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 film critic (if you can call her a critic) is either too dumb or has personal issues with nolan or jealous of his universal success or like this other guy said has been dumped by nolan in high school for being too fat or too dumb.But I will have to go with too dumb seeing some of her other reviews.
Guys, also check out Jim Emerson's blog .He actually quotes her review to make to criticize Nolan like it is a literary masterpiece of reviewing.Its hilarious, he should read some of the comments here. Wow !!!!! to what lengths people will go to make themselves a laughing stock.
Did you not see the cops coming to get the Joker on the ledge my visually impaired friend? (yes Stephanie I am talking to you)My god she has surpassed herself in being STUPID (who else can she surpass considering she is the STUPIDEST of the lot)
This is a sad review by someone with an extremely minority view of what makes a 'good' movie. In short... a minority opinion. Ignore it. This IS a work of genius and in 45 years of moviegoing, loving all types and genres and directors, I don't say this lightly. Is seems Stephanie just wants her 15 minutes of fame by being 'different'. Well... I guess we're giving it to her! But someone has to set the record straight. Get another job, girl.
Consider This " 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." Dear Stephanie first you have to accept the fact that you are STUPID and BRAIN DEAD.Come on, do it ,acceptance is the first step.You already have so many incorrect notions of the movie that you cannot make neither head nor tail of it,just imagine what would you have done without the "helpful explanatory dialogue" that Nolan provides.
Good review, I don't agree with it completely, however, I do think that Zacharek makes a few valid points, about the special effects, was there too much explaining, probably. Is there a better way of getting the audience to think it out with out the talk, maybe. Not liking a film doesn't mean it is a bad film. Is it really necessary to know, "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." Get over it, Ledger is dead. The wonder of it all is that we get to debate film and take away either more support for our own opinions, which in our minds - count more than anyone else - or that we have picked up some new insight to ponder about. Guess what the Sorcerer's Apprentice is an okay film, not worthy talking about unless you are a teen aged girl and the story touched your puppy love heart. The important thing is that Inception is getting us to talk, and form our own opinions and share them. http://dld.bz/npQv
This is your central defence? "the courts recognise the ethical and personal significance and centrality of the marital bond"? Wrong, Chris - the courts recognise the financial significance of the marital bond. That is, quite rightly, their only concern. Your original quote to which I was responding, by the way, used the words "immediate family" - my father is a perfectly fine example. And I'm glad you didn't see fit to accuse me of xenophobia - it's a delightful way of highlighting your habit of making assumptions though. What made you assume I was American? (I'm not.)
The reason why Inception is not just a compilation of cool moments is that none of the Special Effects/CGI/Action sequences are out of context or unnecessary like many other visually extravagant movies.They perfectly fit with the storyline and plot of the movie.
But Chris, I'm not defending Taylor's stances - honestly, I haven't the slightest interest in that - I'm simply highlighting the obvious logical flaws and assumptions you've embedded in your argument, which you keep helplessly adding to with each post. The Bloom stuff I can't speak to at the moment - I'm on an iPhone, ironically enough at a film festival box office - so I'll keep it simple. Example to support your original, central conceit please - example in our society where a spouse is held answerable for their partner's position. This is the third (at least) time I've asked for one example of something *you* championed as a bonafide planet-wide indisputable principle. (I'll generously ignore the fact that *you* seem incapable of reading and responding to every point in a post, since I can't do the same this time either.) This time, all I ask: that one decent example that backs your position up.
Awaiting your reply with eagerness!
Hey what about the level of vitriol in her review. She makes the most scathing and hateful remarks in her review and dont tell me that she is entitled to express her opinion. If thats the case even I have an opinion to express about her that she is a mentally deficient yet pretentious and snobbish self titled connoisseur who would do anything to attract attention.
ANDY DICKENSON you are right.This critic represents an extreme minority.She also represents the DUMB and VISUALLY IMPAIRED and MENTALLY DEFICIENT she also works for the cause of the LOSERS of the world including David Edelstein , Rex Reed , Jim Emerson and many other people who have achieved ZERO in life and cannot stand the enormous success of far superior and talented individuals who I will not name here as there is no need of doing that.
Fair enough - if you feel she's dismissive of your opinions, I guess you have the right to dismiss hers. For mine, I think you sell her incredibly short.
"films that were generally more significant than the ones she praised."
More significant! Unpack that if you will!
"my life doesn't revolve around hanging on to your every word, as if manna from heaven"
Clearly not, if you cut them off! But yes. Sorry. I'm sure it was an accidental omission. 🙂
You do keep presenting opinion as if it were fact, though, and when asked to substantiate that opinion, you can offer only... someone else who agrees with you without offering substantiation. Look, there's just as many anti-Kaelites as pro-Kaelites out there, and I totally respect their opinions, but for the most part they have the common sense to realise that ridiculous hyperbole like "she shares the blame for destroying movies" is for the birds.
You are repeatedly unable to control yourself in this respect, and that's kinda sad, because there's clearly a well-educated cineaste in there with a case to press - but you keep shooting your argument in the foot. Comparing the artists you like and she dislikes to Kafka, Woolf, Joyce et al and the reverse to Jim Cain et al is making the same mistake that your quoted article did: reducing her tastes to a high vs low argument. In "Fantasies", La Verite and Hiroshima Mon Amour come in for a pasting, but so do Twelve Angry Men and The Defiant Ones - hardly stuff of the arthouse cinema. Are there no celebrated auteurs who just don't do it for you? There sure are for me, and I would certainly go so far as to call some of them on the dubious groundings of their intentions. And if I felt an audience were swallowing those dubious groundings whole, without question, but still maintaining the posture of discriminating consumers of quality cinema, I like to think that I would call them on it too.
God, there's even more trolls here than at the Apple antenna discussions. Sure, every may disagree with a critic, but do you have to be so dumb and crude about it?
I may not always agree with Zacharek, but compared to most of you she's a genius.
What are you, scared that the movie you liked (or think you will like, in case you haven't seen it yet) wasn't really good? What kind of behavior is that? Like what you like, and be proud of it. Critics are here to tell you what they like, in order to help you decide, not tell you what you like.
If you think a critic should always be a voice of the masses, go watch the grade on IMDB instead. And if you think that critics are only here to tell you that you're always right, just sign yourself off the net and please don't reproduce.
You don't write the wife a ticket for speeding if her husband's behind the wheel.
"this film is not for those who want entertainment..."
...which is why it sucks.
Once again you keep dodging and weaving. The issue is not that Kael attacked *12 Angry Men* and *Hiroshima Mon Amour* alike, the issue is that *even when a movie she sneeringly dismissed - like the aforementioned Eclipse - inspires strong, in-depth analysis and commentary - like the piece I linked to* - Kael continued to thumb her nose, as if by pretending rigorous analysis of any movies she disdained didn't exist she wouldn't have to address it. Of course, with so many servile apologists in the media, she didn't have to. She liked to pretend fans of movies she disdained were all inspired by vague, gauzy, inarticulate feelings - when they weren't simply pretending to like what they liked - she liked to present herself as the one great truthteller, the one independent spirit in a sea of mediocrity. *But her assumption was wrong insofar as many movies she dismissed inspired and continue to inspire precise, detailed, intellectually rigorous commentary* - she was wrong about *the nature of the response*.
There are no "wrong" tastes in art. If someone thinks Dostoyevsky couldn't write his way out of a paper bag, in one sense the only response is de gustibus. *But it would be wrong to pretend that an abundance rich, in-depth analysis and intepretation of his work isn't available, regardless of whether one personally feels enthused about his writing*. Kael was entitled to hate whatever movies she felt like. She was *not* entitled to go on pretending, year after year, that no other critic had ever produced rich and detailed readings of any of these films. She was not entitled to a lifetime of blissful ignorance, to a lifetime of self-deception vis-a-vis alternative readings. In her *5oo1 Nights at the Movies* she dismissed *Eclipse* as "some like it cold: even Vitti seems to have given up on this one." You would never know from her flippant, glib dismissals that Antonioni's work has inspired a treasure trove of in-depth, close analysis like the essay I linked above.
As Kent Jones remarked about the difference between Sarris and Kael: for Sarris movies were innocent until proven guilty, whereas for Kael they were guilty until proven innocent. I may not agree with Sarris' choices much more often than Kael's, but he went into the theater with a more open-minded attitude (e.g. after first panning *2001*, he went back and revised his initial dismissal into qualified praise). Kael, of course, of famous for bragging she never needed to see any movie twice - she was able to catch everything she needed the first time - she never re-examined or rewatched anything at all, thus never having to admit she was wrong. This close-mindedness has been inherited by many of her attitudinizing descendants, who are more interested in coming off as hip and cool than being penetrating analysists. They'd rather get off a clever, witty one-liner (Anthony Lane's another like this) than perform a rich, detailed analysis like the *Eclipse* one I linked above. Kael did more than any critic to domesticate adolescent sarcasm and "above it all-ness" in the reviewing pages, and elsewhere; as Renata Adler noted,
*I still think that her style of reviewing, her method of reviewing, had a huge impact not just on the way reviews are done, but also on the way journalism is done. This way of just flying at things, and insulting people you don't agree with — this whole sort of hype and insult style of opinion has, I think, demonstrably affected reporting.*
And if you want evidence Adler's right, just look in the mirror. For you yourself could actually read Charles Taylor's garbage and not see anything wrong with it. "Just flying at things, and insulting people you don't agree with" - what better description could there be of Taylor's modus operandi, where he's happy to invent nasty opinions and attribute them to writers and critics he hates?
Trace, you're conflating *legality* with *morality* and *character*. We don't send people to jail for being hypocrites, but we *do* make note of the hypocrisy. I was simply commenting on the absurdity of painting Zacharek's detractors with the same broad brush, as if some jackass calling her a cunt was representative of all her detractors, and apart from that, I simply wanted to let *M Lep* know that, while his defense of Zacharek was valid so far as it went, *her hands in this matter are not entirely clean*. There are shades of gray, you know: not everything is black and white. She's not coal-black because she's married to a demagogic writer, but she's not lily-white either. It simply *is* relevant that Stephie's significant other has a regular habit of berating people in almost the same fashion as *M Lep* took issue with. *M Lep* wasn't *wrong* but I was showing the other side of the coin here, that's all.
See my reply to *Trace* above.
100% in agreement with Kit. I personally thought the movie was pretty bad. Not confusing. Not bewildering. In fact, it was very straightforward despite Nolan's best efforts to be non-linear. It reminded me of a video game minus the pleasure of playing it. First, there's the driving stage--the rain indicating that its on the "hard" difficulty setting. Then there's the "ice level," scenes during which I kept falling asleep out of lack of interest. All the while, it keeps cutting back to the van driving off the bridge. Why? Just to give you a pointless visual reminder of something that was already explained--repeatedly. And then there's the heavy handed metaphors. Zacharek mentioned the elevator descending into the "basement" of the unconscious. Or breaking into "locked safe" of the mind where one's inner most secrets are kept. Actual dreams do not present such obvious representations of things. They are much more amorphous and weird. Nolan's dreams are dreamlike in the most superficial, unfulfilling way. He's got the whole defiance of the laws of gravity down but the feeling of dreaming isn't conveyed in the slightest. And this man had the gall to say that "no one has ever done anything like this before." I can think of several directors who've done it better. The Sopranos is a good example as well as almost every Terry Gilliam film. There are many people who I respect that loved this film and I respectfully disagree with them.
SZ did not understand the movie due to her mental deficiency so she is angry with the director for making an intelligent film because she got confused-- how dare you make a film which a DUMB person like me cannot understand ? make something like salt which matches my INFERIOR TASTES and INTELLIGENCE.
i just like the doug henning comment. brilliant. or maybe i'm the only one who remembers doug henning.
you know why? because when points all get sumed up on metacritic, people see 74 points and say "uhh, what an AVERAGE movie, i want something better"
then 2 things happen: they miss out on this jewel of a movie (specifically), and
other studios see that originallity is met with apathy, and get back to funding shitty "for the stupid masses" movies (not the case of this movie, since many will see it anyway but other less hyped movies that are GOOD get draged down). i'm not saying that your opinion should be that of the majority's, far from it, and having an opinion is very good, but when stating it publically you shoud properly analise it before, as well as its possible consequences. to those who didn't see the movie yet :go see it. to those who have seen it already, go see it again, you'll understand it better
SPOILERS
Umm, if I'm honest I was a little bemused by the film. I got it but I didn’t feel a great connection to it. When walking out with my friends we were agreeing that we thought we enjoyed it but we weren’t sure.
I think for me because of it mainly existing in dream worlds, it's hard to feel any real world threat or danger in the action scenes.
They are well filmed but you don't, well I didn't, feel any connection or a feeling of peril for the team. When you've people emptying handguns and machine guns into cars and only one person gets hit (and you feel that was added purely to add pace) it just feels a little hollow.
When the film starts in a dream, then you think you are in reality but discover it's still a dream and then think you are in reality but it's a further dream it blurs the line so much between what is real and dream that you lose a sense of grounding.
There's no real detail into Leo's life or the company orchestrating the dream walking and hence although what happening on the screen is pretty on the eye, it's not really resonating.
An example (and this is in the trailer so not hugely spoilerish) is when a character is trying to take out a bad guy with a small assault rifle and then a crew member comes along and tells him he needs to think bigger and takes him out with this massive gun.
Now one assumes that he just had to think of a bigger gun and it appeared as he didn't physically take it with him. Hence if you are conscious whilst in a dream, surely you could do anything. So instead of getting a bigger gun, you could drop a nuke on him or possess superhuman powers.
The point I'm making is that when you say there is no rule book, it's hard to maintain tension by showing scenes played within the semi physical rule book that we know of but the director has said doesn’t exist. I don't know if that's clear.
For instance The Dark Knight was a far better film for me because they placed it in the context of a real world city and location. The scenes, the setting, the characters had more impact because you could 'latch on' or 'identify' with the real world that you knew. In Batman Begins it made nods to this but then the whole Gotham City with it's overblown buildings, slums and intrusive monorail jarred against this and un-anchored it from the setting that you would normally place it in.
I remember reading that Nolan had always wanted to do a Bond film and the snow sequences certainly looked like that but that was the thing. They looked like them but they felt empty and going through the motions because there wasn’t a real feeling of peril. You were constantly reminded that it was a dream, it was fantasy and as such ‘bad guys’ were despatched with the resonance of a computer game.
I just feel that the film got a little carried away with it's belief in it's own cleverness. There is also a niggling thought that by saying you don't like it or 'feel' it, you will be accused of being someone who only likes the low brow, point A to point B, Michael Bay esque films. Hence I think there is a good chance of many people saying they like it for fear for not being considered a dullard.
So although from a technical POV it was very good, acting was top notch, film score enjoyable I just felt it lacked something.
jennifer's body was a terrible movie, but i still love megan fox!
That's one more than I gave it, assuming it's out of 10.
Stephani--I've never read your reviews before but this one is spot on. "Nothing at stake" and your comment about how Nolan filled the film with exposition to make up for his lack of visual sense are spot on.
Next » « Previous