Comments in Inception

Nelsoncarvajal at 7/25/10 5:24 p.m.

@michaelcarvajal: There's nothing wrong with my rating system. The stars are subjective; for a piece of cinema that aims to visually stimulate, it's a 4 out of 5. It's hard to imagine that you can't seem to digest the fact that I am recommending the film.

It seems you have a deep rooted concern for my finite dissection of a simple flaw (which is that "Inception" lacks the vital urgency of 'great cinema') and that worries me. Considering you are part of the moviegoing masses that will defend Nolan to death, I will explain your own text to you:

"Though that may be a more "normal/realistic" dream example, such a change would ruin the point of the film."

Point of the film? What is the point of "Inception"? That we dream? No shit.

Nolan is a very smart filmmaker who here gets handicapped by his own wizardry. He's so concerned with making clear everything that he's doing, that he failed to let audiences imagine anything for themselves.

Yes, I get it. There are "rules." Fine. An elevator that is descending is supposed to represent going "deeper" into Cobb's subconscious (how's about that for directing an audience's sensibility?). Time in dreams is slower than in reality. Fine. There's a possibility of falling into limbo. Fine. With that last shot, the whole movie might be a dream. Fine.

You starting to get it? I understand the movie, I understand the rules, I admire its production, etc. But the cinephile in me, at the end of the day, just wishes Nolan would have taken some of that exactness and aimed it toward some further character development. Who is Aames? Why can't we learn more about Gordon-Levitt's character? Does everybody else on the heist team have a squeaky clean conscious (and therefore have no Marion Cotillards of their own to worry about?)? And on and on.

If "Inception" lent a more sincere ear towards its characters as opposed to only zipping them along for the sole purpose of executing the "rules," then it could have risen above its material.

But it doesn't. So what we have here is a clean, polished, good-looking film that of course will stand out in a summer of "Cats & Dogs 2" and "Grown Ups."

Do you really have the right to resent the fact that I appreciate Nolan as an artist and therefore yearn for him to dazzle me emotionally?

Novice, mind what you write next time and learn not to come down on a writer who recommends the film you so blindly hail.

Michaelcarvajal at 7/24/10 8:03 p.m.

Reading your review makes you sound like you deem it to be a 2.5 or 3 out of 5 (on your scale). Again, I feel like your review is too heavily focused on this "lack of pathos" that you somehow missed. If you're going to claim that you're giving the movie a 4/5, then your review should reflect that enjoyment/admiration more. Reading through your cold review, it seems all you admired about it was based on looks. If good visuals get a 4/5 on your scale, then you should readjust the way you approach your reviewing system.

Is it so hard to admit that it had an amazingly original plot with an interesting take on the dream world? I know a lot of people come down on the film for being too "rule oriented," but hey, it's a vision. I found it to be very daring for Nolan to proclaim a "stable" dream environment, because without it, the story would not work. You can't have a heist thriller taking place in a dream world where the dreamer starts off in a corporate office but then the dream setting changes to his high school classroom memory of staring at his hot teacher. Though that may be a more "normal/realistic" dream example, such a change would ruin the point of the film.

And the film is important. It takes you to a place you've never seen before. A state of dreaming. A future where people share dreams and can be trained to control their dreams and fight against invaders. It's almost like a Dante's Inferno, in a sense, with it's multi-leveled imagining of a person's subconscious.

I'm sorry you were left behind as others were intellectually and emotionally engaged, and it's sad that you think they only believe they were. After reading your review, which is "gapingly imperfect" (as you make many negative claims without reasonable support), I still respect your opinion that it's not a masterpiece. That's fine. I thought it was a great film and definitely want to watch it again. I just think you should lighten up and get off the "I'm-not-going-to-love-the-film-that-everyone-else-will" bandwagon.

Nelsoncarvajal at 7/19/10 10:57 p.m.

Right on, James. Although I ultimately recommend the film for its strong visuals, it's by no way the work of a "visionary" and is light years away from being hailed as a "masterpiece." Jim Emerson, Roger Ebert's editor, hit the nail on the head: http://bit.ly/bSKnHz

Jcpov at 7/19/10 3:10 p.m.

i'm sorry but inception and nolan are the product of a society that so easily and readily buys into hypeand familiarity. i think 80% of people i sat around at amc 21 were confused by what they saw but still came out saying, "yeah that was cool." what was cool you ask? the visuals. when roland emmerich effects become the stamp of genius and masterpiece. but in many ways i guess that is the genius of nolan. not to say that nolan isn't a talented director/writer because he definitely is but come on. he's no pt anderson, scorsese or kubrick. he's turning into a smarter michael bay. a savvy marketer as much as he is a filmmaker and you have to be these days but inception was a film that was so diluted with great ideas but far from being a masterpiece. if inception is a masterpiece so is i heart huckabees.and story aside, what was up with the casting. am i the only one who thought ellen paige looked like she was 12 and looked weird next to leo. and joe gordon levitt too. hmmm....this film was an adult theme film that was clearly trying to market the mtv teen crowd. some really great ideas here but a little too slick and polished in my opinion but i'm not opening a film this abstract at 60 million.

Dfeiferis at 7/17/10 3:41 p.m.

In regards to "masterpiece" - it just might be.  It's been a long, long...long time since any filmmaker, including Scorsese, has made use of the big screen as Nolan has done with Inception. There are no restraints with the storytelling here. Actually, I'd like to hear what Scorsese would say is the better picture - Inception or Shutter Island.



The last time we saw a filmmaker use each and every frame to its fullest potential was with Pulp Fiction.

back to Inception

Screenshot Weekly

Screenshot

CANON T3i Has Arrived

From DP Review:

"Last month Canon unveiled the Rebel T3i (EOS 600D) upper entry-level DSLR. It continues to use the 18MP CMOS sensor seen in the Rebel T2i (550D) but gains a tilt and swivel 1,040k dot LCD monitor like the one offered on the more expensive 60D. It also gains the ability to remotely ...

Incredible Time-Lapse, Tilt-Shift Remix Of Rear Window, by Jeff Desom

Rear Window Remix

This is an astonishing video and if you're a fan of the film it makes it even more astonishing knowing how he put this together in such a beautiful, seamless remix of scenes from the amazing set Hitchcock had designed. This is a real treat. It's the best thing I've seen on Vimeo in a while.

Cinefile