Now Playing: Stephanie Zacharek's Video Review of Inception

sz_inception_video_review_225.jpgSo you might have heard Movieline's chief film critic Stephanie Zacharek had some problems with Inception. Along with a few other pans heard round the world (literally), the review has provoked more than a little discussion among fans of Christopher Nolan -- and that discussion will only advance this weekend as the film opens in theaters. With that in mind, let's talk!

And: Let's keep it civil! It's just a movie, people.

<embed

type="application/x-shockwave-flash"

id="player-241949"

name="player-241949"

src="http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/_/jw/player-licensed-viral.swf"

width="500"

height="282"

allowscriptaccess="always"

allowfullscreen="true"

flashvars="autostart=0&playlist=none&config=http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/playlists/config.xml?2010-08-24-08-25-00&file=/sz_videos/movieline_sz_inception.flv&image=http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/images/sz_inception_screenshot.jpg"

plugins="acudeojw,gapro,viral-2&viral.callout=none&viral.onpause=false&gapro.accountid=UA-1915907-26&gapro.trackstarts=true&gapro.trackpercentage=true&gapro.tracktime=true&acudeojw.progId=4af229940e9cc"

/>



Comments

  • Bob says:

    All hail S.T. VanAirsdale and his/her persistence on rationale.

  • Chris says:

    "We read cynicism and skepticism and snark into things whether they're there or not, muted or overt."
    Oh gimme a break. Stephanie is easily one of the snarkiest critics in the business, you know that. Or you SHOULD know it. Look: let me make something crystal clear. I'm not a Nolan fan. I didn't care for The Dark Knight that much. Okay? I'm not even a DiCaprio fan, really.
    But SZ rarely builds any serious argument for her tastes. If she'd devote even a fraction of her energy to seriously thinking through her ideas, working out all their implications - and if she were the slightest bit consistent in her tastes - she'd be a much better critic. Instead, she seems to take the greatest care in polishing up her insulting, condescending one-liners. Are you really so blind you can't see what an incredibly snarky, sarcastic writer she is, and always has been?
    She's like a kid in the schoolyard who mocks the other kids and points at them and makes fun of their unfashionable clothes and the braces on their teeth and their "that was so last year" hair styles. That doesn't JUSTIFY the other kids ganging up on her to beat the shit out of her - there's never a justification for that - but it does make it very UNDERSTANDABLE why they reach their boiling point and react that way. Why are you SURPRISED at the response she elicits?

  • hamburglar says:

    ST,
    Face it. She just has a track record for awful taste. And this video review is just awful, without a single true criticism that changes anyone's perceptions of Inception. It's merely her opinion of what she didn't singularly like. A great critic - like say, Jonathan Rosenbaum - has the ability to write well and make me ponder films I don't like regardless of our difference of opinion. She's entitled to her opinions, but her judgments as a critic don't necessarily point out to whether or not she's right or wrong, just that she merely has bad taste.
    And her arguments don't stand up. I can't believe she couldn't see one whit of audacity, intellectual curiosity, interest in the form and shape of how a movie functions on a dreamlike level, questions of how we turn perception of reality into belief of reality, or the sheer sensuous and hilarious pleasure of Joseph Gordon Levitt floating a bunch of people around in Zero G.
    And she also misses what are some real, actual forgivable problems with Inception.
    The fact of the matter is Zacharek has a habit of giving pans to films that are generally much loved, and her critical faculties on display do not hold up. All she has to say against Inception is that there is a lot of expository dialogue - which there is, but there's a metric shit ton of other awesomeness in the movie - and she doesn't believe in Nolan. Well booty for her, because audiences do.
    And ultimately let's face it, what has Zacherek's mark on the face of film criticism been other than hating on some beloved movies? How many people would like to actually state they've decided to go see Jonah Hex on the strength of her brilliant writing?
    SPOILER ALERT: Zero.

  • Patrick McEvoy-Halston says:

    Re: "No one ever said leave the passion for politics. We cherish all our writers -- including Stephanie -- for their passion. What I said was don't reduce a conversation about this movie to an assaultive free-for-all. That is not passion. That is abuse. So I'm passionate enough (or maybe naive enough, you tell me) to demand a little better quality dissent from readers -- especially those who insist on being empirically right, which makes no sense in film criticism anyway. That's fair, isn't it?"
    In hiring Stephanie you got yourself one hell of a film critic, but also one you knew would really antagonize fans of (the likes of and including) Nolan -- I'm assuming, a decent portion of your fan base. You (effectively) baited them: YOU "crossed the line" (if you forgive the Movieline pun and Dark Knight reference), and so then, did they. Did you really think that fans of Nolan's works, people whose self-esteem to some extent rests in their appreciation of his genius, who maybe were prone to look to the film for transcendence -- a tomorrow-changing, elevating "mind fuck" to be shared with their equally expectant and elected friends -- to push them further in-sync with his accumulating genius, and maybe also of the type to cooperate in this outcome if the film alone couldn't get them "there," are the type to be expected to be adults, resist all baiting and keep the debate civil while still passionate, just after witnessing their great occasion having been preemptorily savaged and rendered miniscule and already-done by a home-base website? It's difficult to believe you are / were that naive. Perhaps instead -- and to quote You've Got Mail: "Whatever [they] said last night was provoked, even deserved. [They] were expecting to see someone they trusted, and met the enemy instead."
    You claim that in saying that "it's only a movie, people," you weren't in any way scolding or showing yourself opposed to PASSIONATE replies, only out-of-bound vitriolic ones -- that you should still be imagined as being (apparently evidently) actually very much FOR the passion I misread you to be implicitly arguing belonged only with ostensibly much more substantive life-or-death stuff, like politics. But reminding people it's only a movie isn't evidently something you'd say just to shut down ABUSIVE comments, but rather ANY kind of substantial emotional involvement: if someone writes that they lost it at the movies, you don't assume they've lost themselves to angry expletives, but to what-they-know-would-be-deemed indecorous, intense, unbounded and passionate involvement with the sort of subject-matter everyone civilized know as (essentially) but a pastime lark. The context of your reply, you might remind me, was OBVIOUSLY informed by the abuse, the intention to not just mock but to destroy that we all witnessed here last night. But my reply to that is that it is at least as much informed by the current rabid eagerness that's been developing in some quarters to judge all commenters on websites -- everyone who lives there -- and maybe the whole net itself, as being damnable for their constant evidencing of their enthrallment, level of obsession, absolute lack of control -- for not being anywhere sufficiently DISpassionate, appropriately UNinvolved as much or more than fairly INvolved -- more than it just is their bile.
    Referring to what happened here yesterday, the Guardian today talked about the "torrent of bile" but mostly objected to the excess, the degree of involvement displayed -- the "zeal," the "hysteria," the lack of form -- and its lack of distinction -- the "gooie[ness]": they wanted to ground proper passion (which Stephanie evidences in her "typical meticulous weighing of evidence"), and delineate the acceptable response, which is NOT "enthusiastic," NOT "excessive," and NOT (for example) "aggrieved" ("I simply can't get that aggrieved about ... ") -- being largely unmoved, it would seem: i.e., what we normally think of when we think of being passionately involved with something. The Stephanie defenders on the thread, you noticed, took care to finish their defenses by lambasting those of such lamentable lack of self-restraint that they had trouble even ATTENDING to a differing point-of-view, let alone accepting one. It wasn't the venom, but that they -- unlike themselves -- had proven themselves guilty of a lack of self-control, of suffering the consequences arising from their being too long enthralled and lost in their obsessions -- and in their own self-pride (and even good luck, it seemed), you weren't sure just how unhappy they actually were with this "discovery."
    What I'm getting at is that this whole thing has the feel (at least) of a set-up, part of a regrettable societal movement to push and prompt people to act in ways that make them look unrescueably "lost," punishment / abandonment-worthy -- what we've decided we want them to be -- and commend those who shrink their level of personal availability -- their soul -- to the point that what they now put on the table isn't so much to make them likely to be aggrieved, or moved, by anything -- not "just" movies.

  • Andy says:

    I love Stephanie.
    She obviously knows pretty well that her words provoke fanboy rage - and she looks almost a bit delighted by that fact.
    Cool lady.
    The really brilliant thing is that those fanboys who think they are all so remarkably clever because they are rooting for this movie just prove that they are at least not exceptionally independent thinkers - plus they tend to be rude, which is a bit out of place when you're talking about a movie. That might prove they are not as bright as they love to think of themselves. I guess you just have to see the trailer to expect a pretty hollow piece of eye-candy. Add to that the experience of past Nolan films and you have every right to expect another nihilistic stunt that's manufactured to appeal to the wannabe-cool guys/cineaste elite all over the planet. Predictable.

  • "The context of your reply, you might remind me, was OBVIOUSLY informed by the abuse, the intention to not just mock but to destroy that we all witnessed here last night. But my reply to that is that it is at least as much informed by the current rabid eagerness that's been developing in some quarters to judge all commenters on websites -- everyone who lives there -- and maybe the whole net itself, as being damnable for their constant evidencing of their enthrallment, level of obsession, absolute lack of control -- for not being anywhere sufficiently DISpassionate, appropriately UNinvolved as much or more than fairly INvolved -- more than it just is their bile."
    Again, you're reading way too much into it (though I sincerely appreciate your extended consideration). There was a movie review. There was a slew of hate, much of which had nothing to do with the movie. There was another movie review. There was the instinct to encourage civility -- based on prior experience. And here we are again.
    So... I tried. Should I have presumed it's a fool's errand? Maybe, but I have more faith in people -- particularly people who love movies -- than that. The alternative is way too depressing.

  • Patrick McEvoy-Halston says:

    Thanks very much for your respectful and considered reply, S.T. VANAIRSDALE. I like your faith -- a lot. It's not a fool's errand, but informed by this reaction, you'll know maybe in future to have two reviews, perhaps, of certain key films -- saying something to the effect of, hey, we LOVE Stephanie, but we know she can absolutely hate films that other independent, strong-minded people like Roger Ebert can just love, so we'd like to offer you a couple of perspectives here -- and maybe the reaction (from some at least) would be tempered a bit, and maybe you'd just get the full backing and support from people like me, and not just our involved, passionate challenge, who know there was something pretty substantial about you to go after and get someone so interesting and challenging as Stephanie in the first place. I used to read your magazine a long while back, and really liked it, and was pleased to hear it was still around. Much appreciated.

  • Nolanoid69 says:

    Freddy Got Fingered is way more avant-garde than Inception could ever hope to be.

  • Kevin F says:

    I just saw this movie, and I came to it with almost unrealistic expectations. It blew me away. I felt like I was a teenager again, watching a movie destined to be in the canon of required viewing. The mere notion of how painstaking it must have been just to write, let alone execute, something so big, ambitious and ultimately successful baffles the mind. This review is just poor and much more a stab at the anticipation of the film rather than the film itself. I'm pretty sure I just saw movie history. Fight Club got panned by some arm chair quarterback writers (see: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,271238,00.html ) who hadn't the first clue the difficulty and scope of truly original film making. This writer didn't get the film at all. Just the fact that she says that Cobb's wife "may or may not be real" is completely ludicrous. I don't think there was one person in the audience who really pondered this. And I just cannot really understand the statement, "it's not about structure." Thanks for telling us what it's not about it and simultaneously and blatantly misrepresenting the picture. This is Christopher "Memento" Nolan here. All his movies are completely conscious, actually slavishly obedient to their established rules and structures. The actual full review is even worse. I, and many of the commenters here, aren't saying there is a negative review of this movie that Inception fans will not acknowledge the validity of, but this isn't it. This isn't criticism. It's backlash at the genuine zeal and anticipation so many of us had for a blockbuster with a brain.

  • TimB says:

    "whose wife may or may not be real."
    LMFAO. What an idiot.
    As if anybody in the audience wondered "Hmm.. is that woman REAL in those dreams?"

  • They will just respond that you were charged a "sitting fee", so no refund will be given.

  • Adam Aragon says:

    You seem to approach this review from the petulant view of a spoiled child. Everything didn't make sense or 'wow' you enough so you've decided to rip it to shreds. Your critique is poorly represented and almost patently false.
    You are, for lack of a better term, a complete hack.

  • Trace says:

    Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing Jonah Hex at all, thanks to her writing. So TWIST ENDING: UR WRONG!!

  • Trace says:

    All you posters who rank on Airbender are hypocrites. Nolan piles arguably much more expository dialogue and with arguably less impressive CGI (it's like he had leftovers from Roland Emmerick' 2012), yet he gets called a genuis, while poor M. gets called a hack? Gimme a break!
    And while Airbender's themes of spirituality can ring true until you die, what-if-this-world-isn't-real bullshit should cease to be fascinating by the time you're sixteen and/or off the weed.

  • Trace says:

    "Just the fact that she says that Cobb's wife "may or may not be real" is completely ludicrous. I don't think there was one person in the audience who really pondered this."
    Of course not, but perhaps saying that she isn't real would give away a key plot point. Remember that whole SPOILER ALERT thing?

  • Donald says:

    Funny thing is that I highly doubt that Stephanie even reads these comments. I think she used to reply to comments occasionally at Salon - but undoubtedly the stupid vitriol was just too depressing to face.
    I'm puzzled at some reviews (even negative ones) that laud Nolan's technical ability or craftsmanship. I've said this again and again - but the man does not know how to direct action. He NEVER lays out the geography of the scene. He shoots in medium shots (i.e., the Mumbasa chase scene, which is absurd), such that you never get a sense of a body moving through space. I guess you could mark a marginal improvement in the lighting of Inception over Dark Knight. But it just amazes me that viewers somehow think or believe that a confused and clueless visual style somehow translates into the confusion of someone being chased or shot at.

  • Even so, high heels usually are not about functionality and ease - if what you wish are the sexiest, highest heels you can get and you simply don't mind how impractical they are (you could cushion them using the latest gel pads to make them a bit more comfortable) then go for it - select the thinnest, highest (5 or 6 inch) heels with minimum strapping for a beautiful sexy appearance all summer, ideal to slip on with all your new summer outfits at the parties you may be going to this summer.

  • Donald says:

    I'm guessing this remark from Japanese Fashion somehow got routed to this thread by mistake. And also that this isn't even a review about Inception - but still, I love it. That's the sort of actual dream-like randomness that MAY have helped Inception...
    My girlfriend swears by high heels and does use the gel pads (with minimal, elegant strapping) as you suggest. If we're out walking for a while, she'll start complaining, I'll ask why she never wears pumps or more sensible shoes, she says I know, I know. Guess it's our shtick... But yes, I see what you're saying!

  • Donald says:

    oh, actually, this is a thread related to Inception (I thought it was in a thread on Stephanie's review of Salt). Wonder if Angelina's wearing high heels...

  • marina says:

    I think some of you folks need a life, anger management, or therapist - or all three.

  • scott says:

    Everyone is entitled to her own opinion, but a 3/10 is just sick. Other people have pointed out her weird tastes (for instance 'Salt' got an 8,5!!!?), and not without good reason. I trust Stephanie Zacharek's taste in films about as much as I trust her taste in hair styles.

  • Aaron K says:

    I think Ms. Zacharek is right in her 3/10 review. I didn't like this film and here's why: Its too explicit, way too much talking. If you have to tell me that something is important all the time then it probably isn't (the Ariadne character is particularly bad at selling the importance of the information without looking right into the camera and announcing the exposition.) Also its a dream movie that isn't dreamlike at all! There is no abstraction in these dreams, they actually get more realistic as they go further down (apparently the in-flight movie was GoldenEye.) I think Christopher Nolan understands that movies have the ability to operate on different levels (that may be what the movie is all about) but he didn't make a movie that actually did that, he made a movie that talks about it without demonstrating it.

  • scott says:

    I'm not saying it's a perfect 10. But it's definitely better than a 3. People who don't get that are just being pretentious (like Stephanie) and extreme with their own narrow opinions. Stephanie can't even write a cogent review, for christ sake. You thikn she actually knows what makes a good movie? She's just like 99.9% of the rest of us who just know what we like. And btw, if you're a critic accusing mainstream filmmakers of being pretentious, then you're a f***ing idiot. Your profession is inherently pretentious, dumbass.

  • Dana Corley says:

    I read a similar article on a different blog and didn't see the point, but this article is much clearer. Thanks!

  • Trace says:

    It should have been a 2. The fact that people can praise such nonsense is a sad state of affairs in modern culture.