British CIA agent with the laconic name Protagonist participates in the hostage rescue operation at the Kiev Opera. The operation is successful, although he himself is taken hostage and swallows a capsule of poison so as not to surrender to the enemy; waking up, he learns that he passed a certain test and became a member of the secret organization Tenet (the same "Argument"). Their goal is to stop the Russian oligarch with the most typical surname Sator for our latitudes, who has developed the latest weapon that can significantly harm all of humanity. And this is not just some kind of nuclear bomb or something like that, but a truly innovative invention that can directly affect the future - the ability to turn back time. Teaming up with the mysterious agent Neal, the Protagonist masters inversion technology to counter the Russian threat.
The schematic plot is both an advantage and a disadvantage of "Argument". Christopher Nolan, a big lover of intricate designs, turned a completely unique trick with his ears: he shot, perhaps, the highest-budget art house in the world, which not everyone will be able to tackle, but not everyone will want to delve into his ingenious games over time. Imagine a plot in which a Russian oligarch, who made a fortune on uranium in the Soviet Union, secretly from everyone organizes the production of bullets moving backwards to destroy the future, either in the craziest "cranberry". Or in a purely speculative (or speculative) exercise. Which "Argument" is. The absolute majority in the final of the film will have a logical question: "What was that in general now?" - and half will spit, and the second will go to review.
And, on the one hand, watching "Argument" at times (the key word) is incredibly exciting. In what other film was an entire plane blown up to shoot a single scene? And here it is. Not to mention the stunning special effects (not without reason the film received an Oscar for this part) with the simultaneous passage of time in opposite directions, when an ordinary special agent and one moving from the future to the past converge in hand-to-hand combat. For a puzzle (which "Argument" is), such a gentleman's set of an ordinary blockbuster looks very attractive - how often have you had to spin a Rubik's cube, accompanied by explosions and stunning music by Oscar-winning composer Ludwig Joransson?
On the other hand, in addition to solving logic problems, when in the bustle of disparate events (from the chase in inverted cars to the storming of a top-secret base), you are still trying to figure out who is who and what events preceded others. The film has nothing more to offer. It contains quite a lot of empty near-philosophical conversations, there is not enough, in fact, a "blockbuster", and the clarification of the viewer's relationship over time in the film is purely technical in nature: when the problem is solved, you get satisfaction and take on the next one. Although, of course, you probably haven't solved such spectacular scanwords yet.