Christopher Nolan has done it again. Released today, Tenet is a brilliant, stunning work. Like all of Nolan’s prior films, Tenet is incredibly cerebral. It is a colossal achievement from both a technical standpoint and an artistic one, making the most of its $225 million budget. I’d put it up there with The Dark Knight as one of his greatest films. But I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone. This is perhaps the most convoluted, confusing film you’ll ever see. You have to pay close attention for every second to truly understand it. And even then, I don’t think that 99.9% of people—whether you’re a casual fan or a critic or a physicist—will get it all after one view. I certainly was dumbfounded at times. It is also very difficult to discuss Tenet without spoilers, but I’ll try my best. After all, it’s the best film of 2020.
Tenet opens with an incredible scene. Featuring a terrorist attack at a European opera house, it channels a level of intensity comparable to that of the opening bank robbery scene in The Dark Knight. With groundbreaking shots, overwhelmingly loud sound mixing, and well-choreographed action, it is immersive. The film remains that way until the end. The premise of the blockbuster work, which generally takes place in the present day, is that a nuclear physicist from the future finds a way to reverse the linear flow of entropy in matter, a phenomenon that we humans perceive as time, with a machine called a turnstile. But, realizing its dangerous implications, she hides her turnstiles in the past (in the present day of the film’s setting), as well as technology that could possibly destroy the world instantaneously, a risk that many future generations are willing to take because their Earth was destroyed by climate change. They collaborate with people from their past, namely the film’s present-day terrorist, who wants to reverse the flow of time for a different reason. He wants to destroy the world as soon as he dies—essentially because “if he can’t have it anymore, nobody should.”
Thus ensues a war between the future, the present, and the near past to save their own versions of the world—or destroy it. People can use the top-secret turnstiles to revisit past events even if they involved their old selves. By virtue, going into the past changes it, but it’ll appear to their past selves as if events always unfolded in the way that they ultimately do, with the inverted future people appearing from the start, which results in a paradox. It gets even crazier if people expose themselves directly to their past selves, which compounds the chance of destabilizing the trajectory of history itself. They must be discrete. But it isn’t easy when you’re fighting terrorists and clandestine forces from the future. It also gets trippy when people use the turnstiles at multiple points in the future to alter the same past moment and consequently appear in more than two different bodies as if the event always unfolded that way. The future people have an advantage because they remember being in the exact mind of their past selves in those situations sometimes years prior, but the silver lining of the present is that its people find a way to communicate with the future.
But that’s not all. The powerful antagonist and others who mastered inversion are able to simultaneously use both their present selves and future inverted selves (who are just moments older) to enter a scenario wherein their present body relays info to their future selves, who can recall what their past selves experienced in these moments as if they always happened as such. So they know both the start and end of sequences. Twin iterations of their bodies can do things like outflank an enemy on both sides, with a temporal pincer movement, or even escape death (if they do everything perfectly). Indeed, it seems that more than two versions of a character appear at times, which adds to the complexity, but this remains ambiguous. There are many twists and shocking events and surprises, like the film’s palindromic title. It’s partly a reference to a crucial event where two parallel forces attack a secured compound with one attacking it in present time, as their timers count up from 0 to 10 minutes—while their inverted future selves (who tell their past selves where to fire and so forth) begin the attack 10 minutes into the future and regress to the present, as their timers count down from 10 to 0. The titular word “Tenet” features the term “ten” spelled forward and also backward (if you *invert* the word). Does your head hurt yet?
Needless to say, Nolan directed Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar, and Dunkirk. He is a genius. And this film is so well-done. The shots are unbelievable, spawning from filming locations across the world. The mixing and editing is great. The acting is tremendous, with sharp performances by Robert Pattinson, John David Washington, and Elizabeth Debicki. I’m still processing Tenet, so my view is limited. I’d give it a 10/10 based on my love for its complex, well-planned exploration of theoretical physics. However, I bet that many confused viewers will give it a 6, 7, or even less, which is valid. I also don’t think that most critics will understand Tenet—they specialize in film, not science—which will hurt its reception. Still, it is quite a mercurial, entertaining, genre-bending trip. So I’ll meet the haters in the middle and give it an 8.5/10. It is too brilliant for “the masses.” But it will age well once we can see it at home and pause, rewind, and re-examine it.
Rating: 8.5/10
comprar cialis por internet cialis effect on eyes cialis lilly prix
how to talk to a doctor about viagra viagra nz buy real viagra with a echeck
where to buy viagra without a prescription buy viagra pay with paypal sildenafil 100 online
tesco chemist cialis cialis in tschechien rezeptfrei cialis mit cannabis
I have to say, your description doesn’t make me want to hurry and watch this film somewhere, even though your enthusiasm does. This sounds far more confusing than the same director’s “Inception” — a movie, BTW, where I don’t recommend starting from the middle, as happened to me on vacation some years back!
Very well said. I wasn’t the biggest fan of Inception, but it certainly was a more cohesive work than Tenet!
what happened in this lol
Haha good question.
Let me know if you have specific questions about my synopsis of it!
aighty then!
😜
some trappy ass stuff, dig it
😎
This has been on my list since it came out! Definitely one to watch!
Let me know what you think if you get a chance. Such a brilliant work!
Will do for sure!
Happy new year, also!
You too! ☺️
yo just saw it for 2nd time. it was powerfu,l
Saw it again recently too (third time!). Love it!
🙂
I liked Tenet but the AHA! moment was not as good as Dunkirk for me. There is a lot of brain power used to even follow this film and so the conclusion is not as satisfying. I will need a few more watches before I review, but this is a really good one.
Well said. And I respect that take a lot. I need to watch Dunkirk again, so I’m in the same boat. I feel like I didn’t understand it well enough to appreciate it fully but hope to change that soon!
i like dis
😉
First time Nolan pick a indian actress ☺️
Glad to see that he’s branching out!
Do you have any favorite Indian actresses that you think should get more representation in Hollywood? Just curious. I need to educate myself more on Indian cinema.
Yeah sure Hrithik Roshan and Sharukh khan
Gotta check them out!
Just for the record, those two are actors (male), not actresses, unless they’ve done something I haven’t heard about…!
According to some people, yes. But I prefer to use the gender neutral “actor” for both male and female actors.
Oh, funny. I just commented about that on a language blog.
I don’t see why we, and actresses, shouldn’t use “actress.” Wasn’t one of the tenets of feminism supposed to be pride in being a woman? Why eliminate or obscure the distinction?
Interesting points, as for the use of the term “actress.” I’m no expert by any means, but from what I’ve heard it seems that a lot of women who used to find the term “actress” empowering now want to use “actor” for the sake of equality and symbolism. Perhaps it’s just a matter of a generational divide. Thoughts?
Since, in some respects, I stand as a generational divide all by myself, that may well be so.
But the attitude you describe seems to me to be capitulating to perceived male superiority. _That_ can’t be right!
Fair point! I try to be deferential and diplomatic on my blog / online in general (I know how things went when I wasn’t like that, and it wasn’t a pretty site). But I need to work on holding my ground sometimes!
It seems like there’s a lot of discord in terms of whether to use “actor” or “actress” for female actors, but I’ve just chosen “actor” for the sake of standardization so that I can keep things consistent, you know? So at the end of the day, even if people aren’t happy with me, at least I kept things consistent! Ha
Oh wait, I’ve got things all wrong. I totally misread your comment! Ha, I’ve recently started saying actor for everyone (regardless of gender), but this was before that and I totally flipped everything! So so sorry about that. Ha, alcohol is a powerful thing!
Thanks for letting me know and my sincere apologies for getting all of this wrong!
I’m so disappointed with myself. 😂
LOL! You didn’t make the mistake — your respondent did!
Ha, even more embarrassing that I didn’t notice that my respondent made the mistake! I rarely drink alcohol at all, so I was a bit illogical last night. Thanks for your patience. 😂