If there ever was a narrative about licensing rights that deserved the “based on a true story” therapy, it’s Tetris. Figuring out who can legally distribute a sport could sound like a boring authorized discrepancy, however when that sport was one developed in Russia simply earlier than the autumn of the Soviet Union, the hunt to safe these rights was a real-life political thriller, good fodder for cinematic drama. Watching director Jon S. Baird’s Tetris, although, these items simply don’t fall into place. 

Tetris, out right now on Apple TV+, explores this complicated authorized historical past by means of the attitude of Henk Rogers (performed by Taron Egerton). In the Nineteen Eighties, the sport designer and entrepreneur discovered himself entranced by the sport after taking part in it at a commerce present. He went on a quest to Russia to safe the rights to the sport—a transfer that pitted him in opposition to businessman Robert Stein (Toby Jones), publishing titan Robert Maxwell, and even the KGB. Ultimately, it is his potential to attach with Tetris developer Alexey Pajitnov (Nikita Efremov) that enables him to safe the sport and produce it to a few bajillion Game Boys, however all the things till that second entails extra twists and legalese than one can presumably think about. 

If this sounds just like the sort of factor you can watch a two-hour YouTube video essay about and never pause as soon as, it’s. And if you happen to’re in search of a modern dramatized model of that story, Tetris delivers. But the movie can also be considerably undercut by its battle to painting sure nuances. At occasions, it falls right into a fairly shallow worldview of “capitalism good, communism bad.” This isn’t essentially as a result of a failure of character growth—there are many capitalist villains operating round too. But a few of the Soviet characters come off as solely barely extra fleshed out than Tim Curry escaping to the one place that hasn’t been corrupted by capitalism. 

This dynamic is just made more unusual by the inclusion of a number of Soviet officers who appear to be true patriots. What side of the communist Soviet Union they imagine in or why they do what they do is boiled all the way down to “I want what’s best for my country.” And whereas there’s a sound ethical argument that Pajitnov ought to be capable of revenue from his creation—and even merely reside safely—there’s little to counter this concept. Who would disagree?

This might be owed extra to the character of historical past than any failure of writing. As the movie makes clear, the ultimate years of the Soviet Union noticed grasping opportunists carving up territory throughout a governmental collapse. This isn’t the period to take a look at if you happen to’re curious about a strong examination of opposing financial methods. But a facet impact is that Soviet characters come off as both wholly corrupt or naively dedicated to a dying ideology.

This simplistic view undermines a few of the movie’s actual tensions. It’s hardly ever ambiguous who the nice guys or the dangerous guys are. Heroes like Henk and Alexey are earnest and noble, the grasping executives are framed much less like Jordan Belfort and extra like Thanos. It’s not dangerous storytelling per se, however for a movie stuffed with complicated authorized and political nuances, these typically flat characterizations are rather less than satisfying.