, of course, cranberries. And here is not just the main villain a la Russian oligarch as a complete scum and all the Russian military in the film are the same scum. I’m not talking about the worthless Ukrainian special forces who were shown at the beginning of the film and the stupid Estonian policemen who were in the middle. Isn't that racist?
In fact, the plot could be put together in such a way that the actions of the characters were limited by circumstances and it would be impossible to do otherwise and all this would lead to a logical conclusion, but alas in this case this is not close.
The characters themselves are a special case. As I said, the actors are famous, but the characters of the film only speak beautifully without a hint of common sense, the same I would say about action and staging. It's cool, but it's idiotic. I am not talking about the so-called protagonist.
I'd say a lot more, but I'm afraid enough is enough. I will only say that the film itself is not the greatness of the genius of the director, but a demonstration that he is a great hoaxer. And I will say with confidence that the film is suitable for fans of conspiracy theories, which are so regularly shown on television.
P. S. And I'm not an idiot if I don't understand the essence, I just didn't see common sense in it.
If it wasn’t Nolan who made the film, it would have been a failure. Nolan is a talented man after all. It was just boring and boring. For once. I don’t want to review it a second time.
The idea could be played interestingly and dynamically, even most likely a dynamic and exciting spectacle here, it would seem, is the only possible option. But the filmmakers did a miracle — and then the film stretched, and stretched, and stretched, and stretched, and stretched, and stretched, and stretched, and stretched. And stretched. Filled with inconspicuous some very template scenes, as if not made from scratch, but assembled, as from puzzles, from clichéd black and white blanks that need to be painted. The film did not cause me any emotions, except for a slight irritation - still the timekeeping is decent.
Heroes are also template blanks. A picture villain with a brutal look, who dreams of capturing and enslaving the world, and in the event of his own death, taking this world with him. Even cartoon Rasputin in the notorious Disney cartoon has some motivation, giving him the opportunity to sympathize and understand him from some side. And here is the hero of a serious, it would seem, film. Totally empty. Nothing but a black hat. The scenery, not the main antagonist. Not interesting. The main character is out of place. That’s how they rightly said at the beginning, “You seem to wear an expensive suit, but you still see that you are not at your plate.” You don't know what. Just the actor broadcasts the hero of a primitive sweet romcom about how a failed courier fell in love with a supermodel. But not a superhero of the Tomkruz type. The last scene, which for decency would be worth tearing over, looks not like the farewell of two friends who lost their lives in time, but like the farewell of two friends, one of whom went to get a beer and will now return. Not interesting either. Debicki's character is inexplicable. It's very strange to hear her say, "What, the whole world will be destroyed?" - Yes, the whole world will be destroyed. Totally. - And my son too? Yeah, imagine your son, too. The whole world. It is clear that we first of all think about our relatives, and not about “the whole world”, and it is clear that a person in a stressful situation can whip any nonsense (in life), but what kind of a master of dialogue to write it in a script.
As for the plot, Nolan clearly flaunts the proprietary "entanglement" of the plot, flirting with it. Confusion for the sake of an idea, for God's sake. Confusion for the sake of entanglement does not look. You can see that. It is like speaking not to convey, but to say.
In short, in my most personal view, this is Nolan's most unfortunate work. For me, Dunkirk is the most brilliant, The Dark Knight is exemplary, Inception is a good and good movie, Interstellar is if not super good, then at least in some places touching and worthy of attention. That it wasn't quite clear. I didn't think that Nolan could come out of such a gray movie. Oh, come on, man alive.
The plot of the film is quite complex. The main character of the film is a secret agent who learns about the technology of the future. The technology is that the owner knows how to manage time - time begins to go backwards. The agent must prevent World War III and stop the terrorist's plot.
The movie started quite cheerfully. Right into action. And the opera scenes are really interesting to watch. It is nice that there are no mistakes on the patches of special groups. I'll note the camera work right away. Very cool. Picture and scenes rivet the viewer to the screen. It's very well shot.
But after the scene in the opera begins something incomprehensible. It feels like you're on a physics science paper. But you weren't in the beginning, you were in the middle of a discussion. No matter how you try to understand the meaning, it is impossible. Any action will be explained in two words. INVERSION AND ENTROPY. And for 2 hours and 30 minutes, these words will be heard more often than the names of the characters. One of the characters was not given a name at all. He's just the protagonist. But in terms of villainy, everything is more familiar here. The main villain is a Russian. (Oh, those evil Russians.) And its history is certainly not complete without a selective "cranberry". His name is Andrei Sator. The last name's been really good. Slavic surname and common for Russia. I know three people. (I was watching a video about an encrypted Latin palindrome, of course), but the writers. Sator? Are you serious? If you want to put that word in, well, create it there. I don't know anything else about the main villain. Call him that, or give him that name. Well, I'd like to miss one of those. I changed my last name. But the writers didn't stop. Stalsk 12 is an abandoned Russian city. And I guess there are about 11 more stalsks. They were scattered all over Russia. This "flung cranberry" kills the entire story of the character. You just stop believing what's going on.
The movie itself is very long. The dialogue is too clever, then just boring. The story of the film is sleepy. After a lot of reasoning, abstruse phrases with constant words INVERSION and ENTROPY, it just becomes uninteresting to watch the characters.
It feels like Nolan made this movie for himself. For schoolchildren, this will be an empty film in which a lot of special effects are stuffed, but they will not understand clever words and phrases. And for the older generation, the words "inversion", "entropy" will be some foreign and unknown.
Let’s assume that the film was made for scientists.
I finally got to this masterpiece. The film is ambiguous. It's definitely Nolan. And it's also definitely not Nolan. Why Nolan? Because there are all his signature techniques and omens by which you uniquely identify his films. Shock is an idea that goes beyond anything a normal person can think of, games with time and reality, distortions of everything and everything, so that to the last you are not sure what you see is real and what is fantasy. Not Nolan - because this time everything is artificial and fake, the idea is not deep and philosophical, as in the same Interstellar, and is just a invented topic for obfuscation. The unreality of Interstellar or the Beginning is extremely real. Not in Argument. It's artificial. It's a movie attraction. A kaleidoscope movie. Beautiful and pointless. He does not sublimate some basic feelings of the viewer, but just plays with him. It shows you how I know, you've never seen it before. Nolan is not digging into souls, not pulling out secret aspirations, but playing with reflexes. And why "not Nolan" is cranberry. It's everywhere, and it's like a taiga baobab. He never allowed himself to do that before. Plus completely flat heroes, of which only the mad Russian oligarch has more than one bottom and depth. The rest of the characters are either obsessively positive or equally obsessively negative. They do a clean job. They keep the ride. Nolan didn’t even bother trying to make something look like reality. The final attack on the terrorist base does not bring to mind spetsnaz fighters, which would be appropriate, but a rump from the Star landing, where everyone runs in a crowd and shoots in all directions. Well, separately pleased collected from 9 artifacts super-duper artifact, which in the assembled form is incredibly similar to the crankshaft of a large internal combustion engine. I cried out with emotion.
Putting a score below 7 doesn't raise a hand, yet the film is very professionally crafted. But it's definitely Nolan-Nolan's worst movie. Empty and bright, like a New Year’s toy.
Yes, it’s an ambiguous film, but it’s a good movie with some sort of thoughtful plot and pre-scientific assumptions.
1. Start from the beginning.
A significant problem of the film lies in the perception of the audience – not every viewer will immediately complete the picture as a whole, if you serve a piece of history from the middle to the end. Here is an interesting plot, such as is not found in many other films, but a ragged pitch without trying to form a whole perception in each viewer will spoil the viewing for many.
The film does not cope with the adaptation of the story that remained in the head of the author of the script, but tries to converge into one whole wherever it almost broke, he seems to say - ' Spectator, you think it yourself, and the essence I outlined to you' Literally half the film lies behind the scenes and agree - this is a bad sign for almost 2.5 hours of film.
I agree that for many people to understand the plot will not be a big problem, but even so ragged plot and traditional for Nolan ridiculous attempts to explain unproven pseudoscientific hypotheses spoil the impression of viewing.
2. The banal central plot is surrounded by delusions.
The plot is interesting, but banal, people on the Internet have long imagined something more interesting that the film will have to be disassembled in parts, that you can watch from end to beginning, etc., to understand - but no, no, the plot is interesting, but banal and obvious, inflated expectations here only disappoint, it's like in all those situations when you say ' look / read and you'll freak' ...
It should be noted that the global idea of the film is that our descendants decided to destroy us, their ancestors, turning the timeline backwards, which in their opinion will help to avoid an environmental catastrophe in the future, i.e. the plot is already revolved around a very stupid idea, to which we still degrade a million years, while neither ancestors nor descendants clearly know how the paradoxes of time will work in such situations, but the fact that the characters will die knowing each other is voiced, i.e. the world is not divided into different branches, but one, therefore, we have a confrontation with crazy ecologists from the future. . .
The Cold War, which is based on nuanced nonsense, is a good plot, if you do not think about what surrounds it, because some events without prehistory occur on their own and what we see, it is difficult to explain why everything happens this way, and not somehow more adequately (for example, ' verification' the main character of the bloody massacre in Ukraine). And it should be noted separately that if the whole plot is also led by the main character who went to the past, then what happens does not become more adequate from this. And yes, it would be more interesting to show it. . .
However, nonsense is everywhere, take at least the work of inverted bullets - ba, but this is the same level of curvature of the bullet's flight from ' Bekmambetov, in the end, let's say so, in ' All the nonsense was in dreams, but now he broke out, where he seems to have no place. . .
3. They did not have enough time for characters, relationships, motivation, intrigue.
The authors literally do not say anything about the main characters, even the main character they just GG & #39; The protagonist', it is not clear why they trust each other, cooperate, etc., their motivation is not clear and poorly explained by the fact that no one should know anything superfluous... and you, the viewer, too... There is no intrigue, since the main characters are alive, which means they coped with everything, i.e. there can be no other way, the path to this is important, but it is also mostly left behind the scenes, the characters have freedom and they think about it, but in fact everyone does only as necessary to achieve the already existing result - ' OK, I will go to die there' - Wait, what prevents us from digging up the capsule in a couple of years and pulling out the contents?' - Yes, for some reason, let's not do it, let's do it in a way - let's be tested, although I'll be especially quicker, I'll be friends in the past, I will not be, but I will show you, because I'm sure, I'll be sure, I'll be sure, I'll be friends.'
4. Visually, the movie looks great.
How the camera stands, how it moves, the back-time effects, how some scenes are filmed, interesting visual solutions - all in the spirit of Nolan, it's interesting to watch, although there is some sense of unnaturalness, but it's so coolly filmed and done that it remains very spectacular ... perhaps for the sake of such an action everything was started. For example, some action scenes just happen out of thin air (alya burzanka), and you sit with the full realization that it could all be cut for 20 minutes and the plot would only benefit from it. The music was noticeable, sometimes it was more than necessary, sometimes it was not enough, but under the pressure of action you quickly forget about it. There are almost no interesting pauses in the film, as they usually explain something near-scientific.
5. Despite everything.
This is a good movie, which is interesting to watch, it is interesting to think about what happened with the plot, before Nolan tried to combine the two time periods into one fragment, it is interesting to notice the attention of the authors of this film to detail, this film with an interesting idea and excellent technical and visual implementation, not every day we are faced with something in the spirit of & #39; Beginnings' (where everything was logical), where there is an opportunity to think about what is happening, but it is definitely not a masterpiece in the full sense of the word and many elements in this film could be much more interesting and understandable, with which the authors, in my opinion, did not cope with a huge storyline around a scientific hypothesis, formed.
7 or 8 points out of 10, depending on your perception or fascination with near/pseudoscience.
'Controversy' is a new fantasy puzzle film authored by Christopher Nolan. This is one of the few works of 2020 that was clearly difficult to ignore.
Before moving on to the plot, it is worth saying a few kind words directly about the director himself. I think it’s impossible not to pay attention to the work of Christopher Nolan, you can either admire them or argue about them, but to be indifferent to his films is almost impossible. The films of Christopher Nolan leave an indelible impression in the memory of everyone, surprise, inspire, or give good food for the mind.
This person is truly unique, because in his paintings he raises fundamental questions and considers in detail the most vital topics that can radically expand consciousness and turn everything upside down, however, having done it in a truly talented way, exactly as a skilled viewer requires.
The plot tells us about a new milestone in the history of mankind - a technology that has encroached on the scale of space-time and the people standing on both sides of this phenomenon. The uniqueness of the technology lies in its ability to play with time, to make it go in the opposite direction. The main character of the film is an unnamed character who seeks to find a Russian oligarch with all his strength and means. Perhaps other details are superfluous, especially considering the fact that the script is written in a rather peculiar, but at the same time characteristic of the director, way. In a literal sense, the viewer goes from nowhere to be nowhere, and simply put, if you want to understand something, you will have to wait about an hour to delve into the essence of what is happening, because it is the core of the story that is hidden much deeper, but still not as difficult to understand as it may seem at first glance.
Probably, it is the confused beginning of the film that creates significant confusion in the process of viewing and, not to say, that correctly affects further perception. At the same time, as you watch, the script is ready to give hints, slowly but surely reveals its maps, however, after receiving answers, you can easily get new questions. The lion’s share of doubts affects the life path of the characters, at least I would like to know not that everything about the faces on the screen, but at least names and a brief background are enough for a start. Also, some bewilderment is caused by technology 'time inversion'. Actually, this is what you sit down to watch ' Argument', what attracts attention and what is deceitful, much intriguing. Apparently, the intrigue will still persist even after viewing, because clear answers are unlikely to be obtained. Well, finally, the slippery political background is now increasingly penetrating into modern cinema, and, unfortunately, even such an unusual director as Nolan is not without its direct influence.
The cast of the film is centered around four key figures: John David Washington (the main character), Robert Pattinson (Neal), Elizabeth Debicki (Kat) and Kenneth Branagh (Andrey Sater). ' Argument' reveals only the latter well, paying special attention to his life path, becoming as a person and tempering character. Other characters, despite their decisive roles, are presented more than sketchy, you may feel that you were here by chance, as if you looked into someone else’s window, or unwittingly overheard a conversation not intended for you. Actors play their roles, show themselves, given the full range of their capabilities, but at the same time there is a constant feeling of understatement, pursuing déjà vu, which does not give rest.
My unexpected favorite throughout the film was Robert Pattinson, who finally appeared in a new role for himself and was able to conquer the audience not with a dazzling smile, but with a sharp mind and a worthy performance of the role. Being the son of a famous actor is not the easiest task, but it is still possible to get out of the shadow of a famous parent, you just need to invest a little talent, perseverance and set your own style. I'm afraid it's still ' not to the teeth' John David Washington. Kenneth Branagh's performance can be truly appreciated if it weren't for this prickly cranberry plaque, which did not leave throughout the film. Elizabeth Debicki is much more interesting and brighter in 'Agents A.N.K.L.' Guy Ritchie, rather than in this case, the game came out somewhat dry and sometimes even boring. Perhaps this is what composure and mental suffering should look like.
'Control' is a unique and interesting work that has significantly more pros than cons. But the latter are able not to cross out, but rather to question the original intention of the film, or rather its subsequent performance.
Oh, scoring trouble, did not break away from beginning to end, immediately so much fantasy woke up. The plot makes you think and rethink everything you see several times during the film. It definitely needs to be revised to catch all the nuances. Nolan is the king, in this genre, except perhaps Wachowski, no one stands next to me in my opinion.
I gathered my spirit and watched 'Controversy' (Thank you HD Film Search).
In short, Elizabeth Debicki has long legs and sometimes even has practical benefits.
Pattinson and Branna are good actors, and Nolan is still a good director but still a bad writer. He knows how to build a story in a separate episode and even his connection with neighboring ones, but absolutely does not know how to make a coherent global story. This is especially true of people and their motives. Basically, it continues everything that began with the 3rd & #39; Batman'. People ' Genius ' not interesting, he needs them just as story functions. Replace Debicki with any suitable furniture and nothing will change. In general, poor Liz again plays exactly the same content as in ' Night Administrator' only there she had to give some meaning to the presence in the frame of Tom Hiddleston, and here it is not clear why. Motivate the Glavhero? But why? We don’t know anything about it at all, not even its name, its only function is to have someone to follow the viewer’s eyes on the screen. Someone I know. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, appearing in the frame for a total of five minutes, generates more bearded charisma than the protagonist himself. Well, a very juicy facepalm flies in the face when it turns out what, in fact, all the fuss. No, seriously, according to Nolan, he's been hatching the idea for 25 years, and that's it? The Apocalypse of Greta Thunberg?
Total: 7 out of 10 for the efforts of actors, film crew and special effects specialists. On the topic of games over time, there are much more interesting, coherent and internally logical things. Revise 'Controversy' once again hardly ever come to mind.
It is good that only two hours of time wasted - it is not worth inverting and going back in time to discourage yourself.
Such a movie should be watched not in the cinema, but at home, so that there was always an opportunity to pause when you see nonsense, instead of throwing everything and irrevocably leaving the hall, throwing money away for a ticket.
Fattest:
- how much is it necessary to opopopt, so that the Main Hero calls himself in the frame ' The Main Hero' (the protagonist)?
- Negro - test for the film Academy
- russky oligarkh - credit for the State Department
- landing on the chinooks in the depths of the Siberian ores - homage to the crustaceans, finally they avenged for the operation ' eagle claw'
- running backwards forward for particularly dull spectators, so that they can distinguish straight and inverted
Perhaps 'Interstellarom' Nolan set the bar too high. It is possible that the maestro allowed himself to relax. It's like, can a chef make a doshirak? Or can a true kung fu master get punched in the face? (A true kung fu master can do anything!)
I can say one thing for sure: I will not review the film in search of deep meaning, nuances or just to share my experiences.
It's about directing for three and playing for a penny. Steven Seagal plays with his face more saturated than the protagonist and antagonist - with feelings.
As soon as it becomes clear that the universe is not multiple, the global intrigue disappears. Heroes do not make history every time in a new way, moving back and forth, but simply fulfill a monolithic global vision. Since the world is not destroyed, everything will end well, because it has already ended well. Let's go, boys.
It remains only to look for details, try to enjoy the picture and the game, and solve allusions and charades.
But: the picture in the genre of so-so-self-combatant, even the scenes of makhychs are not put in a human way. Some paintball players are running and trying to fight. At least the authors ' James Bond' consulted. They even wore a real tank in real Petersburg. And Nolan is a wimp.
The game is not there. Even scenes of psychopathy and codependency - as in 'The investigation led', by the forces of VGIK students.
Charades -- ah, charades. SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS. So what? And there's this magic square hanging on the mental wall, Stanislavsky patient, patient, waiting, and the gun never fired. With equal success there you could beat in the film ' And the rose fell on the paw of the azore'.
But the crustaceans, of course, should be pleased.
After watching ' in the hearts ' put the film one. It was very unexpected from the director who made Interstellar to see this product. It is a product, not a work of art.
Cinematography, of course, is at a very high level. No complaints about the quality. Good acting, atmospheric color correction, the work of the operator - everything is in place. But...
One. Just no patience for the Americans, ' saving the world' This phrase from the lips of the characters already causes, sorry, gag reflex. Especially from a nation that has never saved anyone in its history. This product, of course, American-English, seems to have the right, mainly the viewer is home (or close in spirit), as well as fees, but just pushes away this phrase that neither the main character, Tom Cruise.
Two. I don’t see a black or African-American actor in this movie. It simply does not fit here in style, it is in style, my opinion has nothing to do with racism. I think the director understands this, so this choice is absolutely opportunistic. As well as the choice of the main antagonist character. Must be Russian or something. For the majority of the inhabitants outside the borders of 39; indestructible 39; all of us from the territory of the former USSR are Russian. The American must wipe his nose. Superficial and opportunistic. A director with a capital letter, whose films remain in history, should not follow the lead of short-term views. Therefore, ' Argument' not a film remaining in history, but an ordinary passing (albeit relatively high-quality) box office product.
The above leads to the third - a large number of clichés. In order not to spoil, I will not list them. The viewer will see them (or see them if they see them).
Fourth. Unnecessary brain swirling and illogical individual plot scenes. Even with a mathematical mindset and the inalienability of abstract thinking, it is impossible to understand what is happening in the theories used in the film without immersion in scientific research. And that doesn't seem to be the case. But the scope and scope for special effects is huge.
It's about illogicality. This is a problem with many modern films. Here in the film, American special forces in some unknown way on helicopters is in the depths of Russian territory. Here we go. And American. Of course, this is Ukrainian territory. An-Net, in Siberia, guys are working. What about a black employee in the ranks of Ukrainian special forces in Kiev? This, by the way, to the topic of choosing an actor for the role of the main character.
No, maybe the movie doesn't deserve one. But! I was going to see this movie for a long time, and it just didn’t live up to expectations so much that my finger just couldn’t press any other button.
Review on "DovoD" - "the main film after the opening of cinemas".
Indeed, it was Christopher Nolan's film that was tasked with bringing the viewer back to theaters. Did it work? Rather, it is, but the apparent reduction in fees due to the coronavirus has already forced many companies to postpone their major releases to a later date, when more theaters will open and people will start going to the movies more often. Unfortunately, the Argument fees are small at the moment, but this does not apply to our discussion of the film directly, this is only an introduction.
So, in the plot (which is the main element of the film, even to the detriment of some others), the protagonist, whose name is never pronounced, investigates the origin of a mysterious weapon from the future. Exactly so, almost nothing else is unknown to him, as well as the viewer, so it is easy to associate yourself with the so-called protagonist. In the course of the plot, the protagonist will get acquainted with Agent Neil, the powerful oligarch from Russia Sator (who is here pouting for the main villain) and his wife, and also learn who wants to unleash the Third World War and how to prevent it.
This story is really very difficult for the viewer to perceive. In general terms, it resembles Nolan’s previous films, Bond films, but in detail it is a puzzle. After watching the Argument, there are many questions, food for discussion and probably plot holes. This impression is reinforced by the fact that Nolan does not waste time on the exhibition, throws you immediately into action and almost non-stop action, interrupted by explaining only the most necessary things, leaving the rest to the audience to think. And it works because it's really interesting to discuss the complex concept of the film. Strangely enough, this is both the main plus and the main disadvantage of this film. Plus, because Argument is a tense action thriller, a new time action movie and a quick change of events and actions suits him. Minus, because because of the complex concept in the film there is no room for drama and emotional experiences (in the film, there is no emotional storyline only between the oligarch and his wife), so it is almost impossible to remember the names of the characters, we know nothing about them and feel nothing about them. In other films of Nolan it was also, but the key characters there still had their drama, their story.
The actors in Argument are well-chosen, they perform their functions perfectly, but do not show anything supernatural. John David Washington is good at being an action hero (he went through many hours of grueling training to be able to fight even in an inverted state), so it would be unsurprising if he was called to action movies. Robert Pattinson and Elizabeth Debicki are doing well, but Nolan keeps them from showing their acting talent, as he is more interested in the concept of inversion, the struggle of the past against the future and time travel. Separately, we can only mention Kenneth Branu, who convincingly played a fearsome Russian oligarch with an impeccable Russian accent. His character is not devoid of a kind of motivation, but, like all the characters in the film, it is revealed superficially. Well, it is worth saying that in the film lit up our compatriot Yuri Kolokolnikov, who plays the right hand of the oligarch and is mostly menacingly silent in the frame.
But what's done really well in the film is the technical part. The film immediately begins with what I think is his best scene, the terrorist attack at the opera, then we move to other countries, to skyscrapers, highways, secret bases, and almost the whole movie keeps you on edge. In this he helps quick installation and good operator work. From a purely visual point of view, the film does not stand out, has almost no bright colors and looks good, but not too original. What sets the film apart from the others is the inverted action. It really hasn't happened before. Houses that are collapsing and rebuilt, cars that go backwards, which is only worth a fight between an ordinary person and an inverted one. It is pointless to describe it, it is better to see it once. All this accompanies a stunning soundtrack from Ludwig Jorranson (you can know it from the critically acclaimed soundtracks for Mandalorian and Black Panther), which was able to simultaneously preserve the style of Hans Zimmer and bring an electronic sound that elevates the impression of the rapid editing of action scenes.
As a result, Nolan turned out to be a very conceptual blockbuster with brains. The director, perhaps, too flirts with the concept of inversion and overlooks the story and characters for the sake of the plot (as in most of his films, but still the Argument is worthy of your trip to the movies – still in the near future you will not see anything better.)
8 out of 10
If you do not understand what the film is about, it is not a way to put a low rating.
In the title is written the first phrase, the first words that sound in the film.
Wake up, Americans! Well, we can do it with them.
The film is absolutely brilliant, 10/10, the main thing is to watch in the right state and readiness to understand, readiness to feel everything that is happening.
Pay attention not to the “technical” details, but to the meaning of the idea and what is happening. What is important is not the scientific side of the technology application, but the essence of its application, the order of events and the subtext of the entire history, if you understand it, you will not be able to put less than 10/10.
I will not tell all the chips, I will give only the direction how to open the deep message of the film.
There is a claim from many that the main character has a very idiotic motivation to save her son (or rather, the need to take his son from his father, or rather, not so much to take as not to let him be alone with his father), while the son himself allegedly does not make any sense for the story. But in fact, the whole meaning of the film revolves around the salvation of first & #39; innocent & #39; a woman, and, most importantly, this really innocent son, and also, I will hint to you that this son is not just a “child”, but this is a very strong metaphor, understanding which you will understand the essence of everything that is happening.
So, friends, two important things happened: first, we were allowed into the theaters, and second, a new Nolan came along. A more successful coincidence for these two events is difficult to imagine.
Over the past months, I have missed the Moscow cinema halls so beloved and familiar to me. I cannot imagine a better reason to return to them than the long-suffering "TENET" personally. Still, watching a movie at home is good, and watching a movie in a movie is better. And no matter how cool modern streaming, they will not replace the halls in the near future.
So, Christopher Nolan. It so happened that in the masses it is customary for Nolan to either worship or hate. There are so few people in the middle that there are none. I don’t worship Uncle Chris, but I treat his work with undisguised warmth. I can count many of his films among my favorites. So, what about the TENET?
It's not as easy as I'd like it to be. Believe me, I would be just happy to write: “Nolan shot another masterpiece, all the way to the movies (in masks and with antiseptic)!”, but, alas, my conscience does not allow me to do it.
The fact is that “The Argument” (that’s how the tape is called in the Russian box office, which, in general, is even an acceptable translation) is Nolan’s least spectator film in his entire career, starting with “Memento”. If earlier the director, trying to confuse the viewer, always left him a bright thread that helped to understand what was happening, then in the fresh picture the creator briskly increases the level of complexity and the average viewer is expectedly lost.
At its core, TENET is a spy thriller about time travel. The nuance is that the rules by which the world of this tape works are quite complex and non-trivial. And even despite the fact that the film stores the answers to all the questions that may arise to it, only a few will be able to understand them from the first time.
And here is one of two things: either the viewer accepts the rules of the game and gives himself to this complex chess game, or waves his hand at the whole circus and leaves the hall. I will not hide it, I was extremely glad that no one left my session in the process, on the contrary, with a full landing (through one, as expected), the hall was very quiet.
But I will understand those who do not want to try to understand this complex puzzle. It's really not easy - relax your head under the "argument" will not work. And that brings me back to the thesis above: why I can't recommend to everyone to drop everything and run to the movies. Because unlike Nolan's earlier paintings, there's not much hidden in the depths of TENET. Previously, Nolan tried to conduct albeit simple and superficial, but still dialogue with the audience. Through his films, he broadcast some thoughts. Yes, simple, but understandable to the mass viewer. “TENET” is also valuable as a very spectacular, insanely beautiful, stunningly fascinating puzzle, solving which, you will get nothing but satisfaction from the fact of the solution.
The paradox is that I have no other complaints (if it can be called that) about the film. I walked out of the room in complete delight. I really liked everything I saw. Scenario, dynamics, creativity, staging, music, characters. Every damn cog was in its place. This movie just works.
Robert Pattinson's hero, Neil, receives from me a subjective imaginary chocolate medal, Charm of the Year. The protagonist played by John David Washington is textured and moderately charismatic. The brightest images turned out, oddly secondary - performed by Elizabeth Debicki and Kenneth Branagh, they have the most detailed description of the background, and therefore they are most quickly imbued with emotions.
And you know, to hell! I still want to recommend everyone to spend money and go to the movie theater on TENET. Firstly, there is a high probability that the film will not disappoint, and secondly, it is necessary to revive the culture of going to the cinema.
“The argument” is a brilliant work filled with countless scenes that cut into memory, amazing intrigue and the most complex plot twists. This film needs to be revisited and then revisited. Yes, solving this Rubik's Cube may not be as rewarding as it could be. But that doesn’t change the fact that Nolan gave us one of the best blockbusters ever. Was it wrong that he blew up the Boeing?
I never thought I would write this, but unfortunately I do.
I watched the movie with my wife and they didn’t understand the word. I've watched almost all of Nolan's work, many of it over and over again, and I never would have thought he would do something so strange and incomprehensible.
The first and foremost complaint is that the film is boring. Very boring.
The pitch is very strange. The action, like, a lot, but at the same time it attracts by the ears.
The dialogue was bad, there was a strong feeling that you were watching a low-budget series.
It doesn’t save the film and Pattinson’s participation, which, as an actor, I really like. He played great here, there are no complaints against him personally. But, overall, he's pulling the movie.
The problem with the film is that the main idea - with a time reversal is served raggedly and practically without explaining. Characters constantly say something about the end of the world and saving the world, but, again, not explaining anything to us. The last 20 minutes of the film with a shootout in an abandoned city, you do not understand who is fighting whom, and most importantly, why.
Perhaps the idea of the film is good, interesting, but the presentation is terrible.
I know for sure that I will not review this film and recommend it to friends too. This time, Nolan disappointed. And the talk about the release of the film was so much that it will be a creation, at least the level of the Beginning, and even better.
The plot is a misunderstanding. Collect all the stamps of primitive blockbusters (with silent silencers, dumb cops and cartoon villains) and twist in an allegedly ingenious way around an absurd physical hypothesis. It got boring by the middle. I'd rather watch the good old butterfly effect.
There was a time when Nolan was a genius, took non-standard ideas for mass cinema and made blockbusters out of them, which are both a pleasure to watch, and many new ones to learn, and review with great eagerness. There was time until at least the second half of the tenth. But if 'Dunkirk' was on an unusual historical topic, then 'Dispute' is a fantastic blockbuster. An unusual idea with an inverted time and rumors that the director blew up the plane for filming, suggested that we were waiting for another masterpiece. But after viewing, there is only a feeling: how difficult it is.
Of course, games over time are always hard to understand. But Interstellar also had curves in time and gravity. And there everything was explained to the viewer in detail, so that by the end there was a single picture. In the “Controversy”, complex terms are explained by quotations, allegedly taken from a physics textbook or by a mysterious word: paradox.
There is something left unanswered. A good example: the heroes see holes from bullets in the glass and a disassembled gun. An unknown appears. It moves backwards to front (inverted) in time. A fight ensues between the Washington character and him, during which he collects the gun back and draws bullets into it from the hole (in his time, he seems to shoot the main character). In the end, it becomes clear who the unknown is, but the question is: why shoot? For a trailer? Or it’s a bait: go to the movies again – figure it out.
But this is the case when the revision can only be for sporting interest or for general development. There is no such thing as enjoying watching again. Because if you take away the fancy inversion idea, we're left with a story about a secret organization that stops the end of the world. And this is not the end of the world, as in “Interstellar”, where the fate of humanity remained in question even after watching, and the simplest, like “Bond” with Roger Moore.
And that Bond was more complicated. At least there were interesting characters with chips, conflicts, character traits. And here's what Robert Patison's character is, that David Washington stands out only by actors. They even have conditional names. It can be justified by the fact that these are secret agents, from whom just the revealed backstory or strong expression is inappropriate. But the problem is that it's not just people, it's not people. The Earth is not the Earth. It is a kind of dream world where all modern houses were designed by Frank Henry, and all old ones by Michelangelo, where wearing costumes is a crime, where even an abandoned Soviet city looks like a work of art. This is Christopher Nolan's universe. And not in a good way. He has an art production since Batman: The Beginning that is not original. Show a shot from "The Argument", I could well mistake it for a film, say, Ridley Scott.
And to such a world and heroes do not want to get attached. Because of this, the action is not so impressive. And he, you wouldn't believe it, is controversial. Yes, the fight of an inverted person with a non-inverted one is cool, and the explosion of the plane looks expensive-rich, but at the same time the climactic battle scene is simply disgusting. Boring, not intriguing, I would even say depressing, in which it is impossible to understand who is who.
And although by the end, as in all Nolan’s films, more or less, a single puzzle is formed and there is a feeling: “This is a turn,” there is no particular pleasure in it. But there's the joy of thinking, "It's over." And when Nolan's magic subsides, the problem of horse timing becomes noticeable.
So far, this is by far Nolan's worst film, indirectly, but also confirms the box office failure. Yes, first of all, the coronavirus pandemic is to blame, which prevented it from becoming a plus, but estimates against the background of old films leave much to be desired. I think the director has lost touch with the audience. Of course, he's still a genius visualizer, but not for everyone. And given that a month after the failure of “Controversy” Warner brothers announced the simultaneous release of all their films in the movies and streaming, which Nolan strongly condemned, in the near future we may lose the last source of blockbusters for smart.
I will try my version on the tops, because this flawed puzzle is already the size of a mountain.
1. Time. Time management, as such, generates an infinite number of realities. The technology presented to us is not up to magic, because the hands are run against the clock for a specific object (objects). In this case, time is linear.
2. Bullet. This projectile is easy to explain a lot of physical patterns, and therefore so much attention. But, “inversive” (hereinafter in the text... word as word) bullet should at least drive into the victim or under plaster in the right place. I’m not even talking about the right time.
3. Chip. She just isn't there. All this inversion does not give any advantage, even controversial.
4. Sit down! Two!
Unable to convey the means of visual modeling that there is time back for the bullet, what is the point and having already exhausted them, the screenwriter-director repeatedly applies the power of the word. Even more confusing inexperienced viewers irreconcilable contradictions.
Little by little he's talking about some ticks. They need details online from direct reality! In the extreme case of recording what is happening ... and there will be the imaginary advantage in the inversion mode. Unconvincing!
It remains to accuse the viewer that he thinks linearly and is not capable of more. Incorrect, very! (see paragraph 1).
5. Total
As a big fan of the genre, I can state that I was not drawn to sleep. It is beautiful because it is not linear.
In fact, we were presented with another concept of Malthusianism through the total genocide of past generations. Even Thanos was not so radical.
With regard to Mr. Nolan... I hope we do not see regression, but experience as the son of difficult mistakes.
"Affair." First, the name seems silly at first, but if you decide to figure it out, there is intrigue (as always in life, when you decide to figure it out). Literally from English (Latin originally), the original name "Tenet" is translated as "postulate, doctrine". How much better for a poster, isn't it? But then comes into play His Majesty’s Concept, which the big paintings – and “the argument”, of course, the big picture – must be done flawlessly. Tenet is a palindrome word that reads the same from all sides. And the "argument", respectively, also attach multilingual posters for illustration.
This "polyndromatic" movement - back and forth - is the driving and most exciting element of the film's plot. The theme of “time inversion” hangs another medal of originality on Nolan’s chest – after all, what we have not seen about time travel! I haven’t seen it, and here’s why.
First, but not in the main. The original move is backed up by amazing complex scenes. Nolan plays on the field of a spy action movie absolutely honestly, setting the most difficult tasks and with brilliance (and the blood of the actors) performing them. The scenes in the film are actually shot twice – first in one, and then in reverse live performance. Rewinding the director would not suit, needed a “true thread of the game”, so, in particular, the lead actor John David Washington, a former player in American football, for a month after filming was unable to run, and at first and completely get out of bed. “It would be better to go to coaches,” he would think, if he did not work in the end on one of the outstanding creations of cinema.
Why the creation, in my opinion, is outstanding, I hasten to voice and then I move on to the main thing. It's exactly the same reason as all of Nolan's films. This director masterfully puts his message in the most complex and therefore the most interesting plot and / or metaphorical shell. And very precisely finds expression for his idea - in "Argument" puzzle formed for me after one single scene. But sometimes you have to sit or rewind to find his core, unravel and then get high with him, as with your own trophy! Only knowledge gained with effort becomes important and necessary for us. Nolan is such a “guru in life” for me, in all his films, I, finding a message, experienced a powerful catharsis and immediately received points in the column “personality development”. This is a mission he does brilliantly!
And if you do not want to delve deeply into everything and think, and for what he has all this up here - this can also be - then you can just win-win time for great entertainment. The plot holds, "boy" bells and whistles a lot, it's like all spy action, and something in it at the same time own, author. (The message is "author's", well, come on, that's not the paragraph!)
In total, Christopher Nolan again did something in a new field, and at the same time remained true to himself, and most importantly, the postulate and doctrine (Tenet, in general) of real cinema!
Instead of the foreword: 'Don't try to understand. Feel it. '
I am a huge fan of the entire series, Doctor Who 39; both the original and the new series (except for the last two seasons), and was intrigued by this work, especially because Nolan has already shown himself to be an interesting author and visionary versed in the problems of time and its perception (for example, in the excellent ' Remember').
I was only able to watch this movie on my second attempt. On the first view, I was literally distracted for a few seconds by tea and lost all the thread of reasoning, which led me to this thought. There is no plot in the film.
Essentially, what we see on the screen is a cross between a time loop and a self-fulfilling prophecy that is constantly entering a paradox with itself. At the same time, the main character demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what is happening (which causes the sympathy of the viewer, because he also does not understand what is happening in most cases), and most importantly, the attentiveness of the goldfish. At least this can be seen at the moment with the return car in which the hero does not remember the car.
When reviewing the film itself, a lot of questions arise. Starting with the banal ' why does the machine go backwards when only the character is inverted?' and ' why does the inverted lighter burn when it shouldn't?' and ending with the questions ' if the positron is an electron in reverse time, why did all inverted things and people not annihilate at the time of contact with the straight world?' The events of the world themselves do not just point to the ending, but shout about it simply because they exist (fans of universes associated with time travel and paradoxes will understand the finale in the middle, if they do not abandon the film).
The characters are pretty flat. An honest and principled protagonist who acts like that because his uncles and aunts said so; a partner who understands too much for a freshly initiated person and does things that themselves raise questions; a main villain who is bad because he is just bad; a lady in trouble who is saved throughout the film. The only character who evokes any empathy is an arms dealer, because his motives are at least partially clear. At the same time, the actors honestly play the roles and try their best, although this does not bring the desired effect.
The effects are at a high level. And the beauty is that they minimally hint at the presence of graphics. There is nothing to say - artists and decorators have tried their best, only respect for them.
I thought I would have to revisit the film to fully understand what happened. So it was with 'Remember', so it was with 'Beginning'. Here, desire does not arise at all. The film itself is quite primitive in its construction, and the plot is built on the pursuit of the villain. Moreover, the installation does not leave a chance even for the slightest loss of attention - they cut out the timekeeping, or did not add small dialogues for disclosure, did not give enough exposure. Even the hero’s motivation is in doubt. At the same time, the white threads with which the film was sewed stick out from everywhere. It’s more like a demonstration of Nolan’s imagination and artistry.
Finally, although I am not an expert in any of the branches of physics, something suggests that even INTERSTELLAR & #39, sinning inaccuracies, holes and fiction, much closer to reality than this craft. Watch only for the love of the author/development of SRSG/finding holes in the plot, logic and motivation. The rest of you go by, you will lose nothing.
3 out of 10
For the imagination, effects and efforts of the actors.
The first half of viewing can be boring, but the second half of the film is worth the whole boring first and puts everything in its place, and gives a delicious action from Nolan. Great movie, hooked. Pattinson's game is a special treat.
This movie is very interesting. And it's cyclical. Immediately after the end, you want to revise it, since the ending leads to the beginning. New cycle, new beat. And so we go into the infinity of time, remaining only on its one fragment, the length of the film.
If you move away from the typical “Nolan product”, the first half of the film is depressing. Before us, in fact, a typical Bond, where the main character travels around the world, mainly trying to save the girl from not at all charismatic antagonist, along the way something with plutonium... Although the protagonist is also not quite impressive, to be honest. This dreary bond, where the heroes of the second and even the third plan motivation is somehow spelled out much better than the main characters, as a result, everything turns in the mind in the second part of the film. And we're beginning to see an inverted Bondian with the plentiful action we've seen. Some points are becoming clearer. But for the most part, there is no need to delve into science, physics, entropy, inversion. It is better to feel the film, to feel it under an inverted sound. And stop at your feelings.
How do I feel?
I feel like I'm being shown wealth, luxury. They are trying to explain something to me about time travel without travel in the usual sense (the sense of what time travel we are used to in other films). I am constantly confused, imposed on the mind as if a simple plot, but then it is complicated, and I twist in it (in its cyclicity circular) squirrel. And I like it! And it's terrible. Watching it a second time...
What makes a movie a cult movie?
“Cultivity” is a fashionable symbol of something. In this movie a lot of fashionable, chic, but not catchy. Even the surrounding landscapes here are selected gracefully, although they do not focus on any, in some shots they are even intentionally slightly blurred (most often due to the shooting of the near plan). We do not understand that we have visited half the world, looked at the most diverse architecture. Another reason to look at the film. The cult is born in this desire to revise. All of the movies have become so because of the desire to watch them at least twice. But the plots are often forgotten, in 10 years you can repeat and watch again. The cycle repeats. The cycle repeats. It can't be avoided. I'm still a squirrel in a wheel, running after something.
The enigma
Is it possible to travel back in time as it moves forward? Sure! We often travel in our memories, delving into them from this day back to days, months, years. We can easily go back and see ourselves a little earlier. This trick is even easier to do if you turn on the video with us the former. We sit in front of the screen, see us in the mirror of the display. Going back to the past, the past moves forward after pressing the Play button.
Well, to understand something. You have to read, read, read... look, look, look... Go back to the beginning, invert yourself, meet yourself, watching this movie the previous time. But what will happen to you when you meet yourself in the past? A world that may not be perfect. A world that gave birth to a future without a future. Going back in time, would you want to destroy the rudiments of Nazi Germany to prevent genocide? Are you going to kill a serial killer who is responsible for the deaths of innocent girls? Are you going to destroy the corporations that have enslaved the world and brought it to ruin in the future? Will you destroy those who created nuclear weapons? Will you destroy everyone so that there is no apocalyptic future? Or will you stand with those who defend the past/present? Invert yourself, ask yourself meaningful questions, returning to the beginning of being, choosing: destroy the world or let it live to the hour of your apocalypse. Are you the antagonist or the protagonist? Is there a difference between them? Both in their own way save love, the girl, the world simply in inverted consciousness, in opposite worlds, in opposite motives, goals and means.
Or maybe just travel back and forth between the not-coming future, the real present and the changeable past, fixate on it so that the future simply doesn't exist. Squirrel in the wheel. And you are in it as if you are not and did not exist. There is only the elusive now.
_
Yeah. The best role went to Robert Pattinson. The most motivated, the most understandable, the most concise, the most obsessive, perhaps even the best of his career of any of these (maybe a supporting Oscar? no, just the role is so prescribed, as I see, on purpose). Perhaps he is the main character here, how do you think?
I think that this is a cult movie that makes the owner think against the desire to activate gray matter, understand, notice. A movie for all time, a movie for all time. Nolan surpassed himself by inverting himself in front of us.
If you don’t understand the film, if you don’t understand everything, don’t worry. The script has been written for years. It was written by a person of specific mind and interests. Perhaps to understand some scenes, phrases (if they are accurately translated without losing meaning) and you will take years, dozens of views. In the end, you can spend a lot of time on everything, but much less than the author spent. Do you want it?! Do you have to watch the longest movie in the world, fixated on infinity, the infinity of the present, in the midst of clashing futures and pasts?