REVIEW: Is Inception This Year's Masterpiece? Dream On
If the career of Christopher Nolan is any indication, we've entered an era in which movies can no longer be great. They can only be awesome, which isn't nearly the same thing.
In Inception, Nolan does the impossible, the unthinkable, the stupendous: He folds a mirror version of Paris back upon itself; he stages a fight sequence in a gravity-free hotel room; he sends a train plowing through a busy city street. Whatever you can dream, Nolan does it in Inception. Then he nestles those little dreams into even bigger dreams, and those bigger dreams into gargantuan dreams, going on into infinity, cubed. He stretches the boundaries of filmmaking so that it's, like, not even filmmaking anymore, it's just pure "OMG I gotta text my BFF right now" sensation.
Wouldn't it have been easier just to make a movie?
But that urgent simplicity, that directness of focus, is beyond Nolan: Everything he does is forced and overthought, and Inception, far from being his ticket into hall-of-fame greatness, is a very expensive-looking, elephantine film whose myriad so-called complexities -- of both the emotional and intellectual sort -- add up to a kind of ADD tedium. This may be a movie about dreams, but there's nothing dreamlike or evocative about it: Nolan doesn't build or sustain a mood; all he does is twist the plot, under, over, and back upon itself, relying on Hans Zimmer's sonic boom of a score to remind us when we should be excited or anxious or moved. It's less directing than directing traffic.
Nolan's aim, perhaps, is to keep us so confused we won't dare question his genius. The movie opens with Leonardo DiCaprio being washed up on a beach somewhere -- mysteriously, there are two little blond children cavorting around, though we can't see their faces. Then some Japanese soldiers drag him into a menacing-looking seaside castle nearby. Then he sits down at a table, opposite some mysterious old guy, and proceeds to eat some gruel. What, you might ask, is going on here, as bits of runny porridge drip from the haggard-looking DiCaprio's lips? You're supposed to be perplexed -- it's all part of the movie's puzzly-wuzzly structure.
Before long we learn that DiCaprio's character is an "extractor," meaning he's a skilled craftsman who can enter others' dreams to draw out valuable information, useful, particularly, in corporate espionage. His name is Dom Cobb -- which is, I guess, better than being called Com Dobb -- and not only does he have the ability to enter others' dreams; he actually builds those dreams, with the help of his number-two man, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), plus an architect, who had better know what he or she is doing. The architect working for Cobb at the beginning of the movie (he's played, all too briefly, by Lukas Haas) meets a bad end after installing the wrong kind of shag carpeting in an important dream. Perhaps these dreams need interior decorators, too, to prevent future faux pas, but let's not get off-track.
Pages: 1 2
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
So you were too dumb enough to understand inception so you gave a negative review?
You actually gave Jonah Hex (13% on RottenTomatoes) and The Last Airbender (13% on Rottentomatoes) Positive reviews. You know I was joking in the last post but you really are dumb
Just how dumb is "too dumb enough to," I wonder?
Nolan has proved himself to be an amazing film-maker for me with Momento.
Well she gave the following movies positive reviews:
Jonah Hex, The Last Airbender, Furry vengeance..
Pretty Dumb,.
Stephanie has proven time and time again that she doesn't like anything. Why should we be surprised by this review? Don't be so predictable.
I don't usually respond to these things, and certainly not to belittle a review, but I genuinely don't think this film was difficult to follow, understand or comprehend. Yes, it's serious, and can be overblown at times, but preplexing is not an adjective I'd use to describe it. This is a prime example of a film, where reviewers may change their reviews, once they see a film again. A lot of people may like the visual quality of the film right now, but not see beyond that. Others will take to the plot and characterisation immediately. This isn't to say you're dumb, just that everyone takes something different from it. Isn't that what a gerat book does? Surely the same can be applied to film...
No more number grading on Movieline reviews?
Well I'm not going to attack you like countless others will. For one thing I haven't seen the film yet. For another, I'm just glad you didn't go all Armond White on us and say that Gamer was a better alternate reality film.
Last time I slammed someone for giving a bad review (before I saw the movie) it backfired - See Watchmen...
However, one of the earlier lines involving "OMG" and "BFF" automatically knocks the entire review out of context. How can I take this seriously now? As I said, I will not comment on what you said about Inception, but I will comment on you as a critic.
I've read numerous script coverages before and analyzed many scripts myself; this entire review reads as though a newly hired intern was just placed a Stanley Kubrick-esque story in their hands. Would you give it the PASS or FAIL? Amy Kane passed on Big Fat Greek Wedding and will never live that down, imagine what their going to say about you.
Also, after looking at other comments, "Jonah Hex", "The Last Airbender", it's obvious to me that your boss (or parents depending on how old you are, I can't tell) tells you what to write.
We're working on getting the score back, NP, it's just a relaunch bug.
For the record, the score is a 3!
3! Ouch!
Dom Cobb??
Maybe Cobb is his middle name and his super secret last name is "Salad".
"(I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how Heath Ledger’s Joker got off that building ledge, which is where we last saw him.)"
It's called "he took the elevator back down", moron.
Strawberry Pain here. First, Stu--love the avatar. Second--I can't figure out two things on the new site--how to scroll to the next page of articles from the MovieLine home page, and where to log in. But I like it overall! Third--I've been missing from MovieLine for a while, so Stephanie's new to me, as are all the witless meanies who like to comment. But for Herman (hi, there), it doesn't sound like any of the, erm, *opinionated* folks have seen the film. I'm planning to see it, along with Despicable Me, which I really didn't care one way or another about until I read Stephanie's review. I guess I'm throwing my hat in the ring to make a little prayer--for those people who want to critique the critic, it'd be nice if you had seen the movie and had relevant facts about it to support your arguments as to why you think Stephanie's wrong. Oh, and can I ask for good grammar and attention to word use, too? kthx.
I like Nolan a lot. But he does have a phony streak. And usually that involves balancing plot and story.
Most of his films are so intricately plotted that they undermine the emotionality he's aiming for. He asks us to manage the vertical and lateral elements at the same time, which often causes one element to fall apart completely.
Think about Rachel's death in The Dark Knight. It should have had a huge emotional impact but had none because the director used it as a plot device more than a real moment.
Still. I loved Insomnia. And hope to like this one.
Kill the beast! Spill her blood! Smash her face!
You must be punished for your dumbness and illitarecy. Christopher Nolan RULEZ you drool! Whoo---ahhhhhhhhhhhh.
Otherwise, this was really a rather well-done and exceptionally convincing review on all points. Splendid.
That is just too dumb enough!
Stephanie,
Do you and Armond White get together and go bowling every week? Regardless of whether or not Inception is the second coming of movie christ people are making it out to be, you constantly give positive reviews to shitty movies and vice versa! Who has a better track record, Nolan or Stephanie? Movieline should drop you like WMA dropped Mel Gibson after your Airbender and Jonah Hex reviews because you seriously cramp this site's appeal.
YES! I agree with your comment about Rachel's death. It was supposed to be a major turning point for Harvey - but then Harvey's whole Two-Face story seemed to be rushed through at the last 20 minutes of the movie - so the impact wasn't as great it should have been.
I do hate how they burped out the Two-Face side to Harvey. They should have used the Rachel death to transition us into the next movie - really using Two-Face as a main baddie. Granted they didn't know Ledger would die soon after filming was done, but what better way to keep the spirit of The Joker alive than to use the old "I may be gone/locked away, but the effects of my actions live on" gimmick?
Good point, very true. The site should not appeal to people who believe in bringing their own individual perspectives to bear on films, only those who want to follow the conventional wisdom.
Impostor or the real Edelstein?
I love how people are up in arms about a bad review of a movie they are already loving and apparently seeing twice in one day, yet no one is freaking out about the re-design of this site? It's great that the staff writes great posts every ten minutes, but when you can't page back, it starts to feel like they're just cramming them down your throat (i.e. more like every other site). Amirite?
p.s. I want to see Inception for myself.
On the Web, no one knows if you're the real David Edelstein.
I never gonna read Movieline again.This is the worst review ever.
Saw this last night. Stephanie Z. is right that the movie doesn't really ever take flight, though she doesn't really have the chops to explain why. The main problems with "Inception" are:
1) Nolan never figures out a way to cleanly establish the rules of maneuvering in the dream world, so he has to attach Ellen Page to Leo's side like a carbuncle for him to have someone he can explain what's happening to. This happens up to the end of the movie. Kind of a problem. You can never really let yourself go in a scene because you're always trying to figure out how exactly this works and what the hell the characters are trying to accomplish. I'm sure the fanboys who haven't even seen the movie yet will complain that this is because you are "too dumb enough" to understand what's going on--but it's on Nolan to get his exposition out cleanly and then let the movie soar--something the original "Matrix" did very well and was lavishly rewarded for it--and he never really does.
2) The characters are flat. Besides how they look, can you tell me what the differences are in the personalities of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, and the other guy? Or what their personalities are at all?
3) Most disappointing of all, Nolan just doesn't have the directing skill set to recreate the dream-state. Two of the three main dreams are completely indistinguishable from the real world, and the other one only is because gravity gets funked up. When you get right down to it, if a trippy, subjective representation of dreaming is what you're after, you're better off just renting "The Cell."
Next »