Tenet movie review

“Armed with only one word, Tenet, and fighting for the survival of the entire world, a Protagonist journeys through a twilight world of international espionage on a mission that will unfold in something beyond real time.”

— imdb

As a filmmaker Christopher Nolan likes to take chances. In a CGI riddled film landscape he chooses to film almost entire without it, choosing a refreshing approach to shoot mostly all ‘in camera’. Oftentimes the plots of his movies are complex, multi-layered and, at the very least, interesting.

With Tenet Nolan has created a very polarising film. Some will laud it as a complex masterpiece while others, myself included, think it a messy, sometimes contrived plot littered with single dimensional characters.

It feels very much like a movie that has been edited and reedited to death, almost to the point where you can now see the seams of those edits.

Opening with a blistering pace at a amphiteathre we are introduced to ‘The protagonist’ (John David Washington) as he is unwittingly recruited into an ultra secret espionage group called Tenet. Someone in the future has figured out how to entropy objects, effectively sending them back through the same timeline without having to reverse time itself which has catastrophic implications for humanity, pitching us on course for world war 3 and the end of humanity itself.

The opening of the movie feels extremely disjointed. Introducing us in a very slight way to the character simply called the protagonist. As pitched, he is bond lite. A carbon copy minus the charisma and charm. As played by John David Washington he is almost characterless. Wheter that is down to the endless reams of exposition he is asked to say or the unweildy dialogue itself it is anyones guess.

But what is abundantly clear is the fact that he struggled with it seemingly different from scene to scene. There wasn’t anything for him to cling to to create a character so I would say it is a major flaw of the screenplay. As it stands he is sterile and cold like the plot itself lacking humanity. Which is in counterpoint to the second half of the movie where we are to believe a contrived love connection between himself and Kat, (Elizebeth Debicki) a put upon mol, with litterally zero chemistry between them.

Which places the whole female in jeopardy plot point into the realms of suspending disbelief. As the main antagonist Sator (Kenneth Branagh) struggles too. An unweildy russian accent, snarling at the screen like a panto villain. ( Sean Connery famously played a russian submarine commander using his own accent and I was totally on board with it.) So really one of the weakest parts of the movie is the characterisation itself and the constant use of exposition to move the plot along. It doesn’t help that certain sections of dialogue are deliberatly obscured by the mix.

That’s not to say that the movie is terrible, its not. There is interest to be had. The scenes involving time going backwards are inventive and interesting if, at times, a little unclear. The locations are great with some nice production design and photography.

On a technical level it is brilliant especially the end where two squadrans of soldiers, one going forward and one going backwards in time occupy the same space.

So the question really is how far can you suspend your disbelief and hang on deciphering a complex plot? If you enjoy Nolan’s movies you will definitely want to see it. The question remains wheter you will ultimately see it as a wonderous failure or potential future classic. To me it is neither a complete failure nor a classic decidedly in the realms of just passable.

Carlito's way movie review

rss - email - your choice

“A Puerto Rican former convict, just released from prison, pledges to stay away from drugs and violence despite the pressure around him and lead on to a better life outside of N.Y.C.”

— imdb

Carlito Brigante, released after five years in prison finds himself back on the streets. With a plan to go straight this time he is unwittingly drawn back into the detritus. Clinging to a dream of escape to the bahamas, he hatches a plan to leave but he finds that there is no honour amongst theives…

Directed by Brian De Palma, Carlitos way is a glossy, gritty tour de force of suspence and great acting. In a lot of ways this was De Palmas best picture, controlled, great set pieces, interesting characters and a story that engages.

The movie spends no time settling into the story. After a brief and somewhat funny, slightly over the top Pacino (Carlito) monologue we are straight into Carlito’s story. He is a complex character with a set of honour codes that the newer generation no nothing about. He will quickly find out that honour will get you killed and its usually your best friend who will do it.

Although not the most original set up - prisoner trying to go straight this time but failing - Pacino makes the character his own. He is slightly more understated this time, more controlled. We feel his plight as a haggard, oldschool gangster who doesn’t want that life anymore. He is too old and too wise now.

The world has changed so much in five short years and he struggles to catch up. His best friend Davy Kleinfeld (Sean Penn) has changed too. A wiry haired gangster wannabe who defends criminals for a living. He’s come up in the world, flashing an endless flow of cash and unhealthy addiction to cocaine. Penn creates a memorable character, a sleazy scumbag who has no honour or backbone and will do anything to slither his way out of a jam. When a hit is put out on his life, Klienfeld will ask Carlito to crawl back into the underworld with him… with devestating results.

Undoubtedly one of de Palmas strengths as a filmmaker is his ability to create suspence and hold onto it for extended periods of time. indeed in Carlitos way he creates quite a few memorble set pieces of particular highlight a train station sequence that skillfully builds and builds in tension.

He is a master technician, his camera work almost a character in its own right. To some he is a copy cat of Hitchcock while others feel he is steeped in film knowledge. To me he is an interesting filmmaker, often great, sometimes less so, but when he is on form as he is here there are very few who are better, if any.

There is a bone of contention with Carlitos way and that is the opening, which if you havn’t seen it stop reading now…

To me, on a rewatch, it slightly ruins the film. We open on Carlito as he is carted away on a gurney. The way it is shot clearly you are meant to take it that he is destined for the morgue which ruins the final act in the train station. Carlito is desperately trying to catch a train and his dream of a life away from crime when unexpectedly he comes face to face with ‘Benny Blanco from the bronx’ (a brilliant turn by John Leguizamo) - a carbon copy of a younger self that he dismissed as a ‘nickle bagger’ - coming to inflict a deathly blow and a final nail in the coffin of Carlito’s dream.

Without this opening, the ending would have been far more shocking and effective. As it stands now it is less so.. even though you could argue that he was destined never to make that dream a reality, telegraphing it like this was a misstep in an otherwise brilliant movie.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

Alien 3 Movie Review

“After her last encounter, Ellen Ripley crash-lands on Fiorina 161, a maximum security prison. When a series of strange and deadly events occur shortly after her arrival, Ripley realizes that she has brought along an unwelcome visitor.”

— imdb

Very few movies have had the troubled start that Alien 3 had. Multiple screenplays - some more bizarre than others including a reportedly weird fairy tale echoing the seven dwarfs, a western influenced space station and a planet made out of wood inhabited by monks.

It’s little wonder that the film is disjointed and incomplete as it is. Without a cohesive screenplay as a road map its difficult to bring stories like these to screen. It’s nigh on impossible if you aren’t backed as a director and the studio you work for has no faith in your ability to deliver. David Fincher was in an untenable position, trying to deliver a Gothic and very bleak take on an alien movie while being constantly undermined and questioned.

I for one, would have been interested to see his completed vision. In some ways it’s present in the ‘assembly cut’ which features some of what Fincher had intended for the movie but is missing the scope and the spectacle. As reported in the making of documentary for the film he wasn’t allowed to film sequences because they were too expensive. Which is bizarre considering they had to do six weeks of additional filming when production wrapped in the UK which incurred more expense I would wager.

But such is the problem when ego, creativity and commerce clash. It is never going to end well for the film.

As it is the film looks great for the most part, (apart from the terrible optical effects work) sweeping wide angle shots filled with smoke and shadow. There is a creative vision at play. An oppressive world filled with bleak characters living out their days in the arse end of space. These ‘lifers’ choosing God and celibacy until their day ends. Enter Ripley, a female offering temptation and a glimpse of a world they have chosen to forget unwittingly bringing an Alien creature whose sole purpose is to wreak havoc with the lonely inhabitants.

Closer to the original Alien in tone, Alien 3 is a weirdly disjointed movie. Bleak, sometimes stunning and others infuriating. Its a mixed bag that never really takes off. Which is a shame as it had potential with its signature style of low angle shots and incredible industrial Gothic sets.

The physical effects work is great as well as the alien costume. It’s major failing is the optical effects by Richard Edlund which at the time I thought looked fake never mind nearly thirty years later. The ‘dog alien’ a challenge to make look real as well as do actions that we’re beyond the puppetry and fx capabilities at the time. It’s clear to see the flaws with matte lines around the alien from compositing issues.

Whenever you cut between live action and optical puppet the differences are night and day. The issue with scale apparent in the above shot compared to the life size animatronic head used for the iconic close up. In today’s CGI environment it would be much easier to achieve the desired look and blend both together almost seamlessly.

The cast deliver committed performances under what I would imagine was quite a difficult situation - Daily changes to script being one of the more demanding. Charles Dutten (Dillen) is a highlight as the ring leader of the inmates as is Sigourney Weaver and Charles Dance.

Overall it’s an enjoyable movie perhaps not quite as engaging or exciting as the previous two but certainly a worthy entry into the franchise. It is an often asked question: what would the movie have been if Fincher had been given more time to prep and left to create his vision? In that regard we will never know but suffice to say that it would have been a tonally more cohesive effort and perhaps grander in scale. What is clear is it would have been a more interesting movie as a result. As it stands, its frustrating, at times brilliantly conceived and others a bit sloppy and incoherent.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

'The invisible man' movie review

“When Cecilia’s abusive ex takes his own life and leaves her his fortune, she suspects his death was a hoax. As a series of coincidences turn lethal, Cecilia works to prove that she is being hunted by someone nobody can see.”

— imdb

‘The invisible man’ is written and directed by Leigh Whannel who wrote the original Saw movies and is now firmly in the directors chair for this and his previous outing ‘Upgrade’. I initially caught a short ‘TV SPOT’ advertising the movie a while back and I really wasn’t drawn to it at all.

Thankfully the movie is a lot better than the TV SPOT for it. A twisted take on ‘Sleeping with the enemy’ it opens on Cecilia (Elizebeth Moss) as she tries to escape the clutches of her abusive husband. Silence playing a key role as she creeps around her husbands impressive mansion in her bare feet trying desperately to be quiet. It’s a creepy little scene and foreshadows what is to come after.

Cecilia is damaged by the relationship and slowly tries pick the pieces back up of her shattered psyche with the help of her friend and police officer James (Aldis Hodge). When Cecilia is notified that her Husband has taken his own life and she is entitled to five million dollar endowment from her late husbands estate she is invited to meet with Tom (Michael Dorman) her husbands estranged brother.

From here the movie is all about the slow deconstruction of Cecilia’s mind as she is seemingly haunted from the grave by her late husband. To say anymore would spoil the movie suffice to say that there are a handful of very effective scenes. My advice would be to see the movie without looking at any trailers.

Produced by Blumhouse pictures with an estimated 7 million budget its a mostly effective partially self contained movie. Not everything is perfect nor does it make perfect sense but when you are in the flow of the movie you don’t really pay too much attention.

It’s all about Elizabeth Moss’ performance as the fragile Cecilia. She makes her sympathetic and likeable. A trodden upon wife who happened to have the misfortune to hook up with a husband whose only desire was to control her completely. From her sense of dress to her hair style and everything else in between.

Even though the ending is telegraphed earlier than intended it is still enjoyable and a fitting conclusion to the movie. Overall worth a watch.

Bad Boys for life Movie Review

MD Movie review blog - Bad boys for life

“The Bad Boys Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett are back together for one last ride in the highly anticipated Bad Boys for Life.”

— imdb

The 80’s and 90’s were chock full of buddy cop movies, from Lethal weapon to Tango and Cash and every other flavour in between. Some we’re excellent (Lethal Weapon) while others just hopped on the popularity train for a quick buck.

It’s a seminal genre that gets rehashed every once in a while and occasionally comes up trumps. I remember very little of the original Bad Boys other than Michael bay directed it and it had a lot of low angle slow mo shots. Produced by Don Simpson and Gerry Bruckheimer who created a glossy action picture empire in the 80’s & 90’s with high concept stories, buddy comedy and multiple (Ghost) screenwriters.

Bad Boys for Life in a lot of ways is a throwback to a 90’s movie, trawling out action movie cliches such as Pepto Bismal chugging Captain screaming at his subordinate police officers or cops getting ‘too old for this shit’ and needing to retire. We’ve essentially seen it all before story wise. In this regard Bad boys for life offers very little in terms of ingenuity. Once again its drug lords against cops with retirement thrown into the mix and a pretty obvious ’twist’ that is telegraphed from about two minutes into the picture.

The movie relies almost exclusively on the chemistry between Lawrence and Smith. They have a likeable appeal, slipping easily into their personas like twenty years hasn’t passed. The only caveat being that Lawrence seems to have worn the mileage a little heavier than his counterpart Smith. It is noticeable that Lawrence doesn’t feature as much in the action stakes, taking a somewhat more leisurely approach favouring him to deliver one liners instead.

Occasionally the movie is a little flat unnecessarily doling out exposition and needless multiple phone calls essentially saying the same things over and over. The action scenes aren’t as crisp or interesting as the first movie, retreading the same territory but handled with less aplomb.

Not to say that the movie is bad it isn’t. There are moments of banter between Lawrence and Smith that are funny. It moves relatively fast and doesn’t overstay its welcome. But will it be considered a classic of the genre ten, twenty years from now? It’s unlikely. As a diversion for two hours you could probably do worse but don’t go in expecting anything more than that.