I suppose a sequel was inevitable, but I can't help wondering if maybe they could have spent just a little longer on the substance of the story? This time around, "Elsa" has lost her powers and so, with the kingdom in peril - again - she, "Anna", "Kristoff", "Sven" and the scene-stealing "Olaf" are lured by a mysterious voice to a forest far away so they can find out what's gone wrong for "Elsa" and to try and restore her powers before her people - and those in the neighbouring "Northuldra" fall foul of an evil power that could destroy a dam and wash everything away. The animation is pristine, if not especially imaginative, and it's got a couple of belting power ballads - notably "Into the Unknown" and "Show Yourself" to help the soundtrack augment the pretty sentimental dialogue, that I found a bit wordy and quite dull. It's an Ok film, this - it was always going to be hard to follow the charm and the innovation of the first one. Plonk the kinds in front of it and no harm will be done. Plonk an adult in front of it and ennui might just set in.

Way better than the first. I still didn't like all the singing. The story was great. You get to see what she can do more with her powers.

Away from the 'Toy Story' franchise - Disney's greatest sequel to date? I believe so.
'Frozen II' is quality. I'd argue 'Frozen' is the better film, but this 2019 production is terrific. It isn't as funny (though still has its moments) as it is a more darker, deeper story. Considering this premise only really exists in this film, it is impressive how well it comes out and pays off. The score is improved, though the musical numbers aren't quite as memorable as 2013's.
All the cast reprise their original roles and are again very good; props to Idina Menzel (Elsa) and Kristen Bell (Anna). Josh Gad remains very amusing as Olaf, there's one recap scene in particular that stands out.
Entertaining, once more. No complaints from me.

Exactly what one can expect from a Disney princess movie.

Making a quality sequel can be tough, and even moreso when it’s a follow-up to a beloved modern classic. “Frozen II” has huge shoes to fill from the outset, and this second installment of the Disney animated tale of two sisters is a mostly unsuccessful adventure. Even the dazzling animation can’t make up for what’s lacking, including the absence of an instant hit song (nothing here even comes close to the brilliance of “Let It Go”), dry voice performances, and a mediocre story.
When ice queen Elsa (Idina Menzel) begins hearing a strange voice calling her, she and sister Anna (Kristen Bell), Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) and reindeer Sven set out on a perilous journey to discover why Elsa was born with magical powers. It’s a surprisingly dark adventure that, despite beautiful set pieces, is generic. The plot is confusing yet somehow predictable, and everything is Disney-fied and wrapped up with a nice little bow by the final credits.
Most disappointing are the bland songs (by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez). There isn’t one number that stands out. It’s a particularly huge letdown after the timeless toe-tappers of “Frozen.”
The movie feels like it’s made more for adults than kids, and there are some scary moments (like Olaf wandering through a deep, dark forest and flashbacks to the death of Anna and Elsa’s parents) that may frighten a few children. The idea of an action-adventure animated film with two strong female leads is commendable, but the potential to be something special instead of merely adequate is frittered away.
While the magic doesn’t reach the highs of the first film, “Frozen II” is beautifully animated and visually impressive enough to recommend only to those who love animation as an art form. Everyone else would be smart to skip it.

Better than the first film which I found lackluster in almost every area outside the animation, this one had a stronger story and character development and while I can't say there was one highly memorable song, it did flow a bit better in the sequel. **3.75/5**

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
As you should know by now, I enjoyed Frozen more than I expected. Therefore, I was genuinely excited about its six-year sequel. It’s one of the few movies in 2019 to which I went in 99% blind. I didn’t watch a single trailer, I barely saw any images or small clips, and I didn’t know anything about where the story was going. So, with my expectations moderately high, how did it perform? Very, very well. I’m going to write it straight away: I enjoy this sequel more than the original. For one simple reason: it possesses a more emotionally complex narrative, one which I think the target audience (basically kids) won’t even fully understand.
It’s really hard to create an animated flick with a story that works for both adults and children. The best of the best are the ones that are able to almost tell two different narratives: one simpler for kids with basic life lessons, and another for adults with more profound themes. Frozen II doesn’t reach this last level, but its layered screenplay allows for an exploration of Elsa’s powers that I genuinely didn’t expect. However, there’s an evident downside to the extreme focus on Elsa’s journey… The other characters are put aside with irrelevant subplots that only stretch the runtime a bit too much, and unfortunately, reach a certain point where out-of-character actions occur.
There’s even a period of time where a particular character simply vanishes from the story because Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck couldn’t figure out what to do with it during the last act. Despite the subplots not being impactful or not being able to further develop its characters, I can’t deny some sequences are entertaining and funny as hell. Olaf is the absolute MVP of the film, and just like in the original, he doesn’t exactly have an arc. Nevertheless, he has one of the most hilarious sequences of the year. I cried from so much laughter. His song and a couple of scenes where Josh Gad goes all out are some of the funniest of the whole movie.
The voice cast is once again perfect. Anna, Kristoff, and Sven are sort of along for the ride, with the trio only doing something useful in the last 15-20 minutes. Elsa is the real star of the show. From the opening shot to the last, it’s all about her, and her powers’ origin. It might get too convoluted for kids, but despite a few minor missteps, it’s an extremely well-developed screenplay. With a remarkable build-up and some truly amazing songs, Elsa goes through several action moments where she showcases all that her magic can do. And it’s visually mind-blowing. Like in the first film, the animation quality is extraordinary.
They really put 200% effort into Elsa’s magic sequences. From her running against a tide of waves to fighting against the four elements (water, fire, earth, and air), there are imaginative and incredibly entertaining scenes, which give the movie a level of entertainment superior to its predecessor. Put this together with the wonderful, powerful score, and you get a pretty epic film, scale-wise. I mean, Into the Unknown is not going to reach Let It Go’s level of worldwide craziness, but it’s a phenomenal song. It’s even better hearing it while watching the actual scene play out. Both this one and Show Yourself have a build-up worthy of sending chills down your spine.
All Is Found is also a memorable lullaby that a lot of parents are going to sing for their kids. When I Am Older is Olaf’s hilarious musical moment that left me laughing throughout its entire run. I love Frozen II’s score, more than the original’s. That’s something I genuinely wasn’t expecting at all. Looking back, I now think the first installment doesn’t even have enough significant songs. This sequel has tons of songs that are either extremely important for the characters or funny parodies. All are very captivating, catchy, and emotionally resonant. My advice: please, don’t listen to the soundtrack before watching the movie. Not only the titles and lyrics offer plot spoilers, but they ruin that “first experience” feeling. I got chills during a couple of them precisely because I watched besides only hearing them.
All in all, Frozen II compensates the six-year wait with a follow-up worthy of standing up to its original, which in my opinion, surpasses it. With an emotionally complex narrative, Elsa’s powers are explored and developed in a captivating, creative, fun, and entertaining way. Disney really put their best animators on this because the quality of animation has never been as visually impressive as this. It really feels like a magical film. Elsa’s magic demonstration plus the powerful, chill-inducing original score are two aspects that together provide some truly epic moments. However, Olaf is the MVP with a lot more screentime than in the original, and with a couple of the most hilarious scenes of the year. It’s a shame that the focus on Elsa’s arc pushed every other character aside, making them feel useless and with no exciting or impactful subplot. Runtime feels a bit stretched due to their side adventures, and exposition is pretty heavy throughout the entire duration. In the end, it’s still a contender for Best Animated Feature Film of 2019.
Rating: B+

While ‘Frozen 2’ isn’t as strong a film as I had hoped it would be, I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a disappointment. It’s still incredibly entertaining and I found myself engaged throughout. These films do have an undeniable charm, and outside of the now-completed ‘How to Train Your Dragon’ trilogy, ‘Moana’ and Laika’s ‘Missing Link’, these are the only major American animated films attempting the use the form to create a cinematic experience. It is a pity that the story never finds its feet; a combination of this level of craft and a real ripper of a yarn would have made this a slam-dunk. As it stands though, the magic of the ‘Frozen’ franchise is still there - dimmed, but there nonetheless.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-frozen-2-elsa-and-anna-return-with-the-magic-mostly-intact

The kingdom of Arendelle needs to be evacuated when the forces of nature threaten to destroy it. Elsa, Anna, Olaf and Kristoff set off to find some answers. But Elsa has been distracted. She has been hearing an unfamiliar voice calling out to her in a strange tune. Led by her, the group follows the melody to find themselves at the edge of an Enchanted Forest with untold mysteries and dangers.
Rather than retracing the steps of its record-breaking predecessor, ‘Frozen 2’ tries some new thematic tricks. This time around, the surprisingly mature plot focuses on transformation and growing up. The film’s setup leading up to the climax appears to be promising, but its third act doesn’t quite live up to expectations. The conflict resolution lacks a sense of impact and feels rushed. This is particularly baffling since the first half tends to meander, focusing on songs than on purposefully furthering the plot. Additionally, the tracks are far too many and certainly not as catchy as the first film. Which isn’t to say they are bad – the compositions are layered, but it is yet to be seen if they have enough sing-along power to become as popular as ‘Let It Go’. Still, the picturizations of the music is incredibly captivating.
This extends to the rest of the film’s animation too, and some vibrant colors combine with photo-realistic visuals to create quite a spectacle. Minor details are noticeable as they enhance the essence of each character. While each of the group gets their moments, Elsa and Anna continue to be the focal points. The uncontainable chemistry of Idina Menzel and Kristen Bell, respectively, picks up where they left off without missing a beat. Olaf provides ample humor, either in visual slapstick or by Josh Gad’s endearing yet tongue-in-cheek, almost self-aware delivery. An interesting new character played by Sterling K. Brown is an immediate standout. However, a subplot involving Kristoff and Anna feels shoed in to give Jonathan Groff something to do besides singing probably the most amusing song in the soundtrack.
It’s a tall order to expect this sequel to capture the lightning-in-a-bottle magic of the original, but Frozen 2’s stunning eye-candy and humor will be enjoyable enough for its younger core audience.

I THOUGHT I saw Toy Story 2, I know I didn't see Toy Story 3, and, honestly, that doesn't matter.
What matters is that parts of 4 are HYSTERICALLY CREEPY, not in the child inappropriate kind of way, but still creepy enough to add a decent amount of humor for adults that sit down and watch it.
So, it looks like we are getting back to the 80s and 90s where cartoons add things for parents and not just wine moms, single cat owning aunties, and children. There are actual jokes here that adults in the room will be entertained by, and that is all I ask for in a children's cartoon, throw something in it for the people that have to take their kids out to see it so it doesn't feel as much like a chore.

I remember my dad telling me that when I was much younger, I was given a big toy tractor for Christmas, and spent the whole day playing in it's box! This time, it's "Bonnie" who shuns her established toys so she can play with "Forky" - a plastic canteen fork with a few hastily improvised appendages. "Forky" has a few self esteem issues, but luckily, the long-suffering "Woody" and the rest of the gang are on hand to help walk him through his new life. The plot centres around an escaped-laden road trip with "Woody" hooking up, again, with "Bo-Peep" and having a bit of a reminisce. There are plenty of fun adventures, the new characters - especially "Key" and "Peele" - who have a lovely, slick, comedy timing add an extra layer of enjoyment, and there is a script that still delivers plenty of humour and a just a little food for thought. The characterisations retain their traits of loyalty, silliness and mischievousness as we head to what I can only assume is closure for the series. Their future is presented with a tinge of sadness, but also with a considerable degree of optimism as the toys demonstrate that they, too, have grown up over the years. It's a fitting conclusion to this franchise that retains the generous spirit of the preceding three and ends on an high note.

Not entirely necessary, but 'Toy Story 4' still produces goods worthy of being attached to the initial trilogy.
Tom Hanks, I'm sounding like a broken record but..., is still tremendous as Woody, I love hearing his voice in this role. Tim Allen is solid as Buzz Lightyear, but I kinda feel they don't use him - or the other originals - enough considering who they are. It is, though, cool to see an old face return in Bo Peep (Annie Potts).
There are some more new characters and yet again, like in the past films, they strike the right chords. Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele are, entirely unsurprisingly, funny in the roles of Ducky & Bunny. Christina Hendricks is a good Gabby, while Keanu Reeves amuses as Duke Caboom.
The film focuses on giving the viewer(s) extremely heartfelt moments and for the vast majority it hits as intended, though they do try to tug on the heart too much in parts. The animation is stunning, especially in the early scene with RC.
Is it a thing everyone wanted? Most probably not. Yet is there fun to be had? Most definitely. For a third sequel, you gotta give respect to Pixar & Co.

Dang, is it dusty in here? After what was a near perfect conclusion with Toy Story 3, wasn't sure if this was really needed. I'm glad they did go through with it and although it's not exactly unpredictable, still was highly entertaining with some genuine emotions and a great finale for Woody. Really says a lot that as good as this was, it's still the fourth best movie of the series. **4.0/5**
Don't really want a TS5 but wouldn't mind some short Toy Story Toons with the group...

I very much enjoyed _Toy Story 4_. I thought it was good, and I think it doesn't at all "undo" the perfect ending that the third entry gave us, which was a legitimate fear some people had. What I will say however, is that I don't understand **just how much** most people seem to have loved it. I have seen multiple people say it's the best of the four, and I more think it's the... worst. That's not a knock! This is a **seriously** good series (and also I think it might actually be either better than or maybe as good _Toy Story 2_). But I am not quite feeling the **overwhelming** positivity that it has garnered from a lot of my peers.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Rather than offering an even more potent ending, ‘Toy Story 4’ ends up being an unnecessary epilogue, offering little to enrich the overall narrative of the series and never cashing in on the actual possibilities it offers. This could have worked if it had explored a new story in the 'Toy Story' universe, and Forky certainly makes it clear that such a move could have worked beautifully. Instead, we have a film that feels tired and forced, lacking in clarity or inspiration, serving neither its classic characters or its new ones, and ultimately never justifying its existence. It’s certainly an enjoyable film, but it’s hardly a necessary one.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-toy-story-4-entertaining-but-thoroughly-unnecessary

**CONFUSE THE ... CAT!**
I think this movie will divide viewers into 3 groups:
1.) The group that thinks that this movie is a flawless masterpiece, like everything Christopher Nolan does, has ever done, and will ever do.
2.) The group that argues that this movie is a vastly overrated pile of garbage, and who give the movie a lot of hate because they are angry about the brainless praise this movie gets from the Nolan fanboys.
3.) The group that thinks that this movie had potential and is certainly not "the worst Nolan ever" (which is in fact "Insomnia"), but still has a lot problems and is way too confusing.
Needless to say, I belong to group 3.
What I certainly like about this movie is that it encourages interesting thoughts about time travel. And you can see how much effort went into the production.
But let's be honest: this movie has a lot of problems. A lot of logical holes and inconsistencies. Bad sound-mix. Bad dialogue which lacks build-up. Superficial characters which are hard to care about. Wooden fatuous acting, especially from the lead actor. Bad overloaded script with characters and a story whose only purpose is to serve the pretentious plot line. And A LOT of unnecessary (and maybe intentional) confusion for the sake of confusion.
It looks like Nolan overstrained himself with this one. And like actors and even more so producers failed to restrain Nolan from going too wild with his ideas without anyone checking on whether the whole thing would work.
I didn't hate it - but I didn't love it either. And I wish people would stop praising it as a masterpiece which it certainly is not and admit that the movie has a lot of problems.
And if you have a cat that is moping all day and badly needs to be confused out of its rut and you cannot afford the services of Confuse-A-Cat Ltd., just show it this movie - it'll do the job just fine!

Fine, but next time with subtitles.

Christopher Nolan is a crazy and insane person. There is no dispute about this. What Nolan is trying to convey to the viewers is an adventure that is difficult to imagine on your own. It is also difficult to imagine its events and facts. It is also difficult to photograph many moments. Fear that my mind will be distracted by this wonderful drama.
The story of the film is about the attempt of some people to stop the end of the world. This person is known in this film as the Protagonist, as he does not know anything about the mission or how to end the world except for one word, which is Tenet, and the meaning of this word will appear through the events of the film, but frankly, the aesthetic of talking about this film lies In penetrating the events and talking comfortably about the events of the movie.
The photography was aesthetic with things that neither the mind nor the eye could have expected while you were sitting in front of the screen. The photographic ability in this film exceeded many stages and reached a stage of dazzling. It exceeded the choice of angles or even the duration of the shot. We have different dimensions and a new method in how to photograph.
The aesthetic of the story is not in asking ourselves what the story is. The aesthetic of the story is in how the story is told and explained. The narrative of the story and the photographic capabilities greatly exceeded the events of the story and anything else in the film, where scientific and physical facts and theories were used that greatly assist in storytelling. They greatly help in explaining the events and how they pass. Events and these scientific theories and physical facts that boggle your mind and drive you crazy have made my eyes stop closing while my time to sleep came.

Tenet on paper is a super interesting that I think I would have a great time with, but the execution fell flat on its face. The entire plot is so purposefully convoluted that it is really hard to follow. Christopher Nolan whips from one scene to another so fast to cram as much exposition in that so many moments just got right over the audience's head. Half the scenes are just exposition dumps with audio so poorly done that you have to read the subtitles the entire time to even understand what they're saying. The acting is all fine in this movie, but I spent so much time trying to understand the film that any mishaps could have gone right over my head. The only redeeming aspect of this film is the fights and heists. These scenes were filmed with incredible precision that really showed off the scope that the protagonist was trying to accomplish. I had a good time with that, but that was few and far between.
**Verdict:** _Poor_

‘Tenet’ is clearly Nolan's most ambitious project to date, but the highly packed and complex plot make it difficult to fully enjoy the movies mindblowing rules of time-inversion within a single view.
8/10

Appreciated this film more than any Nolan film since The Dark Knight. Usually his films aim for high concept but get weighed down by syrupy schmaltz. This one ditches his unconvincing attempts at emotional/philosophical depth and just focuses on the very creative core concept of inverted time. There's no labored soliloquies about the power of love, no epic aspirations of cultural poignancy - it's mainly just a bunch of exposition interspersed between some truly breathtaking visual and audio spectacle like nothing else.
Nolan is an artist first and foremost. His films always have a level of craft that is beyond comprehension for mere mortals like me. And in this one he turns that up to eleven. Honestly, I actually enjoyed the challenging sound design. It reminded me of the film Primer (another time bending mind melter) where the discussions about complicated ideas are drowned out by background noise and music because he knows we won't understand and it's not important anyway. What is important is that we "feel it" (as is literally said).
Don't try to figure it out. Just enjoy that an arthouse abstractionist who somehow gets 100+ million dollar budgets to make quirky stories with set pieces that will blow your mind.

It was a long time since I watched a new blockbuster movie and, mostly for personal reasons, even longer since I actually reviewed a movie, blockbuster or not.
I guess this movie is not the most simple one to pick to get my reviews/blogging back on track but there’s not that much new movies to chose from this year with the pandemic and all.
I have to say that I approached this movie with some hesitation and perhaps with an assumption that I wouldn’t like it since I have an aversion towards time travel in movies and books. It is more often than not that the author gets it more or less spectacularly wrong and it turns into a mess.
Well, I have to say that, in my mind, this movie was a bit of a mess. I felt confused and found it difficult to follow the various twists more than once. Also, at least in the beginning, the parts about bullets jumping up in your hand instead of falling out because the bullets where travelling backwards in time sounded somewhat unbelievable to me. I can accept something travelling backwards in time but for such a bullet to jump up into someone’s hand, seemingly on command, no I do not think that’s very believable at all.
Once I had watched the entire movie to the end, then finally, some of the first parts started to make sense. Personally I don’t like that I spend a large part of the movie wondering what the f… even if it (mostly) becomes clear towards the end.
However, I have to say, it was a quite cool mess.
First of all, I quite like the main protagonist. Whether he’s traveling forwards or backwards he kicks ass and he’s intelligent. He is very much a James Bond type of character which I like.
There’s also a shitload of action in this movie and it is both well done as well as cool. Of course, with the budget this movie had I would really be disappointed if there wasn’t good special effects in it. However, one thing that made the effects and action to stand out in this movie compared was this concept that for some people, and objects as well, time moved backwards. Watching some of the larger scenes where some explosions where actually explosions and some where implosions. Cars moving both forwards and backwards in car chases etc. etc. I have opinions about the plausibility of that but it looked cool at least.
For me the enjoyment of this movie was the main protagonist which I liked and the cool action. The story itself and its rather convoluted (but original I have to say that) time travel concept, well I’m not sure I was (am) too trilled about that except for the fact that it allowed these rather original special effects.

man, oooh maaann
everything bumps into each other.
F*ck. yes, another time sh*t by Nolan. people seem to hate or despute it, but I am enjoyed the film.
the inverted fight, so much to hit my brain. u might call me Nolan's b*tch but i am. idc. this shit is liiiitttttt 🔥🔥🔥. Also: Washington, Pattinson, and Debicki are sexy af.
Goransson is good. He did an amazing job. After what he did for The Mandalorian, I'm excited what a sound he would build. What a tone is it. But I wished Zimmer would do that.
But yeah there are some other things that failed. The dialogues is hard to hear because of the massive soundtracks. How this film has no emotional core. Yes it's just big spectacle to aroused the hornyness for the (time) plot. Understandable.
I loved it (for the sake of new "time" plot from Nolan). Cheers mate 🍻 ✌🏽 time runs out

Nolan's latest movie is one of his worst. An exaggerated film whose only purpose is to complicate the viewer, but I wish he could do it with cinema. These ambiguities are created only by the chaotic and crowded montage and a series of theoretical dialogues, and no cinema is seen in it. Also, we do not see any coherent story during the film and the events of the film do not form a script at all. There is no characterization in the film, the protagonist character is not made at all and is not believable, also the other characters are completely caricatured and extra, also during the film and its artificial communication, not a bit of feeling is created. Aside from the fact that the film does not even come close to form, it is also very beginner in terms of technique, excessive cuts, and sometimes weird and inappropriate! The opening and closing sequences of the film are highly artificial, and the final sequence is saturated with a large number of cuts, aerial shots and rudimentary special effects. The only slight positive aspect of the film is its acting, and the acting of the antagonist character is defensible. In general, the film is considered to be a very bad and weak film, which is like a puzzle without a pattern, meaning that after putting the white pieces together, which is not a difficult task, it has nothing to offer.

I’m a bit annoyed I couldn’t understand the first twenty minutes because of the bombastic bass and a bit underwhelmed by the lack of an emotional arc, but all things considered, Tenet is an epic, mind-blowing James Bond film masquerading as a Christopher Nolan film.

Been a fan of Christopher Nolan's films but this one didn't quite do it for me. One, confusing story that was hard to follow at times (I got the gist), but beyond that, wasn't terribly entertained. Acting was shaky, Pattison was fine but really disappointed with John David Washington, though he's not helped by cliched dialogue. IDK, didn't hate it at all and maybe will revisit it one day, but this is easily Nolan's weakest film to date. **3.0/5**

I believe Tenet is very underrated. This movie is just too good! The soundtrack, the action, the plot, the acting, the cinematography, and the fact that CGI wasn't really involved much!
Yet it was indeed challenging to understand. However, after watching Dark, I didn't face much difficulty in understanding the plot, as both have a lot in common.
Nolan's movies aren't there to satisfy you, they are more of something to be felt. I loved Tenet as much as I loved his other movies...

**_An aesthetic showcase that's completely uninterested in human beings (and for the love of God, what does Christopher Nolan have against decent sound mixing?)_**
> S A T O R
> > A R E P O
> > T E N E T
> > O P E R A
> > R O T A S
- Sator square (date unknown)
>_The laws of science do not distinguish between the past and the future. More precisely, the laws of science are unchanged under the combination of operations (or symmetries) known as C, P, and T (C means changing particles for antiparticles. P means taking the mirror image, so left and right are interchanged. And T means reversing the direction of motion of all particles: in effect, running the motion backward). The laws of science that govern the behaviour of matter under all normal situations are unchanged under the combination of the two operations C and P on their own. In other words, life would be just the same for the inhabitants of another planet who were both mirror images of us and who were made of antimatter, rather than matter._
>_If the laws of science are unchanged by the combination of operations C and P, and also by the combination C, P, and T, they must also be unchanged under the operation T alone. Yet there is a big difference between the forward and backward directions of real time in ordinary life. Imagine a cup of water falling off a table and breaking into pieces on the floor. If you take a film of this, you can easily tell whether it is being run forward or backward. If you run it backward you will see the pieces suddenly gather themselves together off the floor and jump back to form a whole cup on the table. You can tell that the film is being run backward because this kind of behaviour is never observed in ordinary life._
>_The explanation that is usually given as to why we don't see broken cups gathering themselves together off the floor and jumping back onto the table is that it is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics. This says that in any closed system, disorder, or entropy, always increases with time. In other words, it is a form of Murphy's law: things always tend to go wrong! An intact cup on the table is a state of high order, but a broken cup on the floor is a disordered state. One can go readily from the cup on the table in the past to the broken cup on the floor in the future, but not the other way round._
- Stephen Hawking; _A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes_ (1988)
> _Imagine you and a friend decide to go to Pisa, with one of you standing atop the famous leaning tower and the other located down at the bottom. From the top, whoever throws a ball off the edge can easily predict where it will land down on the bottom. Yet if the person at the bottom were to throw the ball upwards with an equal-and-opposite velocity to the ball that just landed, it would arrive exactly at the location where the person at the top threw their ball from._
> _This is a situation where time-reversal invariance holds: where the T-symmetry is unbroken. Time reversal can be thought of the same way as motion reversal: if the rules are the same whether you run the clock forwards or backwards, there's true T-symmetry. But if the rules are different when the clock runs backwards from when the clock runs forwards, the T-symmetry must be broken._
- Ethan Siegel; "No, The Laws Of Physics Are Not The Same Forwards And Backwards In Time"; _Forbes_ (July 5, 2019)
Watching _Tenet_, the latest film from writer/producer/director Christopher Nolan (_Memento_; _Inception_; _Interstellar_), I was reminded of an apocryphal story about NASA – during the space race, in an attempt to tackle the problem of how to write in zero gravity, NASA poured millions into developing the Fisher Space Pen, whereas the Russians simply gave their cosmonauts pencils. And it seems to me watching this overblown mess of a film that Nolan has become so fixated on the grandiosity of the pen that he has completely overlooked the humble pencil. More so than any of his previous work, _Tenet_ is focused on mixing philosophy and real(ish) science with over-the-top mainstream entertainment to such an extent that he ignores such basic narrative principles as character arcs, empathy, motivation, and interiority. Now, don't get me wrong, I love filmic experimentation (two of my favourite directors are Terrence Malick and David Lynch), but _Tenet_ isn't an especially experimental film – it's a humourless and badly written shambles, convinced of its own portentousness, and created by a man who has achieved such popularity that it seems no one in his circle is willing to tell him when something is a bad idea.
Spending almost ten years working on the story, and five writing the script, in Tenet, Nolan is yet again examining the vagaries of time. It's a theme that's front and centre in _Memento_ (2000), _Inception_ (2010), _Interstellar_ (2014), and _Dunkirk_ (2017), and to a lesser extent in _Following_ (1998) and _The Prestige_ (2006) (I haven't seen any of his _Dark Knight_ trilogy so I can't attest to their thematic concerns, and we shall not speak of his remake of _Insomnia_). It's undeniably fascinating to see a tent pole Hollywood production engaging with issues such as entropy, thermodynamics, reversibility and irreversibility, time's arrow, the grandfather paradox, and T-symmetry, all the while keeping proceedings housed firmly within the spy genre (it's a Bond movie in all but name). Indeed, one of the film's central questions is especially noteworthy – if what and who we remember from our past defines who we are in our present, do things that haven't happened to us yet also speak to our identity? Do our future actions determine who we are as much as our past actions? It's a fascinating question. And one with which Nolan does precisely nothing. However, the film's main problems aren't related to the squandered existential potential, the much-ballyhooed complexity, the puzzle-like structure, the philosophical musing, or the thematic similarity to Nolan's previous work. Rather, they are more fundamental, existing almost entirely at a structural level (although some of the performances don't help matters, nor does the abysmal sound mixing). The film looks incredible, the practical effects in the action scenes are extraordinarily mounted, the cinematography is stunning, and the editing is superb, but there simply isn't anything of note under the shiny veneer. It's a film with virtually no interest in human beings.
The premise of _Tenet_ is straightforward in outline. The film opens as a CIA operative known only as The Protagonist (John David Washington) infiltrates a team of bad guys looking to find a spy at the Kiev Opera House. He finds the man before they do, but during their escape, he sees something which should be impossible – a bullet seems to travel backwards in space and a bullet hole is "un-shot", as if time is reversed for that bullet, even though everything else is moving normally. The Protagonist is able to smuggle the spy outside, but their escape goes awry, and to avoid being captured, he swallows a cyanide tablet. Rather than dying, however, he awakens to be told that he has passed the test to join an ultra-secret international espionage squad known as Tenet. His mission is fairly simply – at some point in the future, someone has figured out how to reverse the entropy of objects, effectively being able to send them back along the timeline without having to reverse time itself. The implications of this are catastrophic and have set humanity on course for World War III, and probable extinction, unless The Protagonist can figure out who is doing it and put a stop to their machinations. Along the way, he makes the acquaintance of Neil (Robert Pattinson), his infinitely better-informed handler; Andrei Sator (a spectacularly miscast Kenneth Branagh giving new meaning to clichéd villainy), a dangerous Russian oligarch; Kat Barton (Elizabeth Debicki), Andrei's oppressed and deeply unhappy trophy wife; Priya (Dimple Kapadia), an arms dealer; Ives (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a Tenet soldier; Michael Crosby (Michael Caine), a British intelligence bigwig; and Barbara (Clémence Poésy), a scientist specialising in all things temporal.
_Tenet_ is an event movie in every way; this 150-minute, $200m+ original idea (when was the last time a non-franchise, non-comic book original movie got that kind of budget) is a massive studio tent pole written and directed by the most popular filmmaker alive. And I will say this. The budget is on the screen. Oftentimes, you'll see a movie that's cost a ridiculous amount and you'll sit there thinking, "they must have spent a lot on catering." With _Tenet_, however, it's all there, front and centre. No small amount of that money, of course, must have gone on the practical effects (incredibly, the film has only 280 vfx shots) – whether it be our heroes bungie-jumping onto the side of a building, a close-quarters fight where one of the combatants moves in reverse, a Boeing 747 jet crashing into a building (which was shot for real), a highway chase where some of the cars are going forward in time and others are going backwards, or an all-out battle scene where, again, some of the soldiers travel forward whilst others move in reverse. Even Ludwig Göransson's score gets in on the act, employing only melodies which sound the same whether played backwards or forwards.
As cinematic spectacle goes (on a purely visual level), I've never quite seen anything like it. It's one of those films where you'll genuinely be asking yourself, "how the hell did they do that?"; a question that's become increasingly rare in our CGI-reliant times. Tenet looks like it was an exceptionally difficult movie to make. Along the same lines, the cinematography by the great Hoyte van Hoytema (_The Fighter_; _Spectre_; _Ad Astra_) is stunning, with van Hoytema mixing 15-perf 70mm IMAX film (shot at 1.43:1; projected at 1.90:1) with traditional 70mm stock (2.20:1) and a few 35mm sequences in a manner where the shifts in aspect ratio are barely noticeable (although I saw it on an IMAX screen; aspects shifts would be more obvious on a smaller screen). It's the kind of film that could only exist in the medium of cinema – no other artform could even begin to approximate its aesthetic design and splendour, and I admire that a great deal. A celluloid purist, Nolan has always made a big stink about the artistic importance of cinema, and _Tenet_ finds him pushing the aesthetic boundaries of what the artform can accomplish, foregrounding innovation in ways that big budget mainstream studio productions simply don't, and celebrating the possibilities it affords those with sufficient enough imagination.
Unfortunately, no matter how visually unique or aesthetically impressive it may be, no amount of gloss can hide the fact that the screenplay is a turgid mess and suffers from some fundamental problems – most notably, it's bereft of emotion and populated with cardboard cut-outs that are supposed to be characters. The problems start early when The Protagonist is told that the future of humanity depends on his mission. This is precisely when I started to tune out. Any film that declares its story is none-other than saving humanity has gone so big as to render the people who populate its narrative as insignificant. It's also a cliché, it's dull as dishwater, and we've seen it done a million-and-one-times. The idea of saving all mankind simply doesn't pack any kind of emotional punch any more, far better to stay smaller and focus on character.
Which brings me to those characters. Good lord, they're badly written. The Protagonist isn't a person with an interiority; he's a cipher, the audience's surrogate so that Nolan can explain the plot to us. But there's nothing more to him – he's utterly emotionless, seemingly void of any kind of relatable motivation, has no psychological through line, and nothing even resembling a character arc. I'm not a huge fan of Washington in general, who I feel has played every part in the same sombre, disinterested manner, so there could be some prejudice at work, but I am a huge fan of Branagh, and he's even worse. Think of the most clichéd Russian villain you've ever seen. Now square that and you'll be some way towards imagining how ludicrous Sator is. He isn't a person – he's a collection of near-satirical tics, clichés, and elements from other, better films. Maybe with a more menacing actor in the role it might have worked, but all I could think whenever he was on screen was "that accent is hilarious." Pattinson's Neil and Debicki's Kat fair better, but neither set the screen alight. Along the same lines, much of the second half of the film hinges on the fact that The Protagonist and Kat find themselves drawn to one another, yet Washington and Debicki have zero chemistry. At a human level, there's nothing to take a hold of the audience, nothing to make us care about any of these people; they're gears in the machinery of Nolan's plot.
Speaking of Kat, a common criticism of Nolan's filmography as a whole is that his female characters tend to be victims whose deaths motivate men or who need saving by men, and/or women who define themselves almost entirely in terms of their relationship to men. Now, I'm not saying that Nolan is _obliged_ to write more rounded female characters. He isn't. Much like one of his favourite filmmakers, Michael Mann, Nolan's films are androcentric. And there's nothing wrong with that. However, in Mann, there are to be found strong female characters with considerable agency, whereas in _Tenet_, Kat is nothing more than a pawn in a game played by powerful men who effortlessly control her. She defines herself almost entirely in terms of her role as a self-sacrificing mother, and whilst this is an interesting trait the first couple of times it comes up, by the time Nolan is reminding us of how much she has sacrificed for the 237th time, it had become obvious that this was going to be the extent of her characterisation.
At one point early in the film, Barbara tells The Protagonist, "_don't try to understand it, just feel it_", which is advice that Nolan is also offering to his audience. The problem is that there's nothing to feel. _Tenet_ is a puzzle, the impenetrability of which will depend on each individual viewer (and how much of the appallingly poorly-mixed dialogue you can make out), but unlike _Memento_ (which remains Nolan's best by a long way), which packed a seriously emotional gut-punch when we finally learn what was at the heart of the puzzle, _Tenet_ offers us nothing more than the task of deciphering it for its own sake. There's a twist towards the end that I literally saw coming from about 10 minutes in, but aside from that, there's no payoff. There's nothing to make us want to penetrate a story that seems more intent on reminding us how clever it is instead of trying to depict real people or establish real emotional stakes; it's a film more enamoured by the complexity of its own design than by any of the people contained within. It's an emotional void – all technical virtuosity and surface sheen with next to nothing at its core.

I was recently asked if this was better or worse than Inception.
Personally, I don’t think you can compare any of his films outside the fact that he made them. Like those made by Tarantino, each film is its own living masterpiece ...
If you are a fan of Nolan, this is a must see!

There is a moment midway through this film where you can suddenly feel everything clicking into place. Up until this point, the film has been entertaining, with some great set pieces and a scope that is trademark Nolan, but the central hook of the film - “time inversion” - has felt almost superfluous to the plot, albeit a clever visual conceit that gives the film a different vibe to your average spy thriller. But then comes the “moment” - a simple act of crossing a threshold - where suddenly you realise how the visual conceit is going to figure into the rest of the film and also how most of the first hour has been pure setup for what is to follow. It’s the kind of twist that isn’t really a twist at all as it is a visual explanation that the film has really been waiting for. Nolan has taken quite a gamble in delaying this “moment” for so long and there is always the feeling the film is hiding elements of the plot in the first half. This means the explanation may have come too late for some to invest in the film fully, but if you are still with it, there is a sudden feeling of exhilaration of knowing to an extent some of what is about to follow and the film lets loose with some fantastic set pieces that are hugely satisfying if you have been paying attention.
Performances are great, with Branagh in full scenery chewing mode and the score is suitably Zimmeresque and loud. It doesn’t quite hit the highs of its closest cousin - Inception - but it’s scope is similarly impressive and it’s going to lead to plenty of theories and explanations in order to follow each major character’s journey through the film. Great stuff in the end, but it was touch and go there for a while.