Plot: In the near future, an American spy (John David Washington) is informed of a bizarre conspiration: Someone in the future is sending back in time "altered" objects that behave exactly the oposite of their present-day equivalents, such as bullets that return to the gun once "unfired". With the help of Neil (Robert Pattinson), he is able to trace the objects to a Russian arms dealer (Kenneth Branagh) and his wife.
Comments: I really didn't know wether to post this on the bad or the good movies board. Let's say that although I didn't enjoy the movie I can't help but notice that it is a technically well made film, and I'm also pretty sure some people are going to defend it passionately.
Let me start saying that I usually enjoy Nolan's films. And I even adore a few of them, such as "Memento" or "The Prestige". But never until "Tenet" I've noticed how tired I'm starting to feel about his non-linear experiments and his chaotic action scenes.
It certainly doesn't help that this time his movie is more "naked" than usual. Every single frame seems shot with the desire of removing any indesirable details. I admit that this approach sometimes helps a movie -Paul Schrader seems very adept of this same principle- but in a blockbuster like this one it only serves to accentuate how simple -despite Nolan's efforts to complicate it- and insipid everything is.
And unfortunately, this visual anorexia also extends to other areas of the film. Character development is almost nonexistant -John David Washington's character is named "The protagonist" in the credits- and other characters seem lifted directly from their previous films, such as Kenneth Branagh's (from "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit") or Elizabeth Debicki's (this time from "The Night Manager").
And what's worse, too many events seem to occur at random. What's exactly the relevance of the interrogation John David Washington suffers after the action prologue? Be my guest. Why does he seems so concerned with Elizabeth Debicki's character wellbeing? Because the script says so. Only Robert Pattinson manages to stand out, making a character that's only there to provide information or save the protagonist's ass from time to time quite sympathetic.
And what about the dialogue? Full of air, I'd say. At first glance, the characters seem to engage in deeply philosophycal -or just plain hip- interchanges. However, their content has exactly zero calories. I'd dare say most of the time twey could be replaced with white noise without affecting the scene much.
Fans of time-travelling films and their paradoxes may find here some sustenance, but also beware: for all its pretended originality, "Tenet" doesn't avoid certain clichés of the genre, such as characters meeting their future / past selves.
So, is it a piece of crap? It certainly felt that way to me. But at the same time I can't feel any personal animosity towards Nolan. He's delivered exactly what we have been demanding from him for years, a non-linear blockbuster with a twist of lemon, enough to please the crowds and at the same time make them feel intelligent for managing to follow the plot. Wether this is a misstep or an indication that Nolan is about to follow the path of th likes of M. Night Shyamalan, J. J. Abrams or Chris Carter (this is, the discarted toys drawer), time will tell.
Unless "Tenet" is precisely a warning from the future, naturally