After the "Batman", "Inception", "Interstellar" and "Dunkirk" trilogies, Christopher Nolan has become a recognizable director in the world. Apparently his earlier "Memento" and "Insomnia" were very successful, or so says one of my best friends (greetings, Łukasz), but it's not the same level. Were it not for "Batman" and the subsequent success of "Inception" and "Interstellar", today only those who are interested in cinema would hear about Nolan. Sunday viewers, mindless eaters of popcorn and pop culture, or people watching movies only for entertainment, or a time clutter, would rather not remember the images from 2000 and 2002. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on whether you like his style or not), Christopher is one of the few mainstream directors who can sell slightly more complicated productions. I mean those that are not fairy tales for children or purely entertainment films, such as Marvel, or simple action movies (i.e. also cartoons for children, but aimed at older audiences). There is nothing wrong with that, after all, all films are for entertainment, but the above-mentioned films are, however, much easier to perceive than the works of, for example, Denis Villeneuve or Christopher. How is "Tenet"? As I wrote in my recent opinion, referring solely to "Dunkirk", "Inception" and "Interstellar", this is Nolan's weakest film. I haven't seen the others, and Batman is a comic book hero, so it's a different genre. It has its pros and cons, it's a good movie but a disappointment.
I will start with aspects that I could assess both positive and negative, but they are closer to the latter. It's about the uneven pace and script. Sometimes there are too boring fragments that could be much better shown and comprehensible, while other segments happen a bit too quickly. Especially the finale, which was too intense and in my opinion, it is difficult to fully grasp it after one session. Some translations are too dry as if they were written by a robot devoid of the human factor writing for similar machines. With such fragments, someone like Andrzej Sapkowski, who, despite his writing imperfections, can present certain issues in a way that is understandable to ordinary readers, or referring it to cinematography - viewers, would be useful. Reading the opinions of smarter and wiser than myself, I notice the accusations that "Tenet" is a bit gibberish and far too pseudo-scientific. However, I am not able to verify these allegations, because I am too ignorant, but after the screening, I can certainly say that there is the least bit of right in them. As for the plot, the starting idea is not very original - there are two characters (John David Washington and Robert Pattinson) looking for something. On the way to the finale and solving the puzzle, they will encounter various threats and people who will help or harm them. I will not reveal what exactly is going on, because it would be a spoiler spoiling the fun of discovering history. The skeleton itself, stripped of its scientific nuances, is nothing new in the history of cinema. In fact, this is a typical plot that we have seen hundreds of times in the cinema. I would not classify it as one of the more successful or the worse. It's just ok and if an inexperienced or little known director did it, I would not complain, I would probably even praise it, but because it is a Nolan painting, I had slightly higher expectations. You can expect more from someone with such experience.
Moving on to the characters (or rather the relations between them, I will refer to them a paragraph later), I would also classify them both as plus and minus, this time with a slight indication of the former. They are very heavy with the lack of character and relationships between them, or rather the lack of them. In order not to go into spoilers too much, I will refer to the example of the robot again - it looks as if Nolan was a cyborg who created characters for similar viewers. This may be pleasing, and as far as I am concerned, I do not mind such treatments that much, as long as the other aspects of the film pull its overall level up, but objectively, it is a disadvantage. This is not the way to write relations between the characters, as well as the script. Nolan focuses too much on exposure, the characters practically do not talk to each other in the normal way, and mainly exchange dry facts about the plot. There are no emotional ties between them, or simply ordinary conversations, as between ordinary people. As the vlogger who runs the Na Gałęzi channel rightly noted, Pattinson and Washington talk normally only at the end of the film, and they exchange exposures before that. It's a pity because Nolan did noticeably better in this respect in "Inception" or "Interstellar". I can say the same about their characters, which are practically non-existent. If I were to characterize them, I would have to think for a long time and it would probably be like writing a paper at school on a topic I feel bad about. I could throw in a few slogans, characteristics of given characters, stretch the essay to the required character limit, but say something more about them? I would have to really try.
As for the actors, Pattinson fared the best in my opinion. He played well with his eyes, facial expressions and gestures of his body. I will discuss this in one example where it was most noticeable. Robert was at a certain point where he needed to do a thorough analysis of his surroundings as if Batman did. He pays attention to the elements of the room that he will be able to use as well as the organization and shaping of a given place in order to know what, how and when to do. For example, ventilation hoods (simplifying it to some extent, I could have called it incorrectly), rack layout, mechanisms controlling various security devices. You can see the cogs in his brain move as he watches and analyzes his surroundings. I liked his acting skills so much in this film that I can't wait to see him in the movie "The Batman", he will be a great detective.
Second in line is our protagonist, son of the acclaimed actor Denzel Washington. In his case, I am moderately satisfied. I have nothing to complain about, apart from IMO, a moderately interesting plot with the heroine played by Elizabeth Debicki and a script that flattened his role too much. Looking at it from the other side, however, it is also difficult for me to find aspects for which I could honestly praise him. You can see his acting skills, that's for sure, but the way Nolan wrote it did not give him too many opportunities to show off and for me too much room to show off. He just played his role well.
Kenneth Branagh aka. Andrei Sator is in a slightly more favorable position as an antagonist because in his case I can write a bit more details ... But his role was also too flattened. On the plus side, I can include his cynical motivation, which I will not reveal because it was a bit surprising for me. I used the word "light" on purpose because it's not something that would make him stand out from the opponents we've seen in hundreds of other movies of this type. Besides, he is nervous, but at the same time he is methodical and, unlike his colleagues, he is rather verbal when it comes to the threats he formulates.
I don't have much to write about the other characters, just a few general sentences. And since I don't like to write about anything, I will let it go. However, it is not their fault, it is Nolan who approached them in too mechanical away.
It is different for action scenes, but these usually work out well for Christopher. Due to the fact that this director does not like to use CGI when he does not have to and has a passion for showing real damage (such as the demolition of a hospital in part 2 of "Batman", or in the case of "Tenet" - a sequence with a giant plane that devastates a certain object ), these scenes are beautiful. As usual, he shot them with Imaxu cameras, which heighten the beautiful destructive effect and the impression of the audience, but I could not fully appreciate them. I have too far to reach the nearest cinema with a sufficiently large screen and I was forced to watch Tenet in a small room. Nevertheless, if something is beautiful and thoughtful, it looks nice even in the smaller format. The scenes of the chase on the Estonian expressway, or the above-mentioned plane, visible on the trailer looked beautiful in full sequence. I felt the tension, the strength of a speeding plane trampling everything in its path, and the speed of speeding cars. It was the same with the final, fragments which were also visible in the announcements. However, I forgive myself for the details, because I would be forced to throw spoilers. All I can say is that the scenes and effects that were watched as if the film was rewound on VHS looked very pleasing to the eye. I could only fault the fact that Nolan presents them in one, predetermined scheme. This is due to the fact that it would be difficult to be original in this aspect. Nevertheless, when it comes to my subjective assessment, he did not exaggerate in this matter.
As for the soundtrack, this is probably the only aspect for which I can distinguish "Tenet" with a big plus. At the moment, it seems to me that none of Nolan's films had such good music. Only that in this case the laurel wreath goes not to the director, but to Ludwik Göransson. Sure, these are the atmosphere Nolan got us used to (strong hits, dynamic pieces conquering the epic atmosphere), but he was only the client, he could only suggest this and that. No wonder, the Swede has a good sense for music, which he showed us on "Black Panther", both parts of "Creed" or the series "The Mandalorian". Just like the songs from the trailers I didn't like before the screening, I liked them very much during the course and some of them went to my YouTube playlist, which I fire up while driving.
Ultimately, I liked the movie, but it was disappointing. It was overcomplicated and badly written. Due to the fact that there was too much exposure given in a too dry manner, it was difficult for me to connect all the threads and fully understand the message of the film. Whatever I would say about, for example, "Inception" or "Interstellar", they were easier to perceive and their moral was more understandable. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Nolan got too much free hand to act and the result was too pseudo-science. It was fun, the action scenes were great, the characters' path to solving the puzzle a bit less, I also don't complain about the course of solving the whole plot, but as a whole it simply didn't work out. For me, it's such a 7/10. Hopefully, if a sequel comes out, Nolan will get someone to better convey his very interesting script idea. It's good that I didn't have too high expectations, because I'd rather be disappointed. It was fun, but it could have been much better.
Thanks to Karol for the invaluable correction and help.
