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 find it ironic that the reviewer punishes ambition, and yet praises formulaicism.
Inception deserves a lower score than Jonah Hex because it had the ambition to say something? Or is it simply the fact that Jonah Hex was meant as nothing more than a calorie free summer blockbuster, devoid of substance, and in that it was a success?
In my book, being ambitious and failing is still better than succeeding in doing something less than noble.
I have a feeling the low score is just a way of siphoning hits off of metacritic (though, the last airbender and jonah hex are less explainable).
Stephanie Zacharek is arguably the most idiotic film critic alive today. She proves that if she can write a film review, anyone can.
"This isn’t an actors’ movie: None of Nolan’s movies are — the most they demand are stunts and gimmicks, or at best a constipated expression that suggests a character is suffering deeply repressed pain."
YET Zacharek also quotes this contradictory statement:
"Because Nolan can’t connect his visuals, he has to use words, and lots of them, to let us know what characters are doing and why we should care."
These quotes prove my point. Zacharek explains that Nolan's films don't focus on the actors? I disagree, and anyone in the right mind would as well:
The Dark Knight (Zacharek gave this one 50/100 according to Metacritic)
The Prestige (Zacharek gave this one 50/100 according to Metacritic)
Insomnia
Memento
Zacharek is a moron to think Nolan doesn't focus on acting. EVERY SINGLE MOVIE OF HIS FOCUSES ON ACTING!
But I digress. Stephanie, feel free to enjoy The Last Airbender and Jonah Hex and stay in your totally delusional world that those two movies exceed in almost every category and that Inception (and all of Nolan's films for that matter) are a complete joke in comparison. However, the rest of us, which have at least 1/3 of a brain still remaining in our head will enjoy what a real movie looks like.
"Nolan’s aim, perhaps, is to keep us so confused we won’t dare question his genius"
Doesn't sound like a professional critic to me, more like a jealous, prepubescent, little girl
Try judging his films rather than insulting the filmmaker based solely on infantile assumptions
My assumption is that you've concocted your entire outlook on this film from believing yourself to be on a higher intellectual level than the new class of Nolan fan that came out of The Dark Knight's success
All funny stuff, though don't forget, MovieLine predicted this week that Salt will do better at the box office than Inception -- this is step one. I wonder how Steph will feel about Salt? Best movie in a thousand years? Make a prediction (albiet Stephanie doesn't predict BO returns) then wait for it to come true. BTW, I have my Inception IMAX ticket for Saturday night. Don't run it for me...
"Wouldn’t it have been easier just to make a movie?"
Wouldn't have been better to watch the movie?
Ms. Zacharek needs to define what is movie to her after spewing a line like:
"Wouldn’t it have been easier just to make a movie?"
In essence, Nolan failed "just to make a movie," in Ms. Zacharek's view. I'm sure I'm not the only one dying to know just what the heck "a movie" is to her.
"Wouldn’t it have been easier just to make a movie?"
After such a pithy line, I'm sure Ms. Zacharek probably gave herself a pat on her back. I can just see it, pausing and smiling to herself saying "Oooh, this is just too delicious a line, I can't believe I came up with it myself."
The movie world would become a much better place when and if Ms. Zacharek can expound upon her definition of "a movie". Or even better yet, if she can teach the directors how "just to make a movie."
The world is breathlessly waiting, Ms. Zacharek.
I'm not even a fan of Mr. Nolan by the way.
Here's some proof that critics like Staphanie don't matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM3B5u-q2dU
To write a balanced unbiased review is one thing. To go into a movie to review with preconceived ideas about the director and to come back and report on the movie as a heaping pile of crap is entirely another.
"Inception is even more pretentious and overstuffed than Nolan’s last picture, The Dark Knight, a feat I’d not have thought possible."
Tell me if you thought her review was unbiased after reading a line like that. SZ isn't even a good liar to hide her feelings about Chris Nolan all that well. Yet she tries to pass her review as "well-argued, well written" piece to borrow LaFlemm's words. Dude, did you even read the whole review? No credibility what so ever. Movieline would do itself a huge favor by getting rid of a hack like her.
Now I understand this nameless urge inside me to gouge out all the stupid critics' eyes out and spit into their empty sockets. That includes all the more-freudian-than-thou commenters.
I wish I had just half the brain that Stephanie has. Perhaps then I could begin to dream about how "just to make a movie." I'm breathlessly waiting for the day that Stephanie tells the world how to make a movie. Oh yeah, she probably means the gems like "Last Air Bender." Well, Bend Over, Stephanie, I'll show you how this particular movie I have in my mind is made... in your... OK. I'll stop it. I know when to stop. The key question is, well... does she?
Why are you people throwing insults JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE GAVE A NEGATIVE REVIEW??? I work in the industry, and this is a SUBJECTIVE business.
Submit a script to 10 talent agencies, and they will all have different opinions on the script. Some will pass, others won't.
Once you DO gain representation, that same script will go out to as many as 20, 30 or more producers. And you know what? Some will like it, others won't.
The bottom line is, people have different opinions on entertainment. If some of you people can't disagree with the author's opinions without name calling well...that's on you. Take a good, long look in the mirror...because that's where the problem lies.
hilarious, satish naidu literally means "foaming retard"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2ukSJFgCM
Above is a video of Tarantino, which in my opinion is easily just as good as Nolan if not better. He is discussing Kill Bill with a movie critic.
Nolan, please take note how Tarantino totally destroys this movie critic. Perhaps you can use this knowledge against Stephanie Zacharek. We all know it's high time she got what she deserved.
eloquently? sober up. that shag rug reference at the end? eloquence? you should be ashamed of yourself.
This is probably DiCaprio's most mature work as an actor. This is definitely Cillian Murphy's best work.
why would you go to a movie (to escape reality for a minute or two) just to make your self do a critical analysis? That is just too much work. You go to a sci fi to escape, not to create a thesis as if this is a college mid term paper. OMG! It's a sci fi flick!!!! try to enjoy it, not analyze it
I've been reading Stephanie's reviews on Salon.com for years, and yeah -- I absolutely get the sense that she's not a fan of mainstream Hollywood entertainment, except in rare instances when she's trying to be contrarian (The Last Airbender). There's also a somewhat snarky, unprofessional tone to her writing that I see too much of in alternative weeklies and other hipster outlets. That said:
1) I appreciate the fact that Stephanie is willing to offer a dissenting opinion.
2) The level of vitriol and outright hostility directed at Stephanie is pathetic.
Are people really so emotionally invested in a film they haven't even seen that they reflexively lash out at critics with personal insults? Just pathetic. I pray that some of you are 15 years old -- at least then I'd have an explanation for your immaturity.
The older I get, the more I've learned that there is no accounting for taste, and two intelligent and rightminded people can have completely different and equally valid opinions about a work of art.
Get over yourselves.
OK, seen it now. And yeah, it's a masterpiece, and this review is the work of a little child who isn't ready for grown-up movies yet. Bye bye Movieline. It was fun while it lasted, but it's over between us now.
Opinions are whatever.
Don't think too much about this critic's review, but that's me.
Scripts change repeatedly in this business, and many parts of the powers
that be, really don't know what they're doing.
I saw INCEPTION last night and loved it.
It's a story. A visual told story. I don't think it needed
a lot of explaining through dialogue...but I also felt the same way
about Cronenberg's NAKED LUNCH.
I get these movies. I understand and feel the information through silence,
in a visual told story when it's done just right.
Majority of that is in and will always be in the editing room.
I don't like the fact that focus and testing groups and even computer models are slaved over, even in the script writing stage...but I think Nolan has enough power and control and final cut to have
made the decision to make INCEPTION the way he envisioned it.
No bona-fide film critic or anyone in the film industry respects Stephanie Zacharek's inane opinions, much like that of a curbside madman. This is why she'll continue to move onto smaller and more obscure websites, until no one cares to feed the repugnant cur.
Tarantino doesn't let her get a word in edgewise, but it's quite clear he's making shit up. Uma Thurman's character has to get grossly violated in all sorts of ways before she's allowed to actually do any ass-kicking. That's not empowerment of any sort. Now The Avengers, on the other hand (horrible movie, but great TV show) actually doesn't need an excuse to let Emma Peel kick ass.
Hopefully you're not seriously reckoning that we make things up in front of critics and just blab endlessly until they give up talking.
STFU, Chode.
Stephanie Zacharek is a contrarian, a toned down Armond White. She loves to assert her independence from conventional wisdom and show us all how stupid we are for liking the thing we do. She can't even keep it out of her reviews for other films. In her review of the perfectly adequate Despicable Me she took the time to rant about how we are all "supposed" to like Pixar better. Really? No one told me. But she is obviously more insightful since she can see the truly interesting film is Despicable Me. Same thing in her review for The Kids Are Alright, where instead of reviewing that movie she ragged on Winter's Bone, another critical favorite (which I guess means that everyone is supposed to like it) that only she could peg as misery porn, like she did with Precious - another film uselessly piled on in that review. So it goes with Inception. If you like it, you only like awesome things, not great things. Whatever.
True dat.
Well, considering that when we last saw The Joker, he was hanging upside down from a rope, YEAH! I'm interested in how he got down from there. According to what's on screen, he's still there by the end credits.
Next » « Previous