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
I saw that EW magazine had a D+ in there for this movie, and just had to see what this nitwit said about it. I get that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it just makes you look bad when yours is wrong 🙂
Indeed, Joy, it makes you look bad when yours is wrong.
I don't understand what is with all the poeple that didn't understand this movie...I found it really simplistic. I mean maybe if you only watch action movies for the special then I could see it stretching your gray matter...but it's pretty easy to get and to me not that good.
Music is so repetitive and banging and makes it seem like it's trying to hard. I don't understand the big talk over the city bending scene, looked simple enough to do, it's almost a reflection...leos acting falters at at times...You are forced to watch a film where bad aim is very dependent to keeping ppl alive...and argue it's a dream and that is why they missed so much, and I will say why fill a movie with scenes of people missing shots...it was just too many...culminating in Andrew getting shot at one small flight of stairs below and the guy couldn't hit him...ughh...In the opening we are forced to see Leo throw the gun on the table only to shoot his buddy in the head...hmm..why not either shoot him in the face the second he walked in the room, I mean you know what will happen if you do...so send him out..or secondly, mal is his subcon so why would she bring him in knowing leo knows all he has to do is shoot him..the scene was more of a shock for the audience to see leo shoot him in the head, than it made sense to the plot the way it was played out.
The physics of that hummer tipping over in the explosion towards the end made me laugh aloud in the theater...watcht that one again and realize it tips over like a kid playing with a matchbox...looked really bad.
Anyways...an average movie...decent...I guess...easy to get...I think we are so starved for this type of attempt at out of the box thinking..that we want to ride this movie into greatness...but it's shoddy at best.
The problem is this movie is only deep if you are not that deep yourself...It's easy to get on the first time through...we are hungry for anything outside the box that we want this to be great...but it's not a great movie...for example the music is shit....keeps repeating itself...is included in scenes that don't need music at all....but is included to force a dramatic feel...to be subtle and intelligent it would show you where more impact is made with no music etc...but this isn't that....it's a thriller for the mind for people who are kind of dumb themselves..they are like oh wow I get it...lol...But it's not that deep to begin with...and in many cases poorly done...The hummer tipping over at the fortress towards the end...that explosion was laughable....corners were cut..leos acting is exposed a number of times in the film...take the scene where they get the cab into the warehouse and he is talking about what happens if you die....wow..he seems like he is just saying some lines and acting...totally shits out that scene...should have been reshot...anyways...if you read a few books a month..good ones...then this just simply isn't that deep of a plot...but is deep compared to most movies that come out...you have to remember...movies cost a lot to make..and want a lot of revenue in return, thus they are tailored for the average mind to "get." Dumb ppl want to enjoy a movie...and hollywood wants them to come back and pay again...lol
So, she's still waiting for someone to tell her how The Joker got off the edge of the building at the end of "The Dark Knight?" Wow, seriously?? You mean the SWAT team arriving at the end of the scene didn't explain that? Don't slam the director for lack of visual logic if you're just not properly equipped to pay attention!
Funny she would accuse this movie as being pretentious when she dug so deep for witty quips or clever metaphors to trash it (Com Dobbs??). At first I was in the mindset that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but her confusion surrounding The Joker's last scene just proved to me what this "critic's" worth is.
What should I expect, though, from someone who praised "Jonah Hex" for erring on the side of simplicity? I think she proved my point with that review.
Hah, puh-lease, majority rules, it was a good movie. You are on here defending this chik till the death, you must really be her is disguise, married to her, or unemployed.
I have no issue with reviewers not liking the film. Any film has plenty to like or dislike. What I do have issue with is the reviewers - both professional and amateurs - is they tend to:
- Take issue with the "genius" of Chris Nolan. I've read many articles and interviews with Mr. Nolan. Never has he called himself that. Sorry if you're buying into someone else's schema of Mr. Nolan, but get over it. So someone called him a genius - you don't have to agree, and you certainly don't need to carry that grudge in with you when you watch his movies.
- Many reviewers seem really angry with the "hype" of the movie - almost disgusted it was called good before they had a chance to call it bad. Again, no issue with not liking the movie - but don't walk in with a chip on your shoulder because its pre-release buzz was positive.
- And what blows me away the most is this. This is an original story - and no, you can't compare to the Matrix, two totally different stories. No issue with reviewers not liking how it was told, but in a day and age where the same reviewers complain about run-of-the-mill formulaic stories and sequels, I'd think someone - including Stephanie - would appreciate a studio and director who were able to put out something new. May not be to your liking, but certainly is one of the best things for the studios and the audiences.
I just wonder where all the spite comes from. Did Chris get close to a story you wanted to see and just didn't tell it in the way you wanted it told? Well, sh*t, when you can secure $200 million because of talent and box office receipts, you can judge. Till then, you just come off as a judgmental hack.
And to prove I'm not a hypocrite, I'll say it here: Michael Bay is a better filmmaker than I'll ever be. Why? Because some how, some way, he can get his stories (however poor they are) told. I may not like the stories, but I don't attack the man.
I bet he gave the film a negative review just so he could use that pun in the title.
You're a bad reviewer and you should feel bad, Stephanie. This writing is simply terrible. Com Dobb? Really? No wonder you're a movie critic, no occupation that requires REAL writing will take you.
He was caught BEFORE as well, though. Nolan establishes a pattern where the Joker does some fancy escape off-screen and then drops it for the sake of wrapping up the movie.
Stephanie used to review for Salon. She was horrible there and I was so happy when she left. I stumbled upon this review when I was reading those interviews with the actors from True Blood. Some of her other classic negative reviews include 'Up!' and 'The Dark Knight'.
Never change Stephanie!
Agreed. Memento was genius, and though I get the critic's perspective, there has never been anything so original like Inception. With an era of reboots upon us, give Nolan a break. I'd like to see you pull this off.. because let me tell you, as a Director.. this movie (and action films like Transformers and Ironman) scare the shit out of me! At least Nolan goes deep into a story line and wraps that around a visual masterpiece. Kudos to him. I thought it was, in fact, pretty fucking great.
Both highly overrated films, no doubt.
I don't understand how Movie Line can endorse this kind of reviews underrating a masters piece and giving STEPHANIE ZACHAREK the authority to do it the credibility of your website has fall down to the mud and the fans of Inception are furious. Enjoy you more negative comments because I will not be the last one, haha funny enough is she mentally ill or what?
Have you been watching this movie with your eyes closed. If you don't like this kind of genre then don't watch a Christopher Nolan movie. first of all, the architect was not killed because of the rug. Second of all, the reason they overexplained was because they had a newbie (Ellen Page) who had no previous experience with this or that most had no experience with a three level dream and did not know that dying when under sedation would mean losing your mind. Because the movie touches a new concept it needs to expain everything in order for audiences to understand it. It would be weird if they would overexplain the concept of a car, since we're familiar with that, but this is something you do not know the rules of. I think that you have reviewed this movie unfairly, since the actors did make it believable that this could exist. second, the music accompanied the film and only was there to strenghten the mood. The use of colours and composition plus the acting would have been enough to get that through. This movie was not pretentious, it was made to entertain and to let you think about it. Of course the movie had some weaknesses, but the awesome moviegoing experience I had really trumps that. I think you should give this movie a more honest review.
And that comment about the Joker; really? Was that the most clever thing you could come up with? Leave the reviewing to unbiased people who know a good movie when they see one, because Inception was great.
I have to say this review is pretty much on the money. This film was bloated, contrived, and despite the many nice visuals and the (normally) complex nature of dream mostly empty. Sadly it appears most of the world enjoyed it and none seem willing to question how little these scenes had to do with the actual nature of dreams. I wonder if the writer actually remembers his.
It's funny. That review virtually is the most spot-on review of Inception I've read, and his comments section is far more intelligent, too.
I am vrey very VERY happy to have read this criticism, it gave me hope in humanity. Now i can believe that i ain't the only one with a brain on earth. All those review ( très biaisées selon moi (i don't know how to say it in english sorry)), those positive criticism of a movie that can only be compare to a rotten hamburger from a fast food and to twilight just maked me angry and a little desesperate about the people and most of all about the cinéphiles (people for who cinema is their passion).
They said it will be a cult movie, a movie that we will remember. BUT to be great a movie need to have some things (dude i almost forgot everything about the movie 5 seconds after i leaved) like good music, wich is use to change the feeling aof a scene or increase it's intensity (if you need referal, watch the end of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly). It shouldn't be a continuous annoying noise more similar to a dish washing machine than to music. As Mozart said : The most intense part of a music partition is the silence. I don't think Nolan (wich should rename itself Nolame or Noname) understood very well.
It does nothing, exept, maybe get on your nerves. The history is one of the worst too i have seen, boring, not original.
The caracters, we just don't realy know their story. Because even if they talking during the movie ( a lot to much it get boring, some crapy monologue similar to CSI or maybe even worst), we still don't know anything about the caracters. And they could all died i would just be more happy.
The visual have nothing special, and the movie neither.
I would conclude that you were a bit to generous because nothing is good in this movie (music, caracters, visual and art, scenario) and so it would more desrve a 0, as for me, i will tell you that i didn't knew Nolan before, wich mean that my review is totaly objective.
no i dnt think he did that for that, you are too dumb to understand that THIS MOVIE IS LAME, music is bad, scenario iss bad, casting is bad, visual are bad, EVERYTHING IN THIS MOVIE IS LAME. (watch good stuff and you will understand why) you are stupid by the way, not to see a objective point of view of a movie, a bad movie, it's just because you love Nolan, me i dnt know him and so i dont overrate it, and he is gentle with this movie fo i would have give it a 2/10 or a 0/10, wich is what it deserves.
it is not even entertaining, i sleep during some part... i think, or maybe not. but anyway this is no good movie. Overrated garbage. i mean if it wasnt of the socalled "music" of the movie it could deserve like 4/10 or more like 3/10 rather than 0 but it is so lame that I said myself during the movie "where my mp3? Shit, i forgot it at home."
I won't say this movie makes dumb people feel intelligent, I'd say it makes those who think they are intelligent look down onto others by saying it's not an intelligent movie, making themselves superior to the rest of us. Newsflash, if you think you're smart, you're not. This movie was great and 95% of the population who watched this, would agree. Ever heard of majority rules? If 95% thinks this movie was good, then the movie succeeded. A movie's greatness depends on the viewers opinion.
Hey Chad why are you throwing insults just because someone wrote a negative response to a review, i work in the industry of reviewing peoples reviews of reviews andddd im gonna have to break it to you man its a subjective thing, some people will agree with the review and others wont and if you cant accept that Chad maybe you need to take a good long hard look in the mirror cause thats on you man
and btw inception was a great movie its simply sad that some people are to "intellectual" to appreciate a truly entreating and interesting film
One person wouldn't drag down the average that much, and if enough people did rate it badly to drag it down, then that's saying something, isn't it?
Bravo on this review!
Ignore all these pseudo intellectuals who are seizing the opportunity to hold up this film as a kind of talisman for their latent brain power (in reality, viewers who like this are dumb).
I had NO problem following the film at all, it's just that was was on offer was so dull, so unexciting and so poorly directed and executed that I'd rather be watching almost anything than this.
Strip away the layers of faux profundity and you are left with an extremely shallow core. It speaks more about the director's ego than it does about the greatness of movies. The so called 'clever plot' and 'different than usual hollywood stuff' is nothing more than a jumbled construction of ideas taken from other very good movies and baked into a very poor outcome.
This film has left such a bad impression on me, on how it wasted my time from the first few minutes to the last - never delivering on it's concept or expectation - that I never want to think about it again after I've written this review.
Those who think it's the best film ever, I'm very happy you set yourself such low standards.
And to that guy who made the first comment, you've summed up this film's lovers better than we ever could, before you call people dumb be sure to run an IQ check on yourself and make sure you can actually form a proper sentence or two.
I want to watch everyone here collaborate to make some kind of entertaining movie. I bet you all hate Citizen Kane, Roman Holiday, Gone With the Wind, as well. Just because you feel that you want to go against the grain. You want to feel more intelligent.
Nothing is better than reading the same statement out of a large percentage of reviewers on this thread: ' I had no trouble understanding it, but.." or 'I didn't think it was that difficult to follow, however'. You say this simply to convince yourself that you have something of a mind of your own. That you're not riding the short bus.
If you didn't like a movie, why do you all sit around and talk about how you didn't like it? I don't like Britney Spears music, but I don't go on message boards and type for an hour about how much she sucks. What the hell is wrong with everyone?
I know, I know. "But, but, it's movieline.com' and this is the place to bitch about things we don't like. Hey, anonymous, why are you writing about Britney Spears? You're no better than we are. Fag." You're so correct. Because caring about movies is really important. It's a hobby. And even as a hobby, you still have to flame movies you didn't get... I mean, like. Sorry, my mistake.
Oh, I know, I must be stupid, for inferring that you didn't 'get' the movie. Because you're smarter. That's why we're all on a message board.
I will not write a 500 word review on why Avril Lavigne can't write lyrics.
I feel as though everyone on this board bitching about a movie has Asperger Syndrome. You know why? Because if you didn't like the movie, that's fine. But you all call it a waste of money and time, yet log on, and spend even MORE of your time talking about how you wasted time. Fucking morons.
Next » « Previous