Reviews for Tenet ( ) 1080p

IMDB: 7.7 / 10


.time of waste, film horrible a is This

anything missing aren't You. me believe, it Skip

Not as clever as it thinks it is.

The plot, while confusing is actually straight forward, 2nd watch that is. Therein lies the problem.. I shouldn't, or anyone really, have to watch a 2 hour and 30 minute film twice to get the full picture. Nolan is very talented and very intelligent, especially his knowledge of the sciences. But, this film shows his ambition has lead him down an unnecessary road, confusion filmmaking.

He's better suited to turning the implausible into reality and immersing the viewer fully in his vision. His attempt at redefining time travel movies has failed to actually interest anyone that was remotely interested in it. The biggest mistake is the lack of explanation of how this theory is possible (not just its origins). This leads to the film just honestly feeling silly to watch and not very interesting.

As other viewers and critics alike have mentioned the sound, I feel I should address this. The score isn't awful, but it's not great and it's extraordinarily loud and dramatic when it shouldn't be. Maybe we've been spoiled by other Nolan films that have been graced by Hans Zimmer, this one is too loud. This destroys dialogue at times and I seriously struggled, especially with Robert Pattinson, to hear what the actors were mumbling. Taking into consideration that Nolan films rely heavily on his written word, they may want to address this. However, considering I watched this via Blu-Ray.. they clearly didn't.

The acting was good, except for Washington. I feel his performance started strong and just levelled out into a down right average B-rate affair. As I said, acting was good.. just don't expect Oscar worthy performances from the rest. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, despite a short part, was the standout for me.

It's visually stunning, but as I've said.. Nolan was far too ambitious and it really hasn't paid off for him. I don't wish to spend 5 hours watching a film just to understand it. But, once you do understand it you realise just how simple the premise is, but it's been overly complicated by an otherwise direct, intelligent & talented director, Christopher Nolan.

He really needs to stop relying on the dramatic scores.. it didn't save him this time and it won't save him anymore. He is a genius and a genius filmmaker, but I don't want a genius script that confuses the life out of me, I want a great script that engages me.

It's in no way a bad film, but, it isn't great either.

Pretentious and Boring.

I've enjoyed many Nolan films (seen the Batman's several times and loved Inception) but he really disappeared up his own backside with this one.

I've heard interviews where Nolan claims to have spent a lengthy amount of time over several years devising the plot for this. If that's the case then how does he expect an audience to unravel the plot in two hours and enjoy this?

There did not seem to be any character development. I felt little or no empathy or interest in any of the characters. It felt emotionless and cold, confusing and I couldn't wait for it to end.

People have said it improves with repeated viewings but it made me so aggrieved at the first viewing that I'm not going to waste my time with this again.

This seems to be a similar situation as with Tarantino - whereby nobody can seemingly say 'No' to him, which has resulted in this nonsense.

I get the sense that Nolan thinks he is challenging his audience into sparking some mature, intellectual or philosophical debate. However, he's completely missing the point by continually trying to deceive the audience.

Absolute Guff! I hope they don't let him anywhere near Bond.

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?)

Spending almost ten years working on the story, and five writing the script, in Tenet, Christopher Nolan is yet again examining the vagaries of time, a theme that's front and centre in Memento (2000), Inception (2010), Interstellar (2014), and Dunkirk (2017). It's undeniably fascinating to see a tent pole Hollywood production engaging with issues such as entropy, thermodynamics, reversibility and irreversibility, 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). 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.

The plot of Tenet is straightforward in outline. We follow a CIA operative known only as The Protagonist (John David Washington) as he is recruited into an ultra-secret international espionage squad called Tenet. His mission is simple - at some point in the future, someone has figured out how to reverse the entropy of objects, effectively being able to send them back along the timeline without having to reverse time itself. The implications of this are catastrophic and have set humanity on course for World War III, and probable extinction, unless The Protagonist can figure out who is doing it and put a stop to their machinations.

Tenet is an event movie in every way; this 150-minute, $200m+ original idea is a massive studio tent pole written and directed by the most popular filmmaker alive. And I will say this, the budget is on the screen. Oftentimes, you'll see a movie that's cost a ridiculous amount and you'll sit there thinking, "they must have spent a lot on catering." With Tenet, however, it's all there, front and centre. No small amount of that money, of course, must have gone on the practical effects (incredibly, the film has only 280 VFX shots) - whether it be bungee-jumping onto the side of a building, a close-quarters fight where one of the combatants moves in reverse, a Boeing 747 jet crashing into a building (which was shot for real), a highway chase where some of the cars are going forward in time and others are going backwards, or an all-out battle scene where, again, some of the soldiers travel forward whilst others move in reverse.

It's one of those films where you'll genuinely be asking yourself, "how the hell did they do that?"; a question that's become increasingly rare in our CGI-reliant times. Along the same lines, the cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema is stunning, as he mixes 15-perf 70mm IMAX film with traditional 70mm stock and a few 35mm sequences in a manner where the shifts in aspect ratio are barely noticeable. It's the kind of film that could only exist in the medium of cinema - no other art form could even begin to approximate its aesthetic design and splendour. A celluloid purist, Nolan has always made a big stink about the artistic importance of cinema, and Tenet finds him pushing the aesthetic boundaries of what the art form can accomplish.

Unfortunately, no matter how visually unique or aesthetically impressive it may be, no amount of gloss can hide the fact that the screenplay is a turgid mess and suffers from some fundamental problems - most notably, it's bereft of emotion and populated with cardboard cut-outs that are supposed to be characters. The problems start early when The Protagonist is told that the future of humanity depends on his mission. This is precisely when I started to tune out. Any film that declares its story is none-other than saving humanity has gone so big as to render the people who populate its narrative as insignificant. It's also a cliché, it's dull as dishwater, and we've seen it done a million-and-one-times.

As for the characters, good lord, they're badly written. The Protagonist isn't a person with an interiority; he's a cypher, the audience's surrogate so that Nolan can explain the plot to us. And there's nothing more to him - he's utterly emotionless, seemingly void of any kind of relatable motivation, has no psychological through-line, and nothing even resembling a character arc. As for Kenneth Branagh as Russian oligarch Andrei Sator, think of the most clichéd Russian villain you've ever seen. Now square that and you'll be some way towards imagining how ludicrous Sator is. He isn't a person - he's a collection of near-satirical tics, clichés, and elements from other, better films. Maybe with a more menacing actor in the role, it might have worked, but all I could think whenever he was on screen was "that accent is hilarious." Robert Pattinson's Neil (The Protagonist's handler) and Elizabeth Debicki's Kat (Sator's wife) fair better, but neither set the screen alight. Along the same lines, much of the second half of the film hinges on the fact that The Protagonist and Kat find themselves drawn to one another, yet Washington and Debicki have zero chemistry. At a human level, there's nothing to take a hold of the audience, nothing to make us care about any of these people.

Speaking of Kat, a common criticism of Nolan's filmography as a whole is that his female characters tend to be victims whose deaths motivate men or who need saving by men, and/or women who define themselves almost entirely in terms of their relationship to men. Now, I'm not saying that Nolan is obliged to write more rounded female characters. He isn't. Much like one of his favourite filmmakers, Michael Mann, Nolan's films are androcentric. And there's nothing wrong with that. However, in Mann, there are to be found strong female characters with considerable agency, whereas in Tenet, Kat is nothing more than a pawn in a game played by powerful men who effortlessly control her. She defines herself almost entirely in terms of her role as a self-sacrificing mother, and whilst this is an interesting trait the first couple of times it comes up, by the time Nolan is reminding us of how much she has sacrificed for the 237th time, it had become obvious that this was going to be the extent of her characterisation.

At one point early in the film, The Protagonist is told "don't try to understand it, just feel it", which is advice that Nolan is also offering to his audience. The problem is that there's nothing to feel. Tenet is a puzzle, the impenetrability of which will depend on each individual viewer (and how much of the appallingly poorly-mixed dialogue you can make out), but unlike Memento (which remains Nolan's best by a long way), which packed a seriously emotional gut-punch when we finally learn what was at the heart of the puzzle, Tenet offers us nothing more than the task of deciphering it for its own sake. There's no payoff. There's nothing to make us want to penetrate a story that seems more intent on reminding us how clever it is than trying to depict real people or establish real emotional stakes; it's a film more enamoured by the complexity of its own design than by any of the people contained within. It's an emotional void - all technical virtuosity and surface sheen with next to nothing at its core.

This aint no entertaining movie. Nolan shud stop his obsession with so called intelligent films n try making simpler films.

The film gets very repetitive. The action is nothing but unnecessary chaos. The lead actor cant act for sure. His walking mannerism, his body language n his facial expressions r duds.Better watch Terminator 2 or James Bond films.The character of Priya n the shooting in Mumbai is added jus to attract pseudo intellectual viewers from my beloved country India.The rote learned physics students from my beloved country will be in awe of this film.Nolan aint aware that physics students in India need to work more in the laboratories to put the theoretical knowledge to use.The wannabe critics from my country will unnecessary give this film more stars so that they dont look outcasts.

Extremely Disappointed

I'm a massive Nolan fan and love Inception which I was hoping this was going to be like but it's nothing of the sort and very poor! The story isn't that complex once you finally find out what's happening but for a Nolan film I expected far better.

If you make a movie such that it is needed to watch it 2-3 time.. fully understand, you better make sure that it is really worth watching it 2-3 times. And this one is not.And I find very arogant to even propose the idea of rewatching it and even more, using it as a negation of all the negative critics.

The director and producer must have been on LSD And stoned for the making and completion of this movie

Was there ever an actual good idea for this movie? If there was it was 100% lost in translation. One of the most frustrating and ridiculous movies I have ever seen. And the music over the vocal audio all the freaking time is plain stupid. Not only is this movie not worth paying for it's not worth your time to watch it for free.

Why does a film need multiple watches?

As the first scene of Tenet came to an end, I looked at my partner and whispered, I'm lost. I'm lost and I don't think I'm ever going to get it.

And I was right. What followed was two and a half hours of just an unreal amount of exposition that was distorted by music of SFX. If a film has to be explaining stuff to it's audience at the two hour mark then you've gone wrong. Plain and simple, I don't care if you're Christopher Nolan.

Everyone I ask afterwards says that I will get it on the second, third or fourth try. Why does a film need multiple matches to understand it? Nolan is a huge advocate for his films to play in cinemas, which is great, but he must be detached from reality to think that most audience members can afford to go see the same film countless times, with the increasingly expensive movie tickets.

Regardless of that, It's good that it was an original idea. But my god, if an unknown filmmaker had turned in this script to a production company, I'm pretty sure they would have thrown it away after 10 pages. The premise is cool, the effects are cool, but that is what you expect from a Nolan film. What I'm also coming to expect is a convoluted plot, terrible dialogue, and a film that will still hit over a billion at the box office.

It didn't work this time.

I love the work of Mister Nolan, but it didn't work this time.The film lacks of pace and charisma. Sometimes it's boring to keep watching.Maybe he tried to hit the originality of "inception", but the editing and the story didn't help.The sound mixing is really good as always and the Kenneth Branagh's performance is the highlight of the movie.Some fights scenes are close to childish execution.Anyway, I hope Nolan does better in a near future.


I have honestly never felt so confused after watching a film, a lot of people saying watch it twice but I couldn't put myself through that again.The idea is good.. but they have made it far too complicated, a bit pretentious and unfortunately no real heart to any of the characters. Disappointed.

Utter nonsense

This movie may be glossy and pretty to look at but since it's utter nonsense it's difficult to care. The entire concept makes no sense. No characters to care about either, they are just there as set pieces.


For all those who state that 'TENET' is a masterpiece, let alone original, i suggest you go watch 'Predestination (2014)' as it handles the same concept, time-travel loop/paradox, with more essence and touches the philosophical side of it without the gimmick reverse tricks, pseudo-science and abstract editing that TENET threw us in our face just for the sake of it.

PS:'Top Secret (1984)' reverse scene is the best!

Absolute non-sense

The movie started with a very intense "Batman" like opening. This movie showed promise the first twenty minutes and even though nothing made sense, there was still hope that it would all be tied together and all make sense. Unfortunately, hope was lost quickly and the plot disappeared into a endless past-future alternate reality abyss and never came back. This movie lacked depth and seemed pretentious from Nolan. A truly intellectual "flex" that surely he had no idea what was going on either. If there was one good thing from Covid is- very few people have had to sit through this disaster of a movie.

Loud and impenetrable

A man on an international mission to save the world from the deadliest weapon of all, the future.

Two moods: excessive incomprehensible exposition and LOUD incomprehensible action sequences. At no point do you know what is going on, nor are you given any reason to care. It is at all times tedious, meaningless and irritating. None of the characters are remotely interesting, much of the dialogue is inaudible and the ridiculous convolutions add up to nothing. And this cost over $200 million to make.

A huge middle finger to the audience

Christopher Nolan is my favourite director of all time. However this is an enormous banana skin of a film! Visually spectacular, but it falls way short on:

  • General narrative and plot development
  • Character development and any kind of emotional attachment to characters
  • Pacing (It's ludicrously fast)
  • Audio (Not sure what they did in post production to make it so bad but some dialogue scenes are almost incomprehensible).

I felt angry watching the film, which is a first for me. Feels like Nolan is giving audiences a huge middle finger In trying to keep up, this film arrogantly revels in its own complexity.

Pretentious action movie

If you find movies with nameless characters pretentious, this will fit nicely into the pattern.

Not only the protagonist is nameless, but he calls himself The Protagonist- how hilarious. ROFL. The Protagonist is the new James Bond, but not as funny. His story is a graceless mashup of Memento (reverse playing) + Inception (sharp-suited men moving in designer's environments) + Dunkirk (boys club of fighting and running around aimlessly).

The Protagonist and his sidekick Neil also do a bit of time travel, to stop an evil - obviously Caucasian - enemy from destroying the world. Evil guy's name is Sator, and there's is also a firm called Rotas, somebody called Arepo and part of the plot takes place at the Opera.

Once Nolan's done in trying to impress you with the Sator square, he adds the quantum arrow of time and reversing entropy, mixes it with the most banal female role you can imagine (a trophy, mistreated wife who loves her son very very much), a car chase, a couple of fist fights and an involuntarily hilarious and chaotic final scene involving a red and a blue team (Matrix anyone?).

The ending involves a rip-off of Casablanca, with the two male heroes metaphorically kissing goodbye (or hello?) and more of The Protagonist being hyper cool.

I understand Nolan likes 5 stars, slick hotels, luxury interior design, expensive suits and first class travel around the world. Also, he's not the sentimental type who can make you sympathise with his characters, but absolutely not giving a damn about any of them doesn't help enjoying this movie either, exactly because the plot is quite banal, but dressed up nicely with some smart - but condescending- gimmicks.

Lots of potential, but chaotic and at tee end, unsatisfying

I am a big Nolan and Sci-Fi fan, and there's no question serious effort went into this movie. No question, the visuals were great, the acting was great, but the editing, PLOT and over-all effect was simply unsatisfying.

The plot is full of discontinuity and random plot elements, and the main time reversal issue is never adequately explained, resolved or identified, and even the cryptic "Tenet" keyword never seems to appear outside of the trailer cuts. The most annoying aspect was the often incomprehensible audio, due to masks and bad editing, that made many key moments a total mystery.

The plot is also littered with bad science of every possible kind, random statements that simply make no real sense (even using the odd time scenario) , and when viewed as ongoing story make you stop and say, how did we ever get HERE? The gun and bullet demonstration really sticks in my mind as total and complete cinematic plot garbage.

I don't doubt this could have been a masterful movie, but unlike Memento or Inception, the script and story continuity were simply not up to the complex story task. The one word that sticks in my mind about this movie is disappointing. After the long delay, i really expected something a lot better than this. Maybe a later edit will fix this, but it certainly doesn't need to get any longer.

Overly confusing for the sake of it (spoiler free)

Nolen tries too hard to be clever, all it does is lead to a overly complicated movie, full of plot holes.

Nothing really happens, you feel absolutely no emotional connection to any characters, i couldn't have cared less if any of them died or succeeded, wasn't invested in any of them. No character development what so ever.

Sound mix was terrible, i couldn't hear half the dialogue, and the action scenes were stupidly loud, my mother was covering her ears and said it was actually painful.

Critics are rating it purley because its the great Christopher Nolen, and they are scared they'd be seen as stupid if they said anything other that this is an amzing film. I am not a Nolen basher, i love literally every movie he has done, and was very excited to see this, most disappointed i have been since IT Chapter 2.

An absolute masterpiece!

At first, I want to ask Christopher Nolan one question, HOW THE HELL YOU DID THIS?Seriously I want to have an answer, How did he write such as this masterpiece!How did he get this complicated, fabulous and creative idea? What is going on in his mind?The story is written and directed perfectly, the narration style was absolutely unique.I have no idea how can anyone direct such as this story, that was a huge challenge, and as usual Nolan gave us a masterpiece that we'll put beside (Memento), (Inception) and (Interstellar)The movie is so fast-paced in a good way, there was no boring moment.The chemistry between John David Washington and Robert Pattinson was great and funny and both of their performance was really good.Elizabeth Debicki performance was the best in the movie because she had the chance to show her acting abilities and she cached up that chance and showed us an A level acting.

The music wasn't unique and distinct as the music of Interstellar for example and I think this movie needed the touch of Hans Zimmer, I'm not saying that Ludwig G?ransson failed but Hans Zimmer in another level.

If there was something I'd say that I didn't like it in the movie would it be that Nolan discarded any set up or characters backgrounds except Elizabeth Debicki dramatic story but it wasn't that bad for me, I didn't care about that, the exciting story didn't give me the chance to focus on it.But the actual problem was the third act, it was really complicated and I got lost and I convinced myself to discard the questions that were in my head and enjoy the well-made action sequences and Elizabeth Debicki performance.

I think this kind of movie that gets better with a second and third watch.