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
This reviewer has no imagination. Her comment about "still waiting to find out how the Joker got off of that ledge he was hanging on at the end of Dark Knight."
are you kidding me? i think it can be implied that Batman CAUGHT HIM & ARRESTED HIM.
and she also says "Nolans movies aren't for actors." Excuse me? Come again?
Have you ever seen a little film called Memento? How about Insomnia w/ Robin Williams & Al Pacino?
How about Heath Ledgers performance in The Dark Knight?
Are these not well-known established actors? Great actors in my opinion. Why don't you think and/or do some research before you spew your childish thoughts all over your keyboard?
By the way, I didn't read half this article because it appeared to be spilling plot spoilers all over the place. I like to be surprised when I go to see a new movie. This review has not kept me from wanting to see this movie, infact I kind of want to see it more. So by writing such a juvenile review of a film, your thoughtless comments have done the opposite of what you intended them to do.
Even if this movie turns out to suck, this woman needs to get over the fact that so many people enjoy something that she doesn't. Sounds like Nolan dumped her in High School cuz she was too fat, and now she's acting out her revenge.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! We saw the movie yesterday, and could hardly get through it...and neither one of us is 'too dumb enough'. I found it to be a ponderous mess that spent way too much time patting itself on the back for being clever. Did not like it. Even though most of the time I don't agree with Ms. Zacharek, I completely agree with her '3'. Don't be hurtin' me "Inception" lovers...
My 16yr old daughter understood pretty well and loved it.
"Wouldn’t it have been easier just to make a movie?"
That has got to be one of the most asinine things I have ever read in a movie review. What on earth is it even supposed to mean?
I can get why someone wouldn't like this film, but this review is amateur nonsense.
SZ belongs to a new school of film critics who seem to believe that being relevant is tantamount to being a sellout. They live in fear of writing a single review that could be even slightly compared with one from Ebert or Corliss or, GOD FORBID, one of those chubby fanboy bloggers who jizz themselves over spy photos of Captain America's shield. No, her job is to make trust fund grad students in Seattle feel good about automatically disliking anything that a critical mass of audiences will possibly enjoy. She is the Puck of the movie reviewing world, the angry kid who'd rather kick over the checkerboard rather than risk playing by the rules and losing. Does anyone believe that she goes to the movies just looking for a great experience, the way Pauline Kael famously did? I don't. I'm pretty sure she goes to the movies with a preconceived list of everything the Pathetically Average Intelligent Moviegoer is going to like or dislike, and then sets about tweaking every item on that list in the opposite direction.
Great review, I understand why people love this film, its exciting, it looks good, and Nolan is incredible at crafting actions scenes. However I was disappointed by Inception, Zimmers score was overpowering and I had the same gripes with the dialogue. Personally I do not believe Inception is a masterpiece, for me it does not tick everybox, and I believe I have the right to think that just as all Inception fans have a right to love it. However they will not succeed in making me like it, and need to except that some people have different taste in films.
Well, you're wrong, Gilgamesh. Considering that Taylor was a man in his 40s at the time, and considering the most hostile responses to SZ are probably from teenagers, I don't see why you're responding the way you are, unless YOU'RE too much of a unbending fanboy of SZ to admit the double standard and hypocrisy involved. You accuse me of holding a grudge, yet all I was doing was pointing out that SZ and her husband (and Kael herself) have a habit of excoriating those who don't toe the line on popular artists THEY happen to enjoy. THEY resort to populist demagoguery when it suits their purposes, so if they're now getting a taste of their own medicine, well, I can't be too sorry for them. Those who live by the demagogic sword, die by the demagogic sword.
Let me paraphrase Taylor's argument for you, since you seem incapable of ceding the main point: Taylor accused Byatt and like-minded readers of ruining literature: "Let's save literature from the literati!" Read his piece again: he really does blame the decline of general literacy on the likes of Byatt, who are labelled "snobs" and condescending elitist haters of the populace because - gasp! - they didn't like some bestselling book some author wrote!
He also accuses Byatt of being motivated by spite and envy of J.K. Rowling's much better sales figures. He really says that. He provides no evidence for his claim, of course. Where does he get off psychoanalyzing the motives of a reviewer just because they didn't like a book he likes? That's not as bad as the vitriol leveled at Stephanie: it's WORSE. Especially since I highly doubt any of the attacks on Steph were written by anyone 40 or older.
Point to one post on this page, Gilgamesh that is more abusive in its reasoning than that. Taylor accuses reviewers who don't love Harry Potter of being snobs, elitists, and ruiners of modern lit. Where on this page is there anything worse than that levelled at Stephanie?
And why is something her husband said irrelevant? She's married to the guy. They almost always agree with each other, express the same tastes, and sometimes even write published pieces on a shared byline.
Dearest Stephanie, most of the questions you ask in your review can be answered by paying attention to the film.
Great discussion (minus the 15 y.o. venting). I've never been on this site, but learned more about reviewing movies and the reviewers by reading every comment (I'm retired with little to do!) I didn't like Inception very much -- it didn't pull all the threads together for me, but I can see how many would enjoy the "rush" that the action produced. There is too much emphasis on extra-speed action, in my opinion (due to my age and not liking jerky, hand-held camera techniques.) I will definitely keep visiting this site -- especially for a controversial reviewer like SZ.
Gilgamesh is right on this occasion, Chris: you've teed off at her and accused her of hypocrisy on the basis of something her husband wrote. Pulling apart his writing further is getting you nowhere. "Sometimes they write under a shared-byline" - okay, quote examples from something they wrote under a shared byline. Then you're halfway - at best - to making the point. But in arguing that her writing, opinions and manner of expression are absolutely interchangeable with her husband's, geez, you must know you're riiiight out where the buses don't run.
Chris, there are so many "Paulettes" out there, I don't think being one of them was an automatic gateway to being favored by Ms Kael herself (may she rest in peace). But I'm interested to hear where SZ called Nolan's audience "suckers, dupes and credulous fools", or why you think because Kael believed something SZ would automatically believe it too; wouldn't that be absolutely the opposite of what Kael always championed in film criticism - a fiercely independent, personal engagement with cinema?
Inception is a film that makes stupid people feel intelligent (and there are clearly plenty of those on this board). It's entertaining but ultimately somewhat hollow.
Inception is a film that makes stupid people feel intelligent (and there are clearly plenty of those on this board). It's entertaining but ultimately somewhat hollow.
This review is spot on, thank god someone can see through the hyperbole, like many storytellers Nolan is weak in final act, he has trouble bringing it all together, so he spins a top.
His dream world lacked imagination, guns, shooting, skiing. Is that the best he can come up with? The dream world is not about boys with toys, look at Jungs Red Book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_%28Jung%29 for an example of the glory that can be explored inside the consciousness.
Congratulations, you wanted to stand apart from your peers with this review, and you've done it! You and Rex Reed, unlike every other reviewer with any standing, saw through this movie, revealing it as trash. Sadly, this comes off as a stunt, and so obviously contrived as to be an embarrassment. Well done.
Hahaha– wow. She hated this movie AND The Dark Knight? How does she have a job as a movie critic? She didn't understand the film at all, and yet I was drinking when I saw Inception, and I still could easily follow the story.
Just because Kael **claimed** to value independence of mind doesn't mean she actually did. Not long before she died, she mentioned David Edelstein, Charles Taylor, and Stephanie Zacharek as the three best reviewers working today. All three were card-carrying Paulettes, and two of the three were such overzealous Paulettes copied virtually all of Kael's own opinions and estimates of various actors and directors. Kael could have named anyone from Kent Jones to Matt Zoller Seitz to Janet Maslin to Jonathan Rosenbaum to Manohla Dargis, but two of the three she named just happened to be the two most fervent, lockstep devotees of hers who've ever lived. Proves she didn't treasure dissent, not really, but was a typical guru (like Ayn Rand) who liked being worshipped and adulated.
Sorry, Cantankerist, but your logic doesn't begin to hold up. Unless SZ publicly distances herself from her husband's modus operandi, it's perfectly valid for me to bring it up. M Lep accused SZ's detractors of crossing the line of civility. I pointed out that SZ's spouse has a habit of crossing this same line, even employing much of the same logic (i.e. you're a nasty, bigoted snob if you don't toe the line on critically acclaimed blockbusters). Unless SZ is willing to openly denounce her husband's regular modus operandi, my point stands.
"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."
Um, he was pulled up, and the cops moved in on him. Right there on screen.
I think Stephanie raises some reasonable questions. The heart of her review is that Nolan is just showing off with plot twists, special effects, and the work adds up to an "ungodly tangle" despite an intelligent and elegant appearance. It's not a movie with a narrative core, and he's not making a film, rather a compilation of cool moments and plot twists. This was not my experience with the film. I didn't find it hard to follow, and did see the elegance. The dreams-within-dreams wasn't about tirelessly showing off, it was how they were planning to fulfill their mission and how Cobb was supposed to find his way home. I didn't think the twists into limbo were just about pretty images and surprises--it resulted from Cobb's problems with guilt about Mal and the attacks from Fisher. Although the last act is somewhat leaden, I did feel underlying threads that connected them well enough to engage me throughout rather than just surprise and awe me with twists and cool images.
Also for a lack of visual storytelling, yes Nolan goes overboard on dialogue with exposition, but clearly images do convey narrative at several points. I think most people pick up a sense of nostalgia and feelings of being haunted from Marion Cotillard.
I found this counterpoint powerful:
http://www.culturesnob.net/2010/07/incepted/
SZ's points are critical and well articulated, but I would respectfully disagree.
No, he wasn't, and no, it wasn't.
While this is hardly SZ's greatest piece, what's the point of ripping Chris Nolan for the millionth time and repeating everything you said about him before? I wouldn't try anymore either.
Inception was a complete mess, and quite frankly, I'm rather offended by its cynical nature. There's a demand for twist endings: that's where stuff like Shutter Island and The Sixth Sense comes from. And Nolan is simply filling that void and pitching it to the lowest common denominator. The more you think about Inception's plot points, the less sense they make. The dialogue is just endless explanations, of backstory, of characters, of rules of the dream world, yet for each explanation you get, more questions come up. How hard would it be for Dom Cobb (surely the worst character name ever) to simply perform Inception again on his wife (since it was obviously very easy the first time)? And why, exactly, is everyone so careless that they don't realise their sedatives would keep them trapped in "dream limbo"? If Cillian Murphy's mind was trained to fight against dream thieves, how come only one person on a motorcycle is shooting at the crew in the first dream level? And if Leo is sharing a dream with his crew, how can he be dreaming and everyone else be awake? And what if Cillian Murphy wakes up and decides to discard the idea planted in his mind? And why, if you shouldn't make dreams out of entire areas, does Ariadne make a whole dream out of Los Angeles? And don't even get me started on Joseph Gordon Levitt's LOL-worthy explanation of why inception is impossible. The answer to ALL of these questions is "There wouldn't be a movie otherwise". Nolan makes rules, and immediately breaks them soon afterward, and we're apparently not supposed to notice. Well, guess what, Nolan? We did. And you're an LOL-worthy hack.
This movie bears almost no relation to The Matrix.
Obviously, this review was posted to DRUM UP SOME COMMENTS, and guess what: Mission Accomplished.
6 comments for the Sorcerers Apprentice review.
2 comments for some Irish movie about Kisses
173 for Inception Sucks, The Review
Hmmm. Who's the moron now?
No one really cares about the comments section. And besides, Zachareck has a history of not liking Chris Nolan movies, and since this one is his worst, it's only apt.
That's Batman Begins. In The Dark Knight, there's virtually no reference to the place, certainly nothing to suggest that's where the Joker ends up.
Next » « Previous