Tenet 2020

I went into this movie with high expectations but knowing little to nothing about the movie itself (I hadn't even seen the trailer). A Nolan movie, packed with action, a touch of sci-fi and time travel: that's all I knew. And to be honest, it was more than enough. I went into Tenet sure that I would love it.

The reality, though, is not as pretty.

But let's start with the positives.
The soundtrack was great. Even though I feel that Zimmer would have elevated this movie to another level, Göransson did an excellent job. The music was appropriate, underlining every single moment of the movie.

The cast did really well. Especially Pattinson, which I really appreciated in this. Also pleasantly surprised by John David Washington, whom I didn't know before. He did really well as The Protagonist. Good job also by Debicki. Really, considering their characters, they all did the best they could.

The cinematography, as expected by Nolan, was top notch. Great CGI as well. The action sequences were done really well, I truly enjoyed them. Same for the car chase. I don't know how they managed to film/edit the inverted scenes, but they were amazing!

Now for the not so positives.
The sound mixing was really poor. Often the music completely covered the dialogue, making it really hard to understand what was going on. Thank God for subtitles.

The pacing was off. It felt really rushed, in a movie that should have left the viewer some time to understand the situation. Almost like a magician that doesn't want you to fixate your eyes too long or else you might discover his trick, the movie is always rushing you from scene to scene. I get what they were going for, but it was not executed properly.

The dialogue was also not as good as I expected. Very hand-wavy if that makes sense. Coupled with very one-dimensional characters, it really put me off. With the exception of Pattison's (and even then, not that much better), every character felt so flat.

And finally, the plot.

While it starts from an interesting and, at least for me, unheard idea, it quickly devolves into a generic spy/bond movie. I'm not personally a fan of the "it's always been this way" time travel solution, but I won't hold that against the movie. What I didn't like is that there was no sense of empathy for the characters. I didn't give a damn about their actions, because they felt more like automatons than human beings. Same thing for the time travel gimmick: it was really intriguing, but I soon didn't care for it because the movie couldn't be bothered to keep it consistent and to play by its own rules it had set up

In the end, I still think that Tenet is an interesting movie. Just not perfectly executed. Maybe a longer runtime would have given time to sort some of the issues by slowing down the pace a bit. But the interesting time travel mechanic, the fact that the movie will have you think about what was going on (in a good way!) even after it's over, the great score and the gorgeous looking cinematography make me recommend it. Especially to fan of the director or those who liked Inception (which is a superior movie, IMO).

7.5/10

This is a bit of a nitpick, but in the fight at the airport it was obvious that they were fighting another version of The Protagonist. I mean, Pattison unmasked him and looked surprised, while the camera didn't show who it was. Who the hell could have been?

Not as solid as I hoped. It's confusing for sure, but they could have done so so much more with this concept and world. But they didn't. It has left us with a story that is interesting, yet unrelatable. Things move way too fast and I would have preferred a longer runtime because it is that intriguing. And while the ending is great, the way that Nolan tries to merge the two viewpoints isn't done well. Leaving me feeling like my dad when he watches Transformers (2007) and asks who is who.

It needed to be simplified a little more because everything else is amazing. The effects, the overarching story, the acting. The music, however, is terrible and overblown to give a sense of action when there isn't enough happening. The only part where it worked well was in the final fight, but even then it needed to be quieter.

The cinematography is good as always, but I feel it is lacking compared to Nolan's previous work.

When it comes to action and the draw to this movie, the reversal shots. They deliver, but they are too and far between. It gives us great scenes of reversal action, then one drawn-out segment at the end that doesn't feel rewarding as like I said before, it isn't merged well.

This movie may grow on me more after a second viewing, but it left me in a state that I don't wish to see it again any time soon. It is not fun enough to see again, it is not engaging enough to associate and learn from. Something that Nolan has done well at in the past is his ability to leave questions with the audience after they finish his films. Here, it just provides answers and left me unsatisfied in that regard.

7/10

When coming up with the idea for this film, I imagine Nolan asking himself: can you take a Roger Moore era Bond plot, up the amount of sci-fi and dial down the camp? Yes, you can, but this isn’t exactly the way to do it.

Pros:
- I love it when directors aim big. Give me someone who tries something as ambitious as this over the average blockbuster anyday.
- Directing & cinematography, as is to be expected from a Nolan film at this point.
- Score. Especially during the opening scene and inversion stuff.
- Action sequences, especially the car chase.
- Most of the acting is solid. JDW is excellent, Robert Pattinson and Elizabeth Debicki are great.

Cons:
- This film has been edited to shit. It’s got pacing that’s all over the place, and there’s a rushed sense to it all. Scenes aren’t allowed to breathe, exposition is delivered so rapidly that you barely have any time to process it. I’m lucky to have a brain that can keep up with difficult plot mechanics, and yes, I could follow what was happening all the way through, but it all makes for a film that’s inaccessible for most people on their first watch. Unfortunately, it definitely doesn’t feel like the film that mainstream audiences are going to embrace during the time of a pandemic.
- Just like with Dunkirk, Nolan once again deliberately chooses to not flesh out his characters, resulting in a film that feels emotionally shallow. It’s very hard to connect with the film on a personal level in that regard. Take Inception, for example. Even when you strip away all the amazing stuff from that film (rotating cities, hotel fight), there’s still an emotional core about a man who’s been estranged from his kids because of what happened to his wife. There’s a reason why we want Leonardo DiCaprio to succeed at implanting this idea into Cillian Murphy’s head. Tenet has none of that. Who’s the protagonist? Who’s Robert Pattinson? What’s this agency they’re working for? We just don’t know.
- The sound mix. The dialogue just isn’t very clear for a lot of the film. Why they didn’t use ADR for some scenes (especially when people wear masks, as that’s easy to edit around) is beyond me. I honestly started to read the subtitles after the opening scene.
- Kenneth Branagh. He’s a great actor, but his hammy performance feels like it comes out of a different movie (a campy Roger Moore era Bond movie, that is)
- I found the climax to be uninspired, and a little dull.
- Minor point, but there’s some really unsubtle foreshadowing during the fight at the airport ( when you have a character unmask an inverted person offscreen, and they look surprised, who do you think it’s going to be? )

Overall, I feel like this could’ve easily been an 8 if the film was about 30 minutes longer, thereby taking its time to flesh out the characters, world and mechanics of the plot. It almost feels like WB forced Nolan to trim a lot of scenes in order to get a shorter runtime, but that’s also doubtful as WB isn’t beyond releasing movies that are way shittier at 3 hours (It: Chapter 2). Besides, he’s Christopher Nolan, so I assume he has final cut. As it stands, I just cannot recommend it.

5/10

Pros:
Umm?

Cons:

-- Uninteresting characters. Tenet is a film devoid of emotion. All the characters are exposition vehicles with no depth:

• "The Protaganist" is the most generic good spy ever;

• Elizabeth Debicki, the only woman in the film, wants her son back. She is just a Woman Who Needs To Be Saved, nothing more. Her storyline has some of the laziest writing I’ve ever seen in a movie. Her very, very bad Russian husband literally says, "If I can't have you, nobody can!" and she says, _"I'll scream if you touch me!" :laughing: So bad;

• But the worst of all – the villain. He has a nationality that is tired and over-used for a villain these days … yes, you guessed it, he's Russian. :flag_ru: Americans with a soviet fetish really are the worst. American political correctness allow only people from former Eastern European block to be villains, so they choose from Russian, Pols, Serbians … hey, it’s called diversity!!:exclamation:Kenneth Branagh’s character is God-awful, cartoonish and caricatured so much, he fits every possible outdated stereotype of a Russian villain ever. Agonizingly formulaic. He’s evil simply because he’s evil and Russian.

-- Terrible dialogue. Real actual lines in this movie, “It's a Cold War, cold as ice.”, “It's not Estonian ... it's BACKWARDS”. :face_vomiting:

-- Horrible sound editing. It made the movie painful to watch.

-- The movie is poorly acted. All the actors look like half-asleep filming it. Lead performance by Washington is totally meh. I get it that every lead actor in American movies has to be black but they should have chosen a better actor, or give him something better to work with. Kenneth Branagh’s performance is ultimately one of the worst acting turns ever seen in the history of movies. So embarrassing. People who speak only English should stick to their own accent because they suck so bad in other accents and languages.

-- The whole plot is not original at all. A CIA agent on a mission to stop a Russian billionaire from destroying the world using plutonium that controls time. You can’t make this shit up. It is your extremely generic "go here - do this, go there – do that" movie, while changing the location every 5 minutes, as if the change in cities does anything for the plot anyway. The movie has such a big budget yet we have to pretend the KUMU Museum of Art is in Oslo. Not that Americans would notice I guess. So, that is pretty much all the movie is: random action scene followed by a long exposition scene. Repeat. And we have to unconditionally accept that this banal visual nonsense has some deeper purpose, otherwise “you didn’t get it”.

It's shocking how bad Tenet is. This isn’t a complex movie; it is just a condescending and pretentious one. It’s not an intelligent movie either. The only smart thing in the whole movie is Nolan’s decision to make the typical Hollywood blockbuster – the main actor, the villain, the fight scenes – everything is predictable, Nolan can’t risk to do anything interest. Cannot wait to be told I "didn't understand the movie" by all the Nolan fanboys. Sorry, I don’t think everything Nolan shits is gold.

“I sleep”.

Man, it feels great to be back at the cinema again. Also, I forgot how loud the IMAX speakers can be.

The first major blockbuster in five months is also the one that’s closing off an uneventful summer season. But then again, that alone is a nice filling when you think about it, because a movie with so much meat on its bone, sizzling with rich flavours and so much to chew on, there’s really no need for appetisers.

‘Tenet’ is a head scratcher of a movie, but I really really liked it. I did not fully understand all of it, especially on my first watch, and that is perfectly alright. Despite the movie being 2 hours and 30 minutes long, the movie runs at a quick pace with characters speaking at a fast rate, so it is a rush against time to try and keep up. Repeat viewings and discussions will be seriously needed to solve this complex, but grand puzzle.

As I said before, you can love or hate Christopher Nolan, but there is no denying the craftsmanship on screen is nothing more than extraordinary. I am not a die-hard fan of Nolan, even though I would consider him one of the best working director. I can recognise his flaws, but also cheer on his strengths. An ambitious filmmaker that wants to make every movie he makes special. I mean, there literally crashed a Boeing 747 plane for real in this movie. I have no idea how they filmed and executed it. I rarely asked this, but it gives me great pleasure to sit in a cinema and say, “how the hell did he do that?” And trust me, there was plenty of that throughout the movie. This Nolan guy is a madman.

All of Nolan movies follow the theme of time, but in this movie, time becomes his playground. There was some stunning and jaw dropping scenes involving time bending and reversing of time that was easily the highlight of the movie. I also love how it involves objects and the environment around the characters. What is even more impressive is that there was a mixture of both practical and visually trickery in some scenes. There was a fight between scene a SWAT guard and The Protagonist (John David Washington), one is fighting in reverse, while the other is fighting normal. A fantastic scene. The cast and crew trained for weeks learning how to move and fight backwards, while visual trickery was used in some aspect. Some old school movie magic.

Basically, the whole movie is one big UNO card game.

The performances from everyone was solid. The presence of John David Washington makes his character The Protagonist compelling to watch. Robert Battinson, on the other hand, was the show stealer for me as this charming and sly fox. I hope his performance further makes mainstream audiences move away from his ‘Twilight’ days. I was surprised to see Aaron Taylor-Johnson in this movie and almost did not recognise him at first, but he was great. Elizabeth Debicki was also great, and her character was the only emotional anchor of the movie, in terms of the audience finding some attachment to.

I enjoyed Kenneth Branagh as the Russian villain of the movie and Branagh fully goes for it, as he is chewing up the scenes. Then again, famous poet Charles Bukowski once said, “If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise, don't even start.” Whenever the scene requires seriousness, I think Branagh pulled it off well, even if the character itself was a stereotypical Russian that you would see in a James Bond movie. Other actors such as: Himesh Patel, Dimple Kapadia, Clémence Poésy, and Michael Caine were all good.

The sound work in the movie was incredible. There was an extreme focus on certain details with sounds that adds so much to the intensity and scope of the movie, especially the gunshots which sounded very realistic and had that loud echo to it. It reminded me of Michael Mann’s ‘Heat’ and ‘Collateral’, in terms of gun shots.

The score from Ludwig Göransson was phenomenal and hearing it in the cinema was intense. It fitted every scene so perfectly. An electronic soundtrack with the melody playing backwards. The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema was great once again and it was incredibly striking to watch. Everything on a technical standpoint was a marvel.

I was not expecting to hear music from Travis Scott at the end of a Christopher Nolan movie. I never thought I'd hear a "SKRRT, SKRRT" in a Nolan film, but it’s a welcoming addition, because when the song came thumping and throbbing through the speakers at this heavy pace, it was so good.

However, I have my issues with the movie. First, I had a hard time understanding some of the dialogue or what the characters were saying. Not because it was complicated, but because it was hard to make out what was being said. I mean, some of it was muffled. Subtitles would have been lovely. It also did not help that the characters talk really quick.

Out of all the Nolan movies, I think this movie lacks at the emotional core. As I said early, Debicki’s character at least gives you some emotional attachment with her story-line involving her son and her toxic relationship with her Russian husband, but even that doesn’t get developed enough. There wasn’t quite that emotional tug at the heart strings that you get in Nolan’s other movies. Although, I would not call the movie hollow or anything, because watching the movie, I felt that awe and intensity, so at least I felt something.

And that is really it for the issues.

I am confident that this movie will have a special place in the future, as the ideas this movie presents is too fascinating to forget or brush off. Even days after seeing the movie, I am still examining the elements that came to light and piece together the puzzle to get the whole sense of the picture. Even those who think they got the plot; I can bet they are dead wrong. Those are the best qualities to a movie, in my opinion. A movie that only tells you so much and leaves your brain fighting for hints, but it’s that urgency of knowing the answers and returning to a movie that you weren’t keen on before, to only discover something new that you never got before.

Overall rating: “ᴡᴇ ʟɪᴠᴇ ɪɴ ᴀ ᴛᴡɪʟɪɢʜᴛ ᴡᴏʀʟᴅ. ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ ᴀʀᴇ ɴᴏ ꜰʀɪᴇɴᴅꜱ ᴀᴛ ᴅᴜꜱᴋ.”

”.ᴋꜱᴜᴅ ᴛᴀ ꜱᴅɴᴇɪʀꜰ ᴏɴ ᴇʀᴀ ᴇʀᴇʜᴛ ᴅɴᴀ .ᴅʟʀᴏᴡ ᴛʜɢɪʟɪᴡᴛ ᴀ ɴɪ ᴇᴠɪʟ ᴇᴡ“ :gnitar llarevO

.erofeb tog reven uoy taht wen gnihtemos revocsid ylno ot ,erofeb no neek t’nerew uoy taht eivom a ot gninruter dna srewsna eht gniwonk fo ycnegru taht s’ti tub ,stnih rof gnithgif niarb ruoy sevael dna hcum os uoy sllet ylno taht eivom A .noinipo ym ni ,eivom a ot seitilauq tseb eht era esohT .gnorw daed era yeht teb nac I ;tolp eht tog yeht kniht ohw esoht nevE .erutcip eht fo esnes elohw eht teg ot elzzup eht rehtegot eceip dna thgil ot emac taht stnemele eht gninimaxe llits ma I ,eivom eht gniees retfa syad nevE .ffo hsurb ro tegrof ot gnitanicsaf oot si stneserp eivom siht saedi eht sa ,erutuf eht ni ecalp laiceps a evah lliw eivom siht taht tnedifnoc ma I

.seussi eht rof ti yllaer si taht dnA

.gnihtemos tlef I tsael ta os ,ytisnetni dna ewa taht tlef I ,eivom eht gnihctaw esuaceb ,gnihtyna ro wolloh eivom eht llac ton dluow I ,hguohtlA .seivom rehto s’naloN ni teg uoy taht sgnirts traeh eht ta gut lanoitome taht etiuq t’nsaw erehT .hguone depoleved teg t’nseod taht neve tub ,dnabsuh naissuR reh htiw pihsnoitaler cixot reh dna nos reh gnivlovni enil-yrots reh htiw tnemhcatta lanoitome emos uoy sevig tsael ta retcarahc s’ikcibeD ,ylrae dias I sA .eroc lanoitome eht ta skcal eivom siht kniht I ,seivom naloN eht lla fo tuO

.kciuq yllaer klat sretcarahc eht taht pleh ton did osla tI .ylevol neeb evah dluow seltitbuS .delffum saw ti fo emos ,naem I .dias gnieb saw tahw tuo ekam ot drah saw ti esuaceb tub ,detacilpmoc saw ti esuaceb toN .gniyas erew sretcarahc eht tahw ro eugolaid eht fo emos gnidnatsrednu emit drah a dah I ,tsriF .eivom eht htiw seussi ym evah I ,revewoH

.doog os saw ti ,ecap yvaeh siht ta srekaeps eht hguorht gnibborht dna gnipmuht emac gnos eht nehw esuaceb ,noitidda gnimoclew a s’ti tub ,mlif naloN a ni "TRRKS ,TRRKS" a raeh d'I thguoht reven I .eivom naloN rehpotsirhC a fo dne eht ta ttocS sivarT morf cisum raeh ot gnitcepxe ton saw I

.levram a saw tniopdnats lacinhcet a no gnihtyrevE .hctaw ot gnikirts ylbidercni saw ti dna niaga ecno taerg saw ametyoH naV etyoH yb yhpargotamenic ehT .sdrawkcab gniyalp ydolem eht htiw kcartdnuos cinortcele nA .yltcefrep os enecs yreve dettif tI .esnetni saw amenic eht ni ti gniraeh dna lanemonehp saw nossnaröG giwduL morf erocs ehT

.stohs nug fo smret ni ,’laretalloC‘ dna ’taeH‘ s’nnaM leahciM fo em dednimer tI .ti ot ohce duol taht dah dna citsilaer yrev dednuos hcihw stohsnug eht yllaicepse ,eivom eht fo epocs dna ytisnetni eht ot hcum os sdda taht sdnuos htiw sliated niatrec no sucof emertxe na saw erehT .elbidercni saw eivom eht ni krow dnuos ehT

.doog lla erew eniaC leahciM dna ,yséoP ecnemélC ,aidapaK elpmiD ,letaP hsemiH :sa hcus srotca rehtO .eivom dnoB semaJ a ni ees dluow uoy taht naissuR lacipytoerets a saw flesti retcarahc eht fi neve ,llew ffo ti dellup hganarB kniht I ,ssensuoires seriuqer enecs eht revenehW ”.trats neve t'nod ,esiwrehtO .yaw eht lla og ,yrt ot gniog er'uoy fI“ ,dias ecno ikswokuB selrahC teop suomaf ,niaga nehT .senecs eht pu gniwehc si eh sa ,ti rof seog ylluf hganarB dna eivom eht fo nialliv naissuR eht sa hganarB htenneK deyojne I

.ot tnemhcatta emos gnidnif ecneidua eht fo smret ni ,eivom eht fo rohcna lanoitome ylno eht saw retcarahc reh dna ,taerg osla saw ikcibeD htebazilE .taerg saw eh tub ,tsrif ta mih esingocer ton did tsomla dna eivom siht ni nosnhoJ-rolyaT noraA ees ot desirprus saw I .syad ’thgiliwT‘ sih morf yawa evom secneidua maertsniam sekam rehtruf ecnamrofrep sih epoh I .xof yls dna gnimrahc siht sa em rof relaets wohs eht saw ,dnah rehto eht no ,nosnittaB treboR .hctaw ot gnillepmoc tsinogatorP ehT retcarahc sih sekam notgnihsaW divaD nhoJ fo ecneserp ehT .dilos saw enoyreve morf secnamrofrep ehT

.emag drac ONU gib eno si eivom elohw eht ,yllacisaB

.cigam eivom loohcs dlo emoS .tcepsa emos ni desu saw yrekcirt lausiv elihw ,sdrawkcab thgif dna evom ot woh gninrael skeew rof deniart werc dna tsac ehT .enecs citsatnaf A .lamron gnithgif si rehto eht elihw ,esrever ni gnithgif si eno ,)notgnihsaW divaD nhoJ( tsinogatorP ehT dna draug TAWS a enecs neewteb thgif a saw erehT .senecs emos ni yrekcirt yllausiv dna lacitcarp htob fo erutxim a saw ereht taht si evisserpmi erom neve si tahW .sretcarahc eht dnuora tnemnorivne eht dna stcejbo sevlovni ti woh evol osla I .eivom eht fo thgilhgih eht ylisae saw taht emit fo gnisrever dna gnidneb emit gnivlovni senecs gnippord waj dna gninnuts emos saw erehT .dnuorgyalp sih semoceb emit ,eivom siht ni tub ,emit fo emeht eht wollof seivom naloN fo llA

.namdam a si yug naloN sihT .eivom eht tuohguorht taht fo ytnelp saw ereht ,em tsurt dnA ”?taht od eh did lleh eht woh“ ,yas dna amenic a ni tis ot erusaelp taerg em sevig ti tub ,siht deksa ylerar I .ti detucexe dna demlif yeht woh aedi on evah I .eivom siht ni laer rof enalp 747 gnieoB a dehsarc yllaretil ereht ,naem I .laiceps sekam eh eivom yreve ekam ot stnaw taht rekammlif suoitibma nA .shtgnerts sih no reehc osla tub ,swalf sih esingocer nac I .rotcerid gnikrow tseb eht fo eno mih redisnoc dluow I hguoht neve ,naloN fo naf drah-eid a ton ma I .yranidroartxe naht erom gnihton si neercs no pihsnamstfarc eht gniyned on si ereht tub ,naloN rehpotsirhC etah ro evol nac uoy ,erofeb dias I sA

.elzzup dnarg tub ,xelpmoc siht evlos ot dedeen ylsuoires eb lliw snoissucsid dna sgniweiv taepeR .pu peek dna yrt ot emit tsniaga hsur a si ti os ,etar tsaf a ta gnikaeps sretcarahc htiw ecap kciuq a ta snur eivom eht ,gnol setunim 03 dna sruoh 2 gnieb eivom eht etipseD .thgirla yltcefrep si taht dna ,hctaw tsrif ym no yllaicepse ,ti fo lla dnatsrednu ylluf ton did I .ti dekil yllaer yllaer I tub ,eivom a fo rehctarcs daeh a si ’teneT‘

.sresiteppa rof deen on yllaer s’ereht ,no wehc ot hcum os dna sruovalf hcir htiw gnilzzis ,enob sti no taem hcum os htiw eivom a esuaceb ,ti tuoba kniht uoy nehw gnillif ecin a si enola taht ,niaga neht tuB .nosaes remmus luftnevenu na ffo gnisolc s’taht eno eht osla si shtnom evif ni retsubkcolb rojam tsrif ehT

.eb nac srekaeps XAMI eht duol woh togrof I ,oslA .niaga amenic eht ta kcab eb ot taerg sleef ti ,naM

.”“

Tenet is Christopher Nolan's attempt at utilizing similar timeslip mechanics as Primer, and should not be confusing at all to anyone who has ever watched that film. In fact, the moment that we are introduced to turnstile, it should be immediately clear how the film ties its loose ends, connecting the ending with the first minutes of the film.

The interesting take is how, and I think Nolan does much better job than the film I mentioned.

The point of the film, I think, is that there is no multiple realities. The future is already set in stone. "What happened's happened" means basically the world has been like that since the movie start. “Ignorance is the Tenet team’s ammunition” only because they don’t know how or what happens in the future, they do what they do to save the world. Basically everything in this film has already happened and no one is in control.

And I think that's the beauty, and the sad deterministic view of the film. "What about free will?" the Protagonist asks very early in the film. There is none; only fate.

So unlike what others have claimed, Tenet does have a plot, albeit a deterministic one. As a film, Tenet does not trouble itself by laying out vague scientific jargons or trying to explain the time mechanics to the audience. Nolan takes a straight point, focusing on the heist/mission like he did with Inception.

Some might say that the characters are soulless, unlike Inception. I think it might be the consequence of fast-moving scenes cut/edited with high efficiency. Especially in the first half of the film; at times I had to pause the film a few times to understand what's going on. But character's relationship leaves a better impression as we get to the ending. Although I have to admit that the villain's motivation was not at all convincing/interesting; they serve more like as a background to the whole mission.

I also see Tenet as Nolan's further experiments with sound design/ambient music, after what he did with Dunkirk: in certain scenes, like the inverted car chase scene, Nolan contrasts a seemingly linear/flat cinematography with shepard tonal music that makes the scene getting more intense and pressured only through repeating the pitch (see Vox's video/article on this subject).

Tenet might not be Nolan's masterpiece, but it's a very interesting experiments that does things well and really streamlined in the timeslip/time travel genre.

I have seen every Christopher Nolan film except Larceny and those 3 shorts he did. He may be my favorite director. This is the worst movie he has ever made. When I think of this movie I think of George Costanza yelling ITS FINE and that's what I want to do. I am pretty sure Nolan had the idea about a backwards car chase and thought, "well how do I make that into a movie?" and poof, here we are. The writing is extremely snappy, almost to the point of parody. People non-stop rattling off 6 word sentences at one another with almost zero silence between them. The action, well, I had no idea what the heck was going on most of the time. It's just not written well. I am a geek for time movies or time-anything. I watch it all. I have never once not understood the movie/whatever. Even the so-called complicated ones. This? I have no idea what was going on. I mean I get what the evil Russian big bad was doing, but the actual action sequences with the inverse-whatever its called? No idea. There's also stupid stuff like loudly discussing terroristic plans on airport subways in a crowd while everyone around does seem to notice. But its a pretty movie with pretty people that are all good to great actors. Nolan should be glad COVID made it so nobody saw this in theaters. It helps his reputation to not see it, because this was not up to his standards in anything but the visuals. Maybe he can get back to that Jim Carrey cum Howard Hughes movie he had to cancel all those years ago. As for Tenet? ITS FINE.

The cinematography? Fantastic.

The score? Heart-pounding and creative.

The dialogue? Serviceable, at best. Incomprehensible, at worst.

The action? Some of the most creative stuff I've ever seen.

The plot? Interesting.

The story? Overwhelmingly confusing.

The idea of this movie is so high concept that it had to have been directed by Christopher Nolan. Unfortunately, it was also written by Christopher Nolan. He spent so much time fleshing out the mechanics of this world he built, he forgot to give the audience anything to which they could connect, instead opting to lazily tack on a shallow something that resembles a connection in the form of a mother-child relationship (which means nothing to the movie). And the fact that the protagonist doesn't have a name and lacks any want, need, or motivation besides saving the world, to the point that he's credited as "The Protagonist", almost makes me think that Nolan wrote him poorly on purpose.

All this movie has going for it are what I listed above: the shots, the score, the action scenes, and the interesting ideas. However, you need characters that make meaningful decisions that impact the plot, not characters that follow the plot you've already written. But looking back on the movie, isn't that exactly what Tenet is? Isn't it just characters reacting to and moving according to a pre-planned plot? Is this whole movie just a meta-commentary on movies that are all plot and no story?

If it is, I deserve a pat on the back for coming to that conclusion. As I see it, this is a 2.5 star movie with an extra half-star for style. It would have gone a long way for him to have written stronger characters; if the story was stronger as a result of that, this could have been up there with his other films, or it could have even been one of his greatest films.

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?)

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.

For my complete review, please visit: https://boxd.it/1lbO1H

My impression after just finally watching this...

First 40-45%: 4/10.
So many scenes felt clipped, rushed into the next, with not nearly enough connection to follow what was going on or why. Visually impressive, and I had the distinct impression that something big and interesting was going on, but I was very confused about what it was.

Last 55-60%: 7/10.
A little after we meet Sator, events started flowing somewhat more understandably. Still a bit confused here and there, but not as much. And the big ambitious sequences closer to the end were mostly well-executed (and in stunning detail), including some loopbacks that belatedly filled in some of the earlier-on confusion while completing the story well. Still not quite up to the greatness level the ads promised, IMO, but better.

I have the impression that a second watch would make more sense, in part due to some of the revelations near the end. My issue is that a second watch shouldn't be this necessary to get the story enough to appreciate it.

While I appreciate some degree of mystery and confusion up front that gets explained later on, that doesn't quite work any more when the confusion reaches a level that I don't understand why people are doing what they're doing.

I suspect that this would have been much better if given the additional time to flesh things out, especially the first half. Maybe as a limited series over four to six hours.

“Tenet” is yet another Christopher Nolan blockbuster that shows off intriguing ideas and spectacular action, but unfortunately struggles at telling an emotionally engaging story. I dig the dark tone and ambitious scale of his films, but always find it hard to connect with the paper-thin characters. Neil might be the only exception here, but it felt like credit should go to Robert Pattinson for his performance. Overall, I quite enjoyed it, and can totally see myself revisiting it a few years from now, but at the same time, I can’t help feeling like it was in many aspects also a missed opportunity.

Even more than “Inception”, the film can be described as a more daring take on a James Bond flick. The problem is that Nolan has always been awkward with two of the vital trademarks of a successful 007 film: wit and sensuality. The humor was a bit better than usual, though.

Despite its reputation as a tremendously convoluted film, the plot is as simple as ”Avengers: Infinity War”: the bad guy is collecting powerful artifacts that could lead to the destruction of the universe, and a group of heroes travels across time to stop him. The only thing to be really confusing is the way time travel is handled. There is no machine that instantly takes you to a particular point in time: you have to “invert” yourself and physically walk your way backward, with the whole world around you appearing as it is “rewinding” itself. This results in action sequences that are as visually breathtaking as they are mechanically overwhelming, particularly when you get to see characters moving in opposite temporal directions interact on screen. When it’s a couple of characters you can more or less figure out what is going on, but when we are talking about color-coded troops, it gets a bit too much for your eyes to handle.

The concept is original, filmed as only Nolan could film it, but it's not on par with his previous entries. Maybe it's just me, spoiled by Nolan's opus, but Tenet left me wondering "how much is too much" when it comes to complexity.

To be clear, I loved the movie, I loved the originality of the concept (it's time travel ala Nolan) and unlike Nolan's previous movies it doesn't require multiple viewings to fully understand or appreciate. The reason is not the inferior quality or complexity of the idea compared to his previous movies, it's the concept itself. Visually explaining this idea to the audience ends up both the most entertaining part of the movie and the reason the it suffers. The idea is amazing but takes up so much screen time unraveling that the story ends up not getting enough attention. And mind you, the story is there and while it's not groundbreaking, wrapped in a Nolan concept it would have made for an amazing movie. Ironically, if the movie was half an hour longer, both the concept and the story would have received an equal telling and the movie would be a 10 out of a 10.

As it is, it falls short of Nolan's usual standard. If you've seen a documentary on how Nolan crafts his stories, you'll understand why this movie is the way it is and why Nolan approached it the way it did. Sit back and enjoy unraveling the concept, I know I did.

I saw it once and thought "what?!"

I saw it twice and thought "wow!"

I cannot wait to see it for a third time.

This is one of those mind-bending movies that absolutely warrants repeat viewings. See it on the biggest screen you can and preferably IMAX.

The first time was entertaining but confusing - I was too busy trying to understand the plot that I missed the spectacle... I was almost "out" of the movie.

So I went home and watched all the trailers, behind the scenes videos and the ending explanation.

Then, after a few weeks I went a second time and boy was it so much better for me - I was literally "in" the movie - completely immersed and loved it. I saw the film in a whole new light and was completely blown away.

I caught all the clever easter eggs and visuals I had missed first time.

I appreciated the directing and acting a lot more.

My score first time was 6.5.

My score second time is 8.5.

It's true what they say in the film...

"Don't try to understand it. Feel it."

I felt it and will be looking forward to that feeling again.

Cinema is supposed to take you away to another world, away from the harsh realities of life.

Let this film do that and then thank yourself.

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.