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 love it! Read aloud with a dodgy French [or insert other European] accent, you sound like an evil villain. Hahahah! [That was my Count von Count, btw]
I have't seen a critic act this unprofessional since Joel Siegel started screaming at the screening of "Clerks 2".
Didn't she give Transporter 3 and A-?
ahaha, you thought you could get away with this ms. zacharek? according to rottentomatoes you have bad taste.... clearly you are just not an educated person, much like mr. ebert, who has not even played our era's finest artistic achievement, metal gear solid 4. owned! owned again by the internet!
That is just too dumb enough!
That is just too dumb enough! I mean, seriously... WTF are you talking about??
Hi Stephanie,
I would really want to applause the prose. My god, I just love the way you write your reviews. I still remember your last para on Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York, or that brilliant piece on There Will Be Blood.
For me, it is your is what matters, and if it is a one contrary to my tastes, it is all the more beneficial. I am a fan of Christopher Nolan, and I believe, he is one of the most compassionate filmmaker out there. Like Michael Mann. Like Johnnie To. I can, well, feel it. But I always cherish your views, not merely because they are so wonderfully analytical and catch the secret of the trickster's trick (like the guys in The Prestige), but because they are such superb reads.
God bless you. Who says movie criticism is dead?
Indeed, Mr. Edelstein. This is a glorious review, and indeed one you might have written had you played a little more attention to let your review be capable enough to do the talking, and not let you feel helpless to jump to other sites and involve in mud slinging.
Come on Sir, you're a professional critic. You, of all the people, ought to be taking the high ground.
Write nice thought-out reviews as this Sir, one with such beautiful writing. Does anyone really care for anything else?
Like 95 percent of the people commenting on this review, I haven't seen Inception yet. Regardless of reading this review or others, I was always indifferent toward it given that I thought the trailer looked poor and I'm not particularly fond of Chris Nolan's previous films.
What is most striking here is the utter vitriol directed at a critic who has eloquently and honestly delivered her assessment of this film - highlighting problems which have been evident in this inanely overrated director's previous films.
I can only conclude from the tone and content of these comments that some people are just terrified of being made to look stupid, and these comments taken together with those being slopped on to the end of negative reviews elsewhere (as was the case the TDK) prove beyond all doubt that stupidity is certainly not painful, but may be contagious.
Especially on the internet.
Pete, Ireland
I've disliked all of Nolan's films and I'm certain I wouldn't like this one either. The reviewer says alot about his past films that I've thought myself. Good to know this one sucks too.
"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?"
The implication is that Nolan aims for the lowest common denominator by wowing the more simple-minded moviegoers with overblown cheap gimmicks. She's implying that Nolan, and Inception as a film, don't demonstrate any particular artistic care.
"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."
They'll say nothing, because Chris Nolan is not the world's most beloved film-maker. And quite frankly, even Stanley Kubrick has his share of nonbelievers. Besides, it's no suprise as she has a history of not liking Chris Nolan's films.
"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."
LOLWUT? Why would her boss tell her to grant The Last Airbender an average review? Average reviews don't translate into any sensational talking points and certainly won't provoke any outrage.
She gave it 80, according to Metacritic. But even so, that's hardly suprising: most of her reviews praise Jason Stathams movies.
And also Transporter 3 is pretty good.
What's so unproffesional about calling Nolan's pretentious BS for what it is? I've certainly seen far nastier reviews written about him.
Except that she doesn't complain about getting lost in the plot. She complains that the plot is all there is to the movie, which is basically what everybody else who hated it is saying. It's completely removed from the human experience. There's no joy in Nolan's movies.
Except that it wasn't in the movie. Try again?
I read your review, Mr. Edelstein, and it called attention to a greviously false statement that Inception apparently takes as given: “The subject’s mind always knows the genesis of an idea,”. This is a grotesquely false statement, as the mind usually does NOT know the genesis of an idea (especially since those ideas tend to come from unconnected sources). So -2 points for Nolan.
"Who has a better track record, Nolan or Stephanie?"
I have read perhaps 3 SZ reviews that were completely off-base and just plain wrong (and not even in the subjective sense) out of the hundreds that I've read from her. I've seen 3 Chris Nolan movies that were ok at best and boring and forgettable at worst out of the 3 Chris Nolan movies that I've seen. I'd say Zachareck has the better track record.
Pete, a critique of a film is not just an evaluation of that film but of the film-goers that are drawn to it. So if a reviewer analyzes a film and concludes that it is the equivalent of fat, slow-witted and flatulent, s/he has effectively said something very telling and damning about those who see it and think they've found their god. There were a good number of times while watching Siskel and Ebert where you'd see that after one of them had finished their obliterating a film, the other would pause for a moment out of feeling shaken, out of being horribly offended. Siskel would finish his review of, say, Casino, and effectively say that if you like this film you're way too easily pleased, a bore and a nincompoop, turn it over to Roger, and Roger would be begin by boring his eyeballs into Gene a bit -- far too hurt and stunned just to role on to his take -- and then eventually stutter out the equivalent of "I ... am ... not .... a ... nincompoop!" (and Gene would finish by saying, "if you like this film, then you are, Roger. Sorry, but you are.")
They were often MORALLY disappointed in one another, but remained friends, not just because they respected one another's independent opinion, but because neither was habitually inclined to like films the other could only see as appealing to absolute moral retrogrades. If Siskel was still alive and indicated that he actually rather liked (say)"Observe and Report" (which might have been the case), be sure their friendship would have been severely tested and possibly even over. Ebert likely would have told him to see a psychiatrist / priest -- and not just as a jest -- and you know that two centuries earlier, they would have been honor-bound to have a go at shooting one another.
In hiring Stephanie, it may be that what Movieline has done is the equivalent of sitting a therapist in the company of a patient, have her listen pleasantly and nod agreeably to the enthusiasms of said patient who assumes that for her to be in his home and in his company she is likely to be his friend, and then, after taking copious notes, turn her pad over to her patient to read while she absconds off elsewhere to chat with someone a little more sane. The patient reads the notes, learns that in their love (of the like of) "Dark Knight" they have revealed such lack of sanity and groundedness that, rather than bored by it, they lose themselves in its "alleged darkness and moral complexity"; are mentally undemanding enough to be impressed with lazy film-making; are so inherently base / low but ridiculously upwardly-aspiring that they see "genius" in "pretentious poot, dumped onto the screen in a style that pretends to be fresh and energetic but is really only semicoherent," and then (quite rightly) reacts as if they've been shat on. They scramble for some kind of self-esteem-rescuing retort, but are hampered by their feeling punked, by their feeling betrayed, and by their foe being no longer on the field for feeling no sympathy with it. They stutter out some interneteeze cursives anyway, which in this case draws upon them a few more (momentarily descending) aristocrat's mocking jeers -- which the site then highlights, in cooperation and affinity (what wit!) -- leaving them doubly taken aback and humiliated.
If Movieline knows its audience to be composed of those likely drawn to Nolan's works, then since they could have found a chief critic "of independent opinion" who sees something worthy in his works (not Ebert, of course, but his like), in hiring Stephanie they have effectively put the snob before the philistines, inducing them to wish her the Christian amongst the lions. It may not be so much that they fear independent opinion, but that they don't like being laughed at. Not fair to the fans, nor to Stephanie. Its audience may be different than I'm taking it for. Hope that's the case.
Well done! I liked the 'Inception' (didn't love it), but your criticisms are spot-on. I'm just grateful that there's a movie worth arguing about.
Hey - how come Edelstein gets a fancy beige box around his post?
Please refer to our new FAQ for your answer.
You wanted to watch him take the elevator down?
Patrick Mcevoy-Halston - if your intention was to sound like a comlpete a55 while also try so show off some hundred dollar words, therefore confusing anyone with a normal brain who reads these posts, congratulations! as far as the movie goes and what i think you are trying to say, stephanie is not nor will ever be a credible reviewer imo. christopher nolan is a top 5 director, and without seeing this movie yet, i already know there is no way it is a 3/10. this movie will be no doubt at least a 7. Stephanie, you and Patrick get a combined score of 1/10 for your reviewing and posting skills respectively.
Again, you are probably spending way too much time and effort writing your ridiculous drivel on here. but its also kind of fun replying to it. so keep it going! Actually, your posts are written very similarly to Stephanies reviews. are you Stephanie? hello?
Agreed. In half the review you had no idea what you were talking about. See the film again, understand it, then review it. Just cause you're an idiot and don't understand it doesn't mean a negative review is warranted.
Next » « Previous