We’re back to the movies, people! Cinema’s in Sweden are open, and Tenet is the blockbuster to bring us back to the theatre. As a fan of Nolan, my anticipation for Tenet was high. Tenet is the perfect movie to watch on the big screen, but it shares some trappings of other Nolan films that are to its detriment.

The world as we know it is threatened by a technology that can invert objects. John David Washington’s nameless protagonist is a CIA agent that has to uncover the plot, together with fellow agent Neil (Robert Pattinson). Russian oligarch and arms dealer Sator (Kenneth Branagh) is the antagonist, and he’s got his wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) under his abusive thumb.

It’s a globe-trotting and fast-paced action movie with a cool concept. It’s executed well in some areas, but it falls short in other. I loved a lot of Tenet, but I find the flaws more glaring the more I think about it.

The opening sequence, featuring an attack on the Ukrainian national opera, is a set-piece to behold. The tension is gripping and it doesn’t let go. Nolan throws you right into the action, and it’s up to the viewer to make sense of what transpires. I grasped most of the plot, but you will probably walk out of the cinema pondering its details. It’s a film that will benefit from a second viewing.

Nolan is so ambitious that his ambitions sometimes get in the way of the characters and the script. The same can be said for Interstellar – a movie that dazzled me with its visions of space and time, but felt contrived and flat in its approach to the characters (despite some great acting from Matthew McConaughey).

Tenet can feel sterile at times, and I’d have wanted the movie to dig a little deeper into the character’s motivations and relationships. The comparisons to Inception are many – and even though that move was also very high-concept, it succeeded in telling a more personal story. Tenet has an arc, too, but it’s not as pronounced.

It’s telling that John David Washington’s character is simply referred to as “The Protagonist.” He’s suave and the right kind of cocky – he has a range that he gets to display – but we never get to settle in him as a character as the movie barrels along. Instead, it’s Robert Pattinson who steals the show with his charisma.

The scenes with John David Washington and Robert Pattinson are among the best.

Elizabeth Debicki does the best with what the script offers her, but it’s not much. Her character is underwritten and she has some lines that make you roll your eyes. She’s supposed to be the emotional core, but it feels tacked-on.

Kenneth Branagh is a lot of fun to watch as a Russian arms dealer, who just about manages to not become a complete cliche. It’s not that he has any redeeming qualities – he’s an A-grade bastard – but Brannagh makes him both ruthless and calculating. However, his end goal is too vague and the movie doesn’t really show us the impact that his master plan would have. This dilutes the stakes, and there’s not much in the way of personal drama.

For a movie with a length of two and a half hours, it goes by surprisingly fast. Maybe too fast. There are many moving parts, which makes it a film that can be hard to follow. Not because of any thematic complexity, but rather the intricacies of the inversion-concept.

Much of the dialogue is expository, and sometimes it’s just flat. The problem is that Nolan deals with (and probably has a good grasp on) complex scientific terms regarding time and space, but he has to explain it to the audience in a way they understand. We’re told a lot of stuff, but not shown as much. It’s in this showing that Tenet succeeds. The effects – many of them practical – are a joy to behold. The inversion effect is something I haven’t seen on screen before, and the choreography is astounding. A certain backward-brawl is one of the movie’s highlights. It’s so well realized, and it gets your mind working.

In fact, Tenet has many highlights that make it possible to overlook its flaws. But it’s Christopher Nolan we’re talking about here, and that’s why my expectations are so high.

As a visual spectacle and fast-paced, smart action movie, Tenet works on almost every level. It’s a shame that the plot is quite convoluted and that the characterization could’ve been fleshed out. We don’t really get much room to breathe as the film moves forward. It’s not a bad thing per se, but here it could’ve benefited by getting more in-depth. Character motivations are surface level, and the third act is hampered by a so-so twist and a battle with faceless foes. Nolan has always been better at portraying interpersonal conflict (like in The Prestige) than massive battles, making it hard to follow.

Also, I’m not loving Ludvig Göransson’s score as much as some are, even though he’s a Swede. He manipulates sounds to great effect, but it’s a bit overwhelming. It doesn’t always work in tandem with what’s happening on screen. Plus, the mix is too loud, and if I hadn’t had subtitles, I would’ve had a hard time hearing what the characters were saying. I’d have preferred something a bit more subtle.

In conclusion

Tenet is a technical marvel – there’s no way around it. It flaunts spectacular set-pieces, gorgeous locations, superb cinematography (courtesy of Hoyte van Hoytema), and next-level action choreography. However, the plot is muddled and the characters lack depth. It shares the flaws of Inception (that I really like) and Interstellar, in that it has too much exposition. It’s a fast-paced movie, but it’s not always to its benefit.

Nolan’s ambition and technical mastery should be lauded, but there’s something about the movie that doesn’t carry it all the way. It’s a combination of some bad dialogue, a reliance on MacGuffin’s, flat characters, and a hurried third act. That doesn’t make it a bad movie – just not Nolan’s best.

Tenet: A Magnificent but Flawed Spectacle

In conclusion