FilmFincher

One thing I think Nolan really improved on was the idea of the future affecting/influencing the past. I found that thread really weakly handled in Interstellar, (Which I still love) where you get a few lines of dialogue at the start about the blackhole being placed and then Coop expositing in the tesseract about how it's future humans helping out (how could he possibly infer that), it came across a little undercooked. But here it felt like he got to explore the idea a lot more because it's so integral to the central premise. A future war being fought in the past. JDW essentially recruiting himself, like others had said as soon as the first inversion happened you could see everything coming but I didn't mind. I suppose I just really liked the implications of it all with everyone having their own linear experience from their perspective but in the grand scheme it's all these different pieces sliding together. I would love to see the other half that's hinted at the end (I quite like the River/Doctor-esque relationship with JDW and Neil and another adventure with them; maybe Neils recruitment) but I supposed the point is that we've already seen the payoff to the whole thing.

I think you can get it one viewing if you're paying attention, it follows your basic spy film to a tee (Bond villain included). Not going into specifics but there's a lot of 'we have to get the thing to infiltrate the thing, which leads us to the next thing and then to stop the thing' etc. I think audiences can get just follow that thread as a basic spy action film and enjoy the crazy time action. It's the time inversion aspect on top of that, that I reckon is getting to people. I thought they did a great job showing how it works and the mechanics of it. But outside of knowing some thing move forwards/some move back there's not an extreme amount that's paramount to keeping up with the plot (I'm sure there's a couple of things left on the table). I feel Nolan had to do a lot more teaching of concepts in Inception compared to this. Maybe when time stuff is in play it's always going to throw audiences for a loop.

The percentage felt like a lot more than any Nolan film outside of Dunkirk (Which was because that film featured little dialogue), they built some new stuff for the IMAX cameras, including a new motor which is a bit quieter and new lenses so you can get closer. I was amazed at how many dialogue/indoor scenes were shot using 70MM IMAX. Like @MrPink said I think 50% at the very least. It's definitely the highest percentage outside of Dunkirk.

Saw it for a second time at a Digital IMAX. Could hear every word of Tenet crystal clear, I saw Interstellar at the same IMAX one time and definitely had the issue where you couldn't hear Michael Caine in that one scene. Am I trippin'? The sound definitely wasn't neutered, bass was aplenty and it was loud as hell but dialogue was clear. Unless they updated the audio mix I don't think I had the same issue everyone else seems to have had.

Watched a second time, this time with the cinema I went to had the audio properly synced up so I was actually able to watch it. Didn't have problems hearing any dialogue and the film was plenty loud and bass-ey, didn't seem like anything was neutered. Really loved the film, it is a straight up spy film and akin to an American Bond. At it's base level it follows that structure, That familiarity I think is what lets Nolan put the time inversion aspect on-top which makes for some really fun and inventive action sequences (Albeit a bit overhyped, Dunkirk definitely has his most impressive set-pieces, you can't beat the areal combat). I felt I grasped everything on my first watch, the second just made certain scenes that much more rewarding. I think even if you don't grasp everything you can enjoy it at that base level of a spy film. But my excitement and investment definitely rose when the time inversion aspect took a bit more of a centre stage and things starting coming together. I supposed the film rests on wether or not you're going to follow John David Washington as this guy sent on a mission without any emotional investment, similar to pre-Craig Bond film. I found Washington charming and charismatic enough to carry you through the film in that way, it felt very classic movie star-esque. Ludwig's score was pretty good, I found it weaker than the Zimmer scores of Nolan films, the action was just as propulsive but it needed more heart. The cinematography and sound design are stellar, I love how much was in 70MM IMAX (which is how I saw it the first time when the audio was not it sync), the scale of certain sequences such as the third act and plane sequence just made me giddy, I had a smile on my face the whole time because it was just such impressive filmmaking. Most of the actors do a stellar job, Debicki who I've loved since Widows is the emotional core and does a great job selling it, Pattinson is the most fun and I'm a firm defender of Aaron Taylor Johnson who also does great in his smaller role. They all bring a lot more humanity than what's on paper and I think their chemistry together is what carries you through all the plot. The only one I'm not too sure about is Branagh, I like he's a straight up villain and his petty motivations but he plays it too much like a classic Bond villain, it gets a bit too hammy and shouty at times. My other complaint would be a few times Nolan spends too much dialogue on things that ultimately don't matter (pondering questions of paradoxes etc.), those scenes drag a little and there's some ideas hinted at that I would have loved to see explored further. But overall I thought it was great, maybe 5th or 6th in the grand scheme of Nolan films, The Dark Knight, Inception, Memento and Dunkirk are definitely my favourites, the others are a bit mix and match and Tenet falls somewhere in that middle section. 8.5/10

So I finally saw this at the BFI IMAX in 70MM IMAX today, unfortunately the audio was out of sync and they said they couldn't do anything, they gave free tickets for any Odeon for any film for those that complained about the sync after the screening. I wonder if it happened because they were trying to fix dialogue issues people were having because every word was crystal clear for me. Overall I think the film was great (Not entirely sure because I was distracted by sync half the time, I may hate it when I go tomorrow), it's akin to an American James Bond and all the actors do a stellar job, the chemistry is really great. The time inversion concept provides some really incredible set pieces and storytelling moments. I just wish I could have seen it properly, viewing was definitely impeded but it's such a trek into London I couldn't just abandon the screening.

That Tom Cruise clip is being shown on evening news here in the UK. First time the film's hit some of my family members radar. Might be helping up some general audience awareness.

Yeah outside of 70MM IMAX, IMAX is mostly just diluted branding like @Plain Old Tele said. Even with the sensor size's; digital photography relies a lot on really great lighting, proper grading of RAW footage and choice of lenses. All modern ones can provide similar results to each other, it comes down to who's behind the camera and cinematographic process. I mean look at Blade Runner 2049 (For a lot of people the best looking film ever, certainly up there) which was shot on the Arri Alexa Mini and has a smaller sensor than the big boys and a 3.4K resolution. -The branding is even more diluted in that we've got the Arri IMAX branded camera (the modified Alexa 65) so film's like Avengers can say they're shot on IMAX. -Now the IMAX-certified cameras like the Sony Venice so they can say they're shot on IMAX even without the brand name. -Then we've got formatted for IMAX which is just opening up the matte box to the Digital IMAX ratio. Most films are shot in a larger ratio for safety and reframing in post but the director and cinematographer will frame for whatever ratio they've decided (usually widescreen since the matte is opening up). (I think only two films have opened up to the full IMAX ratio largely because they're entirely digital environments). -Then there's the slew of films that scream go see in IMAX without any of the above, IMAX branded posters etc. Despite being fairly standard in how they're shot and mastered (tech specs/ratio etc). I love 70MM IMAX, but I'm not sure what IMAX is any more outside of that.

I agree, the thing I always look for in a digitally shot film is texture (Wether in colour, production design, framing, lenses, blocking. everything), the image should have character, something that comes more naturally when shooting on film. Zero Dark Thirty is probably one of my favourite looking digital films, it never resorted to looking washed out or lacking depth despite being based of real-life and very serious, the lighting and grading is pitch perfect. Rogue One as well used a lot of older lenses to get that classically cinematic look as opposed to that ultra-sharp DSLR-esque look you mentioned that you see so often. So I reckon Fraser's pretty well versed and has all the tools at his disposal. This is the first Batman film to be shot entirely digital and it's looking great so far.

Yeah it doesn't usually end up showing on film when someone says that. But I'm hoping since they went through so much effort shooting sequences on 70MM IMAX that they are putting extra effort in. Even if it's just more wirework as opposed to CG doubles, or more location shooting. That little extra something that makes it feel tangible as opposed to a CG fest.

I feel like I'm forgetting a bunch, this is the first time I've had to actually rank a top 100. Just know they're all 10/10's and equal in my eyes. Love them for their own reasons. Aliens The Godfather Blade Runner Schindlers List The Godfather Part II Jurassic Park The Matrix Spider-Man 2 Inception Titanic The Dark Knight 2001: A Space Odyssey Lawrence of Arabia The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring T2 Judgement Day Mad Max Fury Road The Thing Heat The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2011) Gladiator Alien Jaws Ben Hur Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back Back to the Future The Good, the Bad and the Ugly The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Raiders of the Lost Ark Predator Casino Royale The Bourne Ultimatum The Social Network Saving Private Ryan Unbreakable The Sixth Sense Before Sunset The Silence of the Lambs Toy Story 2 The Iron Giant Hot Fuzz Goodfellas Oldboy Airplane Memento Black Swan Evil Dead 2 Scream The Terminator Pan’s Labyrinth Serenity Tarzan Mulan Die Hard Seven Leon Fight Club Apocalypse Now Once Upon a Time in the West Reservoir Dogs Catch Me If Can Before Sunrise Minority Report Dr. Strangelove Dunkirk Taxi Driver The Shawshank Redemption A Few Good Men Braveheart Creed Rocky Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban First Blood Princess Mononoke Blade Runner 2049 The Cabin in the Woods Star Tek (2009) Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol A Nightmare on Elm Street Sicario Zero Dark Thirty Annihilation Blade Runner 2049 Arrival Mulholland Drive Pulp Fiction Get Out The Town The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Donnie Darko Attack the Block Skyfall The Prestige Big Fish Children of Men The Raid Snatch Whiplash Widows The Princess Bride

I like Junkie XL. But as much as I like his some of his tracks/scores, I don't think he's quite lived up to the propulsive madness that is Fury Road. He'll do a solid job. I liked Bear McCreary's score as well but I think I was so let down by the film I haven't gone to revisit any aspect of it. Alexandre Desplat is still the scoring MVP of the monsterverse for me.

I thought this film was really fantastic. I've seen some complaints about a few of the world elements but I'm not too bothered (I found it to be really well put together from a set-up/pay off and character arc standpoint). It was just so well directed and Whannell knew how to really rack the tension up and make you feel uneasy at all times. There was also real restraint in what to show/what not to. Moss carries a lot of the film through her reactions and I think she really sells what her relationship with Adrian was without really seeing any of it, as well as the idea that someone is actively trying to destroy her life. There's also a really solid amount of longer takes during the more lively moments of the film which I thought was impressive how they pulled that off. Also loved the ending, found it very satisfying. Hope the film has some nice legs in the coming weeks.

I was so worried it wouldn't get a full 70MM iMAX release. Looks likely now, and at the very least we'll get the Laser IMAX version!

Not defending the currently disastrous box office performance that's happening, but Robbie had already produced three films before this under her production banner (with another on the way on top of 'Birds of Prey'). I remember quite a few interesting interviews where she talked about taking on a producer role for 'I, Tonya'. It's reminds me of what Brad Pitt had done with Plan B. You can utilise the role to create opportunities/develop projects for yourself and then branch out alongside that. A number of other actors/actress' have moved into that role I don't see why she should be any less capable of doing the same. Yes sometimes they do a great job, sometimes an awful one, I personally don't think it's the cause of BOP failure in this case.

Man this would be an incredible get. Even if he gets a truncated pre-production time Sam Raimi is one of those directors with such a distinct visual style and power over his playful and sincere tone that I think he could still bring things to the table where the MCU is sorely lacking. Personally Spider-Man 2 is one of my favourite films in the genre (and possibly in any genre), the level of cinematography, blocking, and visual storytelling/wit in that film is still something I haven't seen the MCU fully grasp with the exception of maybe Guardians Vol. 2. So if they do get him, I just hope they're getting him for him, and not just someone to fill the shoes of Derrickson. Hopefully Raimi still has a grasp on things as well, last film was Oz was in 2013 and very meh, his last excellent one was Drag Me To Hell in 2009.

I was slightly let down by the trailer. I thought Justin Lin coming back to the franchise would ground the set pieces a little more. Fast Five is the peak of the franchise. Yes things got a little crazy between that and 6 but most of the action set pieces were grounded in practical effects. So even though a safe getting pulled through the streets of Brazil is insane, it's incredible to watch because it feels tangible. There was only the odd CG moment (like the mid air catch in 6). It seems like the amount of flying CG cars began to exponentially increase from then, which I'm less fond of. That being said the practical stunt work that is in there looks really solid, especially the Cena vs Diesel stuff.

For likely to win I'd go: 1917 Once Upon a Time The Irishman Parasite I reckon that's the main four horse race The dark horse is Joker which could steal it away My personal favourites were Marriage Story, The Irishman, Little Women and 1917 (Have yet to see Parasite)

Nothing here is as egregiously bad as Bohemian Rhapsody's noms last year (which was made worse by it's wins). But I can see something like Joker (Which is a pretty good film) taking over in a similar way, it managed to get into editing/screenplay which were the weaker aspects of the film, so there's recognition from a few different segments of the academy.

Fairly solid line-up. I would probably drop Joker from editing (for Knives Out or Uncut) and directing (for Gerwig or Safdie's or Baumbach), Johansson from supporting, Charlize from lead (get Akwafina and/or Lupita in there). Overall it felt like the Farewell got forgotten. I think I would liked Egerton over Pryce for Lead but then I would have also liked to see Sandler in there, so tough category. Good to see Banderas in there though. I lost My Body is a great nomination for animated, good to see it recognised. Lighthouse Cinematography nod is also cool to see. Parasite love is also there which is nice. Original Screenplay is probably the strongest category for me.

Fairly content with the noms so far, no one truly undeserving. Original Score is probably my all around favourite line-up whereas Best Supporting Actress seems like you could hve swapped one or two out.

My hopes are really just Knives Out gets some love, especially in the screenplay category, Marriage Story (which was my favourite of the year) to do well all round. Haven't seen Parasite yet because of the UK release date but I've heard it fantastic so to see it get a BP nom and not just Foreign nom would be big. I'd prefer to see Greta Gerwig get in over Todd Phillips for that last director nom. Some surprises would be nice as well for some of the films that haven't been campaigning super hard or have 'oscar buzz'. Throwing some noms to Us (for Lupita), Uncut Gems, The Lighthouse would be much more interesting.

About 50 mins from now, you can watch live here! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEho_CNX43s&feature=emb_title

Yeah it sounds really great, the film has a 4K DI and mastering as well which means it wont be a 2K upscale like most blockbusters but genuine 4K so I'm sure it'll look gorgeous and I'm definitely checking it out in the best format possible. Kosinski also has a great visual style. So despite it being able to shoot in that ratio I don't think they'll format it for that. The maximum they'll format it for is the digital IMAX ratio. Most films shoot in quite a tall ratio but on the view screen you'll have different boxes displayed. You'll have the full image and then within that, the safety box which might be 16:9, and inside that your widescreen box 2:39:1. So on set you'll try get as close to the image you want via the widescreen box and the safety/extra image will let you reframe in post if need or have the 'formatted for IMAX version or have digital zoom in/outs. So kind of like this but there are more drastic versions or lesser version depending your intentions with the film and the camera setting you choose (16:9 or widescreen/quality setting with the camera to maximise potential) There have been two films though that weren't shot of 70MM IMAX that increased the ratio of scenes in their film above widescreen/digital IMAX and 16:9 to the full IMAX ratio. Those being The Lion King and Tron Legacy (same director a Top Gun so there's a very slim chance) but I think that's purely because they were able to extend the image digitally for those scenes being mostly CGI. Whereas Top Gun is very much in-camera so it's less likely.

Just some clarity Top Gun was not shot on any IMAX format. It was primarily shot on the Sony Venice and is entirely digitally photographed. It may have a formatted for IMAX version (which is where they open/take away some of the matte box to the digital IMAX ratio for those theatres, e.g Blade Runner 2049/MI6/Aquaman). Sometimes for select sequences or the entire film. A majority of films that get an IMAX release aren't shot on IMAX and others like Avengers are shot on the Arri IMAX which is an Alexa 65 branded with IMAX (So they can sell it as being shot on IMAX). Some of Top Gun may be shot on this but I can't find any listings. In the featurette where they mention IMAX for Top Gun they're very careful to say "we're shooting on six IMAX quality camera's" for the cockpit scenes referring to the Sony Venice and how they compare to the Alexa 65. Both of which are still very high end and excellent Digital cameras but It would be very difficult to get 6 real IMAX film cameras into one cockpit interior. Tenet, WW1984 and No Time to Die are the only film's releasing this year (Which is the most we've had in a year) which have real/genuine 70MM IMAX footage (the full ratio which is bigger than the Digital IMAX ratio and is the highest quality film you can shoot on). We have yet to see which ones get an actual 70MM IMAX release (With Tenet the only one that definitely will). 70MM IMAX is rarely used because of how large and noisy the cameras are but filmmakers like Nolan are big on the format and continue to push it. I think less than 20 feature films have 70MM IMAX footage. Infographic for ratio. Widescreen vs Digital IMAX vs 70mm IMAX There are also a lot of different projection formats for something shot on 70MM IMAX.