When Dunkirk came out a couple of years ago, there were outrages. Christopher Nolan did not give the audience enough twists at the each turn of each events—this was their complain against the director. While I found myself much amused seeing the ridiculous outcries, I can see why they made such an uproar. Christopher Nolan dug his grave long before and Dunkirk, possibly his best work till date, fell into it. His fans want twists and mind bending complexities. Art, aesthetics has no place in that expectation. But hey, despite all the naysayers, it wasn't a dud.

And now when he has delivered again a plot with complex scientific concept that's truly wondrous to think about (and I mean in general, not in a narrative's term), I see outcry again. This time they are not happy because supposedly it's too complex.
Truly amazing how our minds work, don't you think?
Personally I believe Tenet doesn't have a more complex concept as the fans are making it so, not more than Interstellar at least. Not saying this because I was a physics major—I think it's easier from a layman's perspective to get anti-time, inverted objects than to comprehend blackholes, relativity and more than three dimensions.

Even then, to truly enjoy the new film Tenet from a cinematic perspective, I reckon one has to stop trying to make sense of the implied science-fiction and go with the flow.

What you're left with then, is a truly enjoyable piece of a movie. Nolan isn't like an auteur in the traditional sense. He's a master entertainer and he does best what he intends to do. Tenet is no exception. It's a solid thriller piece that has enough punch to shake you up if you're not prejudiced in any sort of way. Nolan creates a sense of urgency with short takes — and along with imposing music, the movie doesn't let you rest.

One of the core concepts of Tenet is that some people from future are making time-inversted objects and sending them to their future, which is our past and I was perplexed by the inverted times sequences. They are really well made, visually speaking! One of the moments when you wonder "how'd they do it".

I have my doubts about the antagonists motivation. He seems like a diabolical person and for reasons that are too self-centered. Still the character is not developed enough to make it believable that he wants to burn everything down to literally atoms (anti-particles will go boom if they collide with each other).
Pattinson and Debicki felt quite adept at their roles.

Five years ago, I'd try to explain the film and all the scientific implications it has but I realized lately, it's a folly. Complex plot doesn't make a movie great. It's a rabbit hole that should be avoided. This is one of the reasons I tried not to get into addressing the plot at all.

My rating: 3.5/5

Poster source