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
That explains a lot
Bzzzt.
"But although Inception gives the appearance of being a work of intelligence and complexity, it’s really just an ungodly tangle. There’s no elegance in Nolan’s vision, only sweat."
No, she's not arguing that it's being punished for having the ambition to say something. Far from it: She's panning it for failing to say anything. And, having just seen it, I have to concur: The film is sound and fury, signifying nothing. There's endless expository dialogue, but no true profundity. Why does Jonah Hex (a film I have not seen) get a positive review? Well, if I had to guess, I'd say it's because Zacharek is, much like Pauline Kael (and many other critics inspired by her, eg. Roger Ebert,) taking a generic approach: She judges the film within its genre and by its own expectations. Jonah Hex aspired to be nothing more than a featherweight entertainment, and Zacharek did indeed appreciate that it succeeded at that. (In her opinion.) Inception, by contrast, clearly is straining to be something profound and exceptional, but fails utterly at it.
It's like a game of chance. If you shoot big, you can get the sort of praise that absolutely bubbles over, but it's hard to hit the mark. Shoot small, and you'll get modest, reserved praise at best, but it's easy enough to get that.
I recently picked up the Entertainment Weekly edition on Inception and I noticed that Stephanie Zacharek from this website gave Inception a D+. I was totally outraged by how totally absurd this rating is!! Everyone else gave the movie between an A and a B-. Personally I would give the movie an A+! For once there is a movie that makes the audience actually think about what they are watching. I love being presented with new ideas that I can ponder about, so I absolutely loved Inception. Given the talented actors in the movie and the extremely limited use of CGI I would have to argue that the D+ rating is not only totally messed up but also offensive to the thousands of people like me that thought this movie was the best they had ever seen in their lives.
Okay first of all, I don't see how you can like Megan Fox. Secondly, are you trying to say that you like Leo even if Inception wasn't good? If you didn't enjoy Inception then I don't know how you can like any movie.
The review is spot-on. Inception is a CG masturbation movie for kiddies who never figured out how Kachina dolls work. A gamer's delight, it suffers from a lack of humanity, and worse, from a poor rendering of the richness of MEANING possible in our dream worlds. And it's boring, over-scored, and bad.
"Everyone else gave the movie between an A and a B-. "
I seem to take a perverse fascination in reading, even re-reading these comments, which scare the bejesus out of me. Did it ever occur to you that everyone else might be missing the boat--although in fact there were several other reviewers who did not love, love, love the movie the way you did.
Sometimes the crowd, the group, the mob, the hive, is wrong, and it's not an argument to say "Everyone else loved it." This is the kind of mindset that helped propel us into war with Iraq for god's sake. It's simply bandwagon logic (or illogic if there is such a word) Jaron Lanier's "You Are Not a Gadget" bemoans the kind of group-think that he believes is taking over the Internet. I thought he was exaggerating, apparently not.
And the legions of critics, who -- in unison -- have suddenly decided the net is THE enemy, DON'T sound like mindless lackeys with their talking points? Who cares about Bush-era when under Obama the country is FURTHERING its split between the haves and the have-nots. And to this environment, who are those eagerly lambasting the mob but garbage aristos enjoying the show.
Okay, there's ONE part I didn't understand in this movie. The part after AND NOW, YOUR FEATURE PRESENTATION. Theaters could make a killing selling explanatory notes with soda and popcorn.
Sorry, Steph. I think the vast majority of filmgoers have shouted "BS" to you!
For me the film was like having sex with a stunning model with no brains to do other than shout too loud and end up annoying me.
Christopher Nolan is one of the few directors/writers (Scorcese, Spielberg, Eastwood) who has the gift of persistently producing amazing motion pictures. He's as being a Picasso and churns out masterpieces. A number of directors get lucky for one flick and fail to duplicate their achievement. For Creation, Nolan masterfully engages his audience as he builds up the account to intrigue you by way of the incredibly end whilst injecting steps scenes and visual results to excite you.
Are you Chris Nolan's mom or something? Get real!
We've gotten towards stage where by a video that wanders remotely off the reservation stuns and wows us and leads us to feel it is usually terrific. "Inception" isn't a terrible movie flick. It will be certainly better than anything else Hollywood has to offer you this yr. Neither, nevertheless, is it amazing.
Sorry fellas, but I saw this film last weekend and now wholeheartedly agree with Stephanie's critiquie. The main issue was the screenplay, and there were so many problems that I barely know where to start. Off the top of my head:
1. The characters are shallow and one-dimensional. The only character who has the slightest bit of depth is Dom Cobb, and his problems are unoriginal and contrived. The cast is great and the acting was pretty solid throughout -- a lot of talent was wasted on a bunch of 2D characterizations.
2. The stakes are low. Since most of what we're watching is a dream, there's almost no sense of peril throughout. Mainly we're rooting for Cobb to successfully mind-rape a titan of industry in the service of another oil conglomerate. Whoopie.
3. The dreams are un-dreamlike. None of it resembles dream logic or illustrates Fischer's subconscious at all. Sure, the dream world was created by the "architect." But why make a movie ostensibly about dreams that doesn't resemble dreams at all?
4. Exposition! Cripes, I've never seen a movie spend so much time explaining through dialogue all of these rules and what we're looking at, only to later ignore the rules or pile on other rules when it's convenient for the purposes of the screenplay. It just killed any momentum dead.
5. No originality. The themes and plot borrowed heavily from Dreamscape, Existenz, The Matrix, Total Recall, etc. This wouldn't be a huge problem, if visually the film also wasn't so derivative of Dark City, The Matrix, Nolan's own Batman Begins, etc. There was nothing here we haven't seen before.
But the biggest problem for me was the incredibly grim and self-serious tone of the whole production. The film is essentially schlocky sci-fi, but because Nolan fancies himself an artiste, every verbal exchange is created with this thundering sense of importance that was, for me, unintentionally funny.
This was a bad film.
I literally just came from seeing the 1:00pm showing of Inception: The IMAX Experience. At least now I can die knowing what Ice Station Zebra would have looked like if it had been projected in 70mm.
I've been reading Stephanie Z's reviews for years in Salon--- any of y'all who think she doesn't know film or film criticism is seriously ignorant.
I love the posts denigrating her as a "snarky critic" by providing.... snarky comments. But my favorite posts here are by the posters who has not yet seen INSIPID...oh, I mean INCEPTION and rails against the review anyway! Classic!
Sanctimonious, self-righteous idiots of the world, unite!
For the record....I'm a huge fan of Nolan. Memento is one of my all time favorites and The Dark Knight blew me from one side of the theater to the other.
INCEPTION didn't blow me away it simply BLEW.
Everything SZ said is right on the money. I wish I had read it before I just wasted $15 on the IMAX experience.
INCEPTION is a $1.00 rental at Redbox, at best.
Nice to see at least one other unbiased, non-pandering review of this movie. Here's mine: http://shuckinthejive.com/?p=204
This review is great. I simply do not understand why people have commented she was "too dumb" to understand the movie. Her whole point was that the movie spends all of its time and energy explaining itself to you, while it's really a shallow thing with a shiny surface. Also, to someone who commented that the movie reviewer is attacking viewers and not the films, nonsense- it's their job to critique a piece of work. Just consider her point. Jeez!
Great review... People who say that she is 'too dumb' to understand the movie are just embarrassing themselves... the movie is a shallow, extremely straight forward film, its about one notch above the latest Bond flick in terms of complexity... No character development, no tone, plot holes at every turn... What sort of stuff are people reading and watching these days to make them think that Inception is in any way complex?
To the most recent post, Nicholas, and Stephanie,
Inception is not great because it is so complex or too mind-boggling but because it is original. Apparently both of you (and a few other over-pretentious dumbasses) think you are above good entertainment. If you don't like good movies then why in the hell do you watch them. Inception does what what audiences ask for. Sorry your incredibly complex brains thought it was just too plain (I really hope you're detecting my sarcasm) but inception was a great movie. If you don't believe me, then jump off a cliff like the rest off us. Oh wait, that's not complex enough for you You need a COMPLEX reason to do so. I bet you would if it were for a simple cause that you cared enough about though, but then again, you also probably don't believe in simple causes that are for the good of mankind. Go read some more books that add to your already ridiculous ego while I enjoy my life, and inception. By the way learn how to use periods instead of ellipses Nicholas. I really hope I can meet you in person someday (Stephanie, you're not worth my time).
I'm beginning to be a little shocked about some reviewers ability to understand... well anything?
Myself and numerous friends have seen this film, all of varying ranges of intelligence, personality and taste and not one has complained about the things being brought up by you and a few other negative reviewers not only that but the only people I've found so far who don't even understand whats going on at all times is you and one other reviewer (who incidentally also hated the Dark Knight)
I mean I don't know what to say, I don't want to call you thick, because you're obviously not but would calling the review pretentious (irony?) be understandable? Because you're writing in a deliberately sophisticated manner which is fair enough, but when combing that with railing against the popular opinion at every turn you have to ask what purpose your review is serving? It certainly serves to hinder people in trying to find a film they like. It fails to provide useful information, it's deliberately scornful and it brings up points of understanding and context which I've never seen another person not understand.
I realise there is a trend among the clique that popular opinion is unguided uninformed and wrong but that seems a bit thick when it's coming from something who can't even folow something that the thick unguided public can.
And what's wrong with the line about the loop? It didn't sound unnatural (given who they are), and it's very easy to follow the logic of it.
"you know why? because when points all get sumed up on metacritic, people see 74 points and say "uhh, what an AVERAGE movie, i want something better""
You must not go to metacritic that often. 74 points is not even LABELED as average, and looking at the current releases shows that Inception is one of the best reviewed movies out right now. Mixed or average is below 60 and above 40.
"then 2 things happen: they miss out on this jewel of a movie (specifically), and other studios see that originallity is met with apathy, and get back to funding shitty "for the stupid masses" movies (not the case of this movie, since many will see it anyway but other less hyped movies that are GOOD get draged down)."
Are you implying that Inception is original? Are you also implying that the majority of filmgoers base their movie choices on critics?
Because you're wrong in both cases.
" i'm not saying that your opinion should be that of the majority's, far from it, and having an opinion is very good, but when stating it publically you shoud properly analise it before, as well as its possible consequences. to those who didn't see the movie yet :go see it. to those who have seen it already, go see it again, you'll understand it better"
There's nothing about it that isn't properly analyzed. The only consequence is that boneheaded retards who have never seen ANY Kubrick or Hitchcock will attack mindlessly and fap Chris Nolan as TEH GREATEST DIRECTOR TAT EVAR LIVED!!! And Nolan will make millions making them all feel smart while saying nothing of any artistic merit. It's quite a scam he's got going, really.
Maybe so, but there's no questions she loved SZ.
I just had to come here and see the rips this lady was getting. Clearly this is not good for her career as Inception was original, clever, extremely well written and acted. Her track record of reviews says it all...Anyone with a pulse can review movies because it is subjective. However, when your wrong on so many, maybe its time to try something else? :).
Finally a review of Inception I can agree with!
Personally I thought the film was boring, laboured and uninspiring. It would have made for an interesting 10 minute student project, but not a two and a half hour blockbuster. There is only one character with any depth whatsoever.
Furthermore I felt in parts that the dream concept was just a way of allowing a huge amount of violence with the premice: "It's OK, they're all just parts of his dream".
Most of all though I don't really unerstand what was supposed to be complicated about the plot. Virtually everything was presented in an easy to follow narrative, and the final twist could be spotted a billion miles off, even if you didnt bother to notice the clues that were placed in earlier scenes.
Nicholas: "plot holes at every turn..."
Name one, I dare you.
Next » « Previous