I have to speak about Dunkirk, Nolan's previous instalment, because I think it was his most polarizing feature. Dunkirk, for me, is the embodiement of what Nolan cinema is. It represents and sums up almost everything in his career. I love that feature dearly. But I also know that, in France, it got a mixed reception. It was either genius or another "no characters, no story coupled with a condescending sense of English patriotism in time of brexit from a pretentious hack".
Well, get ready because TENET will be another take it or leave it experience for a lot of people.
With Dunkirk, Nolan, I think, opened up a new thematical aspect in his cinematography: the importance and experience of point of view.
How do you experience an object, an action, a mouvement or an historical event depending on if you are airborne, at sea or on the ground and also depending on your nationality. Point of view can change the value of an instant.
TENET is the very continuation of that idea. What's your take on an action if you are experiencing it backward or forward. What kind of experience do you have on something?
Point of view in scenario and cinema, is everything after all. And it is interesting that the main character's ID is Protagonist.
TENET is by far the most polarizing feature he has ever made from my point of view.
After a year of hype, handful of trailers, dozens of tv spots, a neverending marketing campaign, multiple postponements. HERE WE ARE !!! WE WILL KNOW WHAT TENET IS ABOUT AND DAMMIT WE WANNA KNOW RIGHT?
Well, Nolan says "screw you! are you really guys here for a science lesson on one of the most abstract and theoretical physic's concept ever? A physic's concept that even scientist have a hard time understanding/explaining?
And there lies what might be the biggest issue or the genius of the feature. The audience will tackle this feature (OVER)thinking it. "it's Nolan, it's full of tricks, this time he won't trick me, fool me like he used to. My brain is ready for everything he has. after all he tries to lecture human species on love, life, dreams like the pretentious snob he is. NOT THIS TIME".
WELL... This time, the audience fooled itself.
And before you know it, your brain is not getting what it wants: ANSWERS.
You want to understand TENET and inversion but Nolan simply refuses to give you that 5 minute convo between characters explaining what it is because... well IT DOES NOT PRACTICALLY EXIST in our current world. It is even summed up during that conversation : "Don't try to understand, feel it". Meaning two things: you are the guy who's supposed to get the job done the least you know the better you are and also... Man, I'm the scientist of the feature, we talkin about the future and I'm in the present and that's also all I know about time inversion. Give me a break.
Instead, Nolan does simply better: He made us experience Inversion. No better way to explain something by showing what it's like which serves the script as we are going through this from Protagonist's POV. And boy do we experience time inversion.
Personnal statement: I have watched A LOT of action feature. I still rank Terminator 2 as one of the greatest action feature of all time and recently FALLOUT was a punch to your face/guts. Let me tell you, TENET.... IS SOMETHING ELSE.
It does not mean Nolan does not mess with time and science but he does it in such a way that you really experience what it would be to be in/out of a time inverted world.
The other polarizing aspect of the feature will be that we are not watching a whole feature. It's not your typical three acts feature. We all know by now that Nolan is over that fence. Dunkirk was a climax feature for example. TENET is a third act feature.
We start the feature at the back of van, Protagonist wakes up and all of sudden they exfiltrate an asset and his property. PERIOD. We are already in the middle of something. And even when we are supposed to get briefed as character/audience we already know that he was/is trying to prevent: nuclear conflict.
In script theory, at the junction of act 2 and 3, when "all is lost" for the main character, the hero's goal is redifined. Meaning the stakes are getting bigger. That's exactly what happens: Nuclear conflict? HELL NO Try something more like end of the human species because if time runs backward we don't exist.
So the very nature of the third act is to provide information, twists, action and conclusions. It is supposed to be breath taking and go straight to the point without again breaking down. And as an audience you wanna break things down, you wanna pause, breathe and go gentle into that good night but this time you won't. The time is now. And now you gotta act.
And so, naturally the third act of the feature is extremely dense, pacy and you get a lot of informations without having all the clues of what happened prior (or is it after?). I did not have trouble understanding dialogues and what was going on overall. The feature is pretty straighforward in that regard. It's just that you have to cope with so many information that might be important or not that important that you can't clearly keep track of what's going on but at one point, in one scene in particular, you get it. You have a sense of urgency throughout the feature that's really nerve wracking which I think serves the purpose of the feature and our POV on the events occuring on screen.
You feel the story between JDW and Pattinson, their long lasting friendship that just started. You feel that there was a past/future between Debicki and JDW. They go through it like they know each other at first glance and yet she just an asset. You feel their starting/ending romance and what they go through as a couple (not trusting him/her, trust with no choice, genuine trust). And same goes with the Russian Brannagh. You have a curious feeling by the end of the feature, that the Russian was JDW's target for years and he's been tracking him down relentlessly to the point where it gets that personnal with him.
So here lies the real question about TENET, are we gonna get a proper beginning to this jawdropping feature? It is implied at the end of the feature between JDW and Pattinson that this case was JDW coup all along and they know each other for a long time but it can also be small talk between characters saying farewell my friend.
Don't get me wrong, there is a beginning to TENET not just THE standard beginning. Would it be interesting to follow Protagonist hunting down plutonium from an unknown bandit for another two hours without inversion? But what was his life prior to that? What did he loose to act desperately? BTW, It's normal that we don't know about him because technically speaking he is a living dead. So him talking about his past that we haven't experienced as an audience would be totally awkward. On the contrary, Cobb talks about his past, we experienced it through his recollection and souvenirs from his memories which makes total sense.
Finally, I like to think that even though Nolan do not tackle political/social issues directly, he always have a point of view about what's going on in our world. I might need another viewing or two to get all of those aspects. But this feature screams "get your shit together NOW". The past won't help you. The future will be worse. You have to act NOW. Not yesterday, Not tomorrow. Just NOW. Do your job/part. Don't listen to people who are telling you are not crucial to what is going on. That you are barely an asset. NO! You decide whether you are crucial or not. You are the protagonist of what's going on.
If Nolan made a trilogy about "the old world and the new world" that would be the final touch he started with Interstellar and continued with Dunkirk. What kind of world we want to leave to our children. Where do we come from historically speaking (Dunkirk)? Where are we going (Interstellar)? Will it be tough to change the predicated outcome (TENET)? And if Interstellar was our positive selves (love through time and space, human species prevailing), TENET is the opposite (betrayal, untrustworthiness, corruption, DESPAIR, extreme violence). Tenet would be pessimistic although it ends well.
People might also read this as "woke liberal shit in a year of election" (yeah i've read that this AM). Nolan could not care less if the Protagonist is Afro. If the white dude is a conventionnal Russian villain beating his wife. It is not about that. Nolan does not care about race, gender or else at least in his feature. He never did and he never will. It is about the big picture: mankind.
I find the way how you have engaged with the movie very enthralling and enriching. 
In most other user reviews I merely learn about the reviewer's tastes (and I don't really care to be honest), but you provide some exciting context for the movie in Nolan's body of work and show some quite profound perspectives in regard of the viewing experience I will keep in mind.
). I'm going again tonight to get a definitive opinion. However I can already say that :