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
"In the movie’s climactic scene — or, rather, one of its numerous climactic dream-within-a-dream scenes — a character gets chased around a snowy mountain by guys with automatic weapons. Who are they, and where did they come from?"
They're projections of the subconscious, and they take the form of soldiers with guns in every level of Fischer's dreams because he has been trained to resist idea theft in his subconscious mind.
Were you paying attention?
You do realize, Ulrich, that Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Ayn Rand, amongst many other gurus, are long dead? Yet there are countless individuals who still take all their opinions and beliefs from them. No contradiction there at all.
Yeah well Trace, there was a reason for that. Since Zacharek, together with her husband and fellow critic Charles Taylor, is one of the two biggest copycats of Kael there's ever been, no wonder Kael "respected" her. It must've been very flattering to have such a reverential clone: must've made her feel connected to the next generation. That doesn't prove anything about Zacharek's abilities, however. The only "fail" here is yours.
M Lep,
Are you aware that Steph's hubbie and fellow critic, Charles Taylor, once wrote a blistering, bilious attack on Harry Potter detractors for not toeing the line on J.K. Rowling's literary talents. In particular, his venom directed at A.S. Byatt simply for panning one of the Harry Potter novels was every bit as strong as what you're witnessing here on this page. Taylor's level of vitriol was certainly comparable to the vitriol aimed at Zacharek for her Inception pan. If she can't take it, she shouldn't dish it out: or she should have a word with her significant other about his fanboyish paranoia and vindictiveness, which is every bit as bad as the most abusive rant ever hurled Stephanie's way.
I'm so glad I read this review because it total captures the sad truth about Inception. It is a rambling nightmare. Lots of skill in execution, but no substance or sense. Just cinematic gobbly-gook. Good on you for having the guts to call it what it is.
Go back to Salon STEPHANIE ZACHAREK
"And according to the movie, Arkham Asylum doesn't exist."
In Batman Begins Arkham Asylum is shown quite clearly and is a major part of the third act, so...
Are you seriously suggesting that Ms. Zacharek deserves to be pilloried for something her *husband* wrote, and 7 years ago at that? Way to hold a grudge, Chris. There's so much wrong with that "logic" I hardly know what to say.
For the record, I went and found the Salon piece you referred to, and while it's certainly a vehement response to Byatt's op ed piece, not once do I think Taylor stoops to the kind of invective that's been heaped upon Ms. Zacharek here. And what would a 7 year old piece by another writer have to do with this movie review anyway?--unless it's to prove to all us lesser beings that you know to whom Ms. Zacharek is married and that somehow makes your opinions about her review more worthy. Talk about fanboyish paranoia....
God, I just made the mistake of going to see Inception. Boy did Stephanie Zacharek ever get this one right. Pretentious drivel masquerading as profound thought--I know. I know. I'm a moron for not seeing the director's exquisite genius-- with moderately interesting special effects. Nolan is so out of his league, and this is the guy they are comparing to Kubrick. Kubrick must be spinning in his grave.
Every question you insultingly ask of the film is answered within it. Either you weren't paying attention, or it simply glanced off. Either way, this has got to be one of the worst film reviews written in more-or-less competent English that I've ever read.
The remainder of your critique is of the cringeworthy "how I would have done it" variety. This is not good criticism. Evaluate the film based on the film, not on your own expectations, or you have no business reviewing movies.
" 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."
if you thought it was 'awesome' why did you give it such a poor review? it obviously achieved something.
I think she's either using "awesome" ironically or in a sense something along the lines of shock-and-awe.
I frequently disagree with Ms. Zacharek, but if you're going for the cheap "you must be too dumb" shot then either you haven't read enough of her work (not just here, but from her tenure at Salon) or you're just being an ass. Whatever happened to being able to strongly disagree with someone but still respect their opinion?
I loved Inception, but I do agree that insofar as Nolan has weaknesses, they're related to getting the audience drawn into the inner lives of his characters. Inception is viscerally thrilling and refreshingly cerebral, but I wouldn't call it, say, passionate.
More generally, I for one like reading smart critics with whom I frequently disagree. I find Ms. Zacharek to be a very articulate, very perceptive, and often clever writer, and those are always good qualities. She's especially good, I think, at analyzing individual actors' performances. When she's critical of something that I didn't have a problem with, it's often because she's noticed something I didn't, or approached it from a viewpoint that, while perhaps incompatible with my own, is still valuable insofar as my exposure to it can improve my overall understanding of a movie.
Critics don't have to agree with you on everything in order to show you something useful or enlightening.
"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."
Thanks for playing 'Credibility', the world's greatest game show! Nobody walks away empty-handed - here's the family board game for you to play at home!
Seriously - you rate it "at least a 7" WITHOUT SEEING IT.
Still, I guess YMMV. For me, Memento was interesting; jokers talking up Insomnia need to see the original; Batman Begins was a good effort, but also showed signs of what SZ is talking about here - it wandered from plot point to plot point without ever building up much emotional resonance. Dark Knight had great visual sequences and a good performance from Ledger, but by its last third it was collapsing into frantic dashes between set pieces, interspersed with awful, cliched dialogue. Nothing was emotionally involving; it used a teenage-grade nihilism-lite to paper over the gaping holes in characterisation, yet by the end it was betraying even that dark-pop stance. That closing monologue about "we'll hunt him because he can take it" was just cringeworthy, plain embarrassing. The Prestige I haven't seen, nor Inception yet. I'll watch them and make judgements according to what I see and hear onscreen - not according to Magic Fanboy powers...
Stephanie,
You obviously hate movies so why do you do this for a living?! If you aren't fired soon I will be SHOCKED!
I took it as referring to movie-as-spectacle, the current phenomenon where we're supposed to bow down before budget and scale irrespective of whether any human connection is made with the film. "Awesome" and "great", as she indicates, are two separate things, current popular misuse of the former word notwithstanding. It's worth noting that "awesome", in some contexts, can be used interchangeably with "awful".
"Amy Kane passed on Big Fat Greek Wedding and will never live that down, imagine what their [sic] going to say about you."
I'd suggest that Amy Kane is already living that down, and MBFGW is unlikely to be knocking Citizen Kane out of top spot in movie remembrances to come. I'd also suggest that good moviemaking is not wholly a question of budget, nor of box office - kinda what SZ's review is about, when (/if) you think about it.
I've read through all the above criticisms of Stephanie Z's "Inception" review, and I can't say that most of them are attributable to ignorant fifteen-year-olds.
I can only hope they are.
I'm sorry to repeat what so many others have posted. But all vitriol and vehemence aside, any person that says Jonah Hex is a better movie than Inception should not be reviewing films for a living. This is not a matter of taste, is an objectively absurd position. Ms. Z is free to dislike Inception, if you don't like her reviews don't read them. Having said that, I would urge movieline to fire Ms. Z, because much like my dad she likes crap movies.
What a donkey
I hardly think the Chicago Sun Times or the Observer in London is gonna come a calling for your imbecilic thoughts on film.
I have never seen this site before; no idea who it is for but clearly not for people with any serious interest in film
Too much CGI? Nolan actually tried to minimized use of CGI and do as much on set.
"(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.)"
You do realize that just because a scene isn't shown that doesn't mean it did not happen. Or do you suggest we show every time someone has to go to the bathroom? It wasn't essential to the story. He was caught, the cops were there. Do we really need to see the process? Get a grip.
Stephanie definitely takes some stands that would raise eyebrows. Here are some of the movies that got mixed to negative reviews. If you look at a fair number of "acclaimed" movies at meta-critic, she was one of the lowest scorers for several.
No County for Old Men (Andrew's review from Salon was on metacritic, but she wrote a mixed review of it)
There Will Be Blood (!!)
Brokeback Mountain
Letters from Iwa Jima
work of Hayao Miyazaki
Up
Up in the Air
Everyone's entitled to their views, though. Every review should be considered with a relatively open mind. Stephanie still has valuable and thoughtful insights on a lot of movies. Considering stuff like what she said about Pixar and Winter's Bone in the video reviews, Nolan in this review, and HM in reviews of Howl's Moving Castle and Spirited Away.
I do think what makes the comments more intense is while Stephanie writes well, she can be pretty snarky. I think it leads detractors to feel even more alienated.
I wish the discourse could be more polite on this stuff. Can we "agree to disagree"? And do so, politely? Probably not the latter, which is unfortunate.
Wow. How many words to say so little...
Get an editor, woman! Reading your review is like eating cheetos. 90% air.
This is why they shouldn't let woman publish stuff.
Next » « Previous