SummaryArmed with only one word - Tenet - and fighting for the survival of the entire world, the Protagonist (John David Washington) journeys through a twilight world of international espionage on a mission that will unfold in something beyond real time. Not time travel. Inversion.
SummaryArmed with only one word - Tenet - and fighting for the survival of the entire world, the Protagonist (John David Washington) journeys through a twilight world of international espionage on a mission that will unfold in something beyond real time. Not time travel. Inversion.
For me, Tenet is preposterous in the tradition of Boorman’s Point Blank, or even Antonioni’s Zabriskie Point, a deadpan jeu d’esprit, a cerebral cadenza, a deadpan flourish of crazy implausibility – but supercharged with steroidal energy and imagination.
It’s breathtaking to watch the director work on such a grand scale, but the humans within his film do sometimes get lost. For all Nolan’s metaphysical mastery, there’s an undeniable coldness to his twilight world.
The concept of inversion and it's relationship with cause and effect might be amongst the most complex sci-fi concepts ever depicted on film, but Tenet manages to present the material with a propulsive energy, charm, and a light heart that makes the whole thing a delicious cinematic treat.
It’s basically espionage adventure, but with a science fiction backbone: Nolan ups the ante on “Mission: Impossible” by making the impossibility not just physical but quantum physical. And he goes about it expertly, bullishly and with giddily perverse intent to bewilder.
There’s a chilliness to Tenet that I haven’t felt in his previous work. The stakes, presumably, couldn’t be higher — both onscreen and offscreen — but after watching the movie, I don’t understand why I was meant to care. As an intellectual exercise, Tenet is very interesting, if not entirely successful. As a movie, I’m not so sure.
This is a bad film by a good filmmaker. It has the veneer of substantiality, but it’s unsubstantial. It is the product of sincere conviction and artistic confidence, but both were misguided. Every filmmaker needs to take the occasional chance, as Christopher Nolan did with “Tenet.” Not all chances pay off.
There’s something grating about a film which insists on detailing its pseudo-science while also conceding you probably won’t have followed a thing. We’re clobbered with plot then comforted with tea-towel homilies about how what’s happened has happened.
Una película para aquellos que aman el arte complejo, que exige atención a los detalles y desafía al espectador a ir más allá de lo que sus ojos ven. Una obra maestra que seguramente será aún más alabada por la posteridad.
This movie has a great break-in scene, lots of fights, and some satisfying moments where confusing events become clear.
Unfortunately, the plot is super confusing. So much so that at points I just gave up on figuring it out and kept watching. It's also 2.5 hours long. The soundtrack is incredibly average. I think they recycled the Inception soundtrack, added a few foghorns and called it a day. David Washington's character alternates from having no idea what's going on to being ultra confident and competent, and it's jarring.
I think you'll enjoy this if you want action more than plot.
The dialogue in Tenet is much like the positive reviews for the movie; So desperate to offer insight, and meaning, that they go on for twice as long as they should, only to find they have still said nothing worth hearing.
Unfortunately, Tenet is mostly empty dialogue, from start to finish. There's a small, interesting idea here. 'Your perspective on time is just one, of many, here, let Nolan show you more.'
It's not unlike, 'what if people could enter and alter your dream? Let Nolan show you more.'
The major difference, here, between Tenet and Inception, is that Inception was a finished script, doubtlessly re-written many times, to ensure it's both legible and fun, all the way through. Tenet has not had even a first of second pass. It has not had a good writer come along and say "Hey, Chris, why are you telling instead of showing. This is boring. Let's start again, without all the exposition that goes nowhere and try and craft a more interesting story around your central concept."
The entire movie feels like Nolan is stuck, writing page, after page, after page of exposition, to try and explain the story to an editor or producer, but they just got so bored, they turned around and said **** it, yeah, sounds great, Chris, do that, I trust you."
The result is massively bad.
Beyond bad, in fact, as it's the first unwatchable film Chris Nolan has made, which makes it disappointing, too. We can only blame ourselves. We thought he was incapable of making a bad movie, just as the studio clearly did, when they let him go ahead with such a poor screenplay.
The truth, of course, is never that complicated.
Sometimes people waffle and don't produce anything worth hearing, no matter who they are.