When the theatrical trailer for the upcoming September thriller called Devil hit the screen at a Friday showing of Inception to a packed Burbank audience, it seemed as if everyone in the theater was engrossed and intrigued with the concept. That is until the following words hit the screen: FROM THE MIND OF M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN. And then everyone started laughing. I mean everyone. Shyamalan has tarnished his name so badly that it is now dangerous for him to associate his own brand with his films. My hope is that one day the same can be said for Christopher Nolan.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Leonardo DiCaprio in "Inception."
It’s easy to credit the American movie-going public with having the highest theatrical IQ of anyone in the world. Yet somehow whenever a Christopher Nolan movie hits theaters, that all seems to change. And then all of a sudden, routine movie-goers magically turn into amateur movie critics, declaring films like Inception to be the cinematic equivalent to the messiah. Professional critics themselves search for reasons to boldly resurrect Christopher Nolan in all his glory as the Pied Piper of Hamelin, leading us through the dark annals of Michael Bay’s 21st Century Hollywood nightmare. “Hallelujah for Christopher Nolan! The most brilliant filmmaker in the history of worldwide cinema.”
More like the most brilliant illusionist. Chris Nolan’s movies (and this discussion can exclude Memento, which I think most can agree is a fantastic and sensible film) have a strange power of turning theater-goers’ brains into mush, convincing them that what they have just seen is better than any imaginable vision of heaven. I bet this all sounds pretentious–and to some extent I hope it does. Because taking the stance I’m taking may be the only way to get people to see the same thing that I’m seeing. Which is that post-Memento Nolan is a talentless hack who pulls the same brainwashing gimmicks from film to film.
It really is as if viewers are dreaming under a hypnotic Chris Nolan spell when they watch his movies, disabling the functionality of their brains once the credits start rolling. Equally baffled by this is David Edelstein of NY Magazine who “truly [has] no idea what so many people are raving about,” claiming that “it’s as if someone went into their heads while they were sleeping and planted the idea that Inception is a visionary masterpiece.” In fact, so many critics are in overwhelming agreement over the greatness of Inception that Roger Ebert questions whether or not anyone is allowed to disagree!
Working hard? Or hardly working?
Addressing Nolan’s struggles at making sense of his own script, Movie Line critic Stephanie Zacharek admits that “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.” This is why 99% of the film serves an expository purpose. Zacharek further remarks that Nolan’s lifelong reliance on Hans Zimmer’s score as a means for anchoring our interest into what we’re seeing on-screen makes Nolan less fit for “directing” and better suited for “directing traffic.” No truer statement.
The musical cues tell us when we should feel anxious or afraid instead of allowing the visuals and emotions of the film to achieve this (which clearly they’re incapable of doing). Hans Zimmer’s score (which, eyes-closed, pleases the ears) is so heavily relied upon by the incompetent Nolan that the entire film plays a 2.5 hour+ non-stop musical track. The track even plays during exposition. It plays throughout everything. Remove this track and I promise you that each person steps out of the theater complaining how much of a bore Inception was.
Adds Zacharek, “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.” From this I take the following: Special Effects and visual imagery now supersede quality stories with competent scripts and technically-sound directing. Avatar brought new meaning to this. The Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese and PT Anderson among others are continually working against this.
Inception is a great concept for a movie. But the movie itself serves as little more than a misinformed psychoanalytical instruction manual with little to no story or characters worth investing emotions in. Sure we find it cool. Some of the visuals are candy to the eyes. But I can’t help but think about how much of a rip Inception is off The Matrix. If I had to rename Inception, it would be “The Matrix (for dummies).” Have we no sense of recent film history to pick up on this? Every little thing that happens in Inception has to be explained. Nothing is left to the imagination. The whole reality vs. the dream world concept is recycled for the worse.
One false notion is that Inception is confusing because it’s “supposed to be”–it is a mind-bender after all. No! Inception is confusing because it makes absolutely no sense! Let’s stop giving the director credit for not doing his homework instead of making excuses for him. Nolan has done a poor job of creating his story and a poorer job of defining the boundaries of the story’s world. Rex Reed of the New York Observer agrees, adding that “[nothing] adds up to one iota of cogent or convincing logic. You never know who anyone is, what their goals are, who they work for or what they’re doing.” These are things which must be addressed. Moviegoers habitually give credit to directors like Nolan for “blowing their minds” when in fact the sum never adds up to all of its parts.
Let’s talk the whole “Dream within a dream” nonsense. Dream-themed films such as The Matrix, Total Recall, Strange Days, Dreamscape and even the original A Nightmare on Elm Street define the rules of their worlds well enough without relying too much on exposition. Having dreams within dreams within dreams within dreams is not a calculated strategy of Nolan’s, but rather a cop-out. The 2010 version of A Nightmare on Elm Street uses the same strategy. It’s technically acceptable to use this strategy so long as there is an indication that one dream has ended and the next one has begun.
The story-line is laughable and seems to only serve the hollow purpose of making the $160 million + summer psych-thriller into a run-of-the-mill Bourne Identity-like actioner. In the disastrous disaster flick 2012 we had something “on-the-line” to worry about: hello? the end of the world?” With Inception the value of the story is so insignificant and the characters so flat that there’s nothing to invest in emotionally.
Casting-wise, Inception is an utter mess, reminding us that Ellen Page is still Juno and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is ultimately too boyish for the big screen to be the next leading man outside of an art film (Shia Lebouf is doing an ok job and he’s five years younger!) As much as we all embrace post-Titanic Leo DiCaprio, his typecast is becoming a nuisance at this stage of the game and he’s simply overexposed. Michael Caine’s presence in this movie is a complete joke and another reminder of Nolan’s recent Batman blunders. And listening to Ken Watanabe is like trying to guess the English translation of R2D2’s dialogue in Star Wars.
So no people. I will not see Inception an additional time to have my “mind blown” or to try and see if I actually “get it.” I get it completely and I hate it. I got The Book of Eli and I hated that as well. Films which we need to see more than once are more often than not failures from the get-go. Inception is no exception. If you care to see Memento more than once then I encourage it. The movie makes sense and the story is told purposefully and brilliantly. But come on now. It’s about time to start lambasting Chris Nolan and seeing the rest of his movies for what they really are: garbage in disguise.
Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.
I disagree with all of this. Although, I’m actually surprised that more people aren’t dissing “Inception”, seeing that there are so many dumb people in the US. I bet half of the people who’ve seen this don’t understand it at all. Based on this movie alone, Nolan was genius and thats proven by being able to grasp something so complicated and put it into film.
Oh, and you saying, “I get it, and it makes no sense” means that “YOU DON’T GET IT”
You are asking yourself why nobody is seeing the truth about Christopher Nolan–why they’re all so blindfolded to what’s apparently very obvious. Have you ever considered the idea that YOU’RE the one in the wrong, and that everyone else is right? That’s a dangerous thing to say about something that really matters in life–for example, if you were the only person to believe that slavery should be made illegal, then I do hope you wouldn’t question your motives simply because everyone else was against them. But this is a movie! It’s entertainment. To get so worked up that you can’t connect with a movie in a way everyone else can is not worth the effort.
This would be fine if it were the other way around–that is, if everyone else hated Inception, but you loved it. That’s you putting out a positive emotion and telling everyone how you enjoyed the movie. But to be so vitriolic about a movie everyone else loved (and why, exactly? It wasn’t like there was anything offensive like in “Facing the Giants”) simply makes for a very negative post that isn’t much fun to read. And supposedly being the only person who sees the light is arrogant and unattractive.
If you didn’t like the movie, just come out and say, “Hey, it didn’t do much for me. I don’t dig Christopher Nolan’s style.” And we’d all accept that (well, those of us who are reasonable and worth gaining acceptance from). It leaves us free to enjoy what we enjoy, while you get your chance to share your own opinion.
you are the biggest fucking jackass I have ever had the displeasure of reading a review from. you obviously have absolutely no taste or appreciation for good cinema and no functioning brain parts able to decypher an obviously well thought out, unbelievably original, complex plotline. go rent ‘a walk to remember’ and jerk off at home. and stop writing movie reviews because you have absolutely no right to.
Ahh, here it is, an article that completely opposes majority opinion. I am not denying it. There had to be some critiques out there on a ‘grand-scale’ to entirely ‘bash’ a film. But Seriously? To this extent?.Few critics asserted similar views when Dark Knight came out (and it was excessive in my opinion) but to call Nolan’s Batman movies ‘atrocious’ in your own terms is pretty laughable actually.
Dark Knight was something different (at least for the comic book genre). So is Inception (for sci-fi). Regardless as to how it was presented, it might not have made you dwell about it further after the viewing, but it made me continually think about the plot. Just like Memento, the first Matrix, and several others. Sure some movie-goers are being very expressive about this film, but its mainly because it is something new to the cinema and they just have oppose the general consensus. I am 20. I have not seen many movies from the 60’s-80. and many people have told me, those years hold a lot of valuable films to Hollywood cinema. What I am basically trying to say is that, other than Toy Story this year, what film has been presented that shares something different with the audience? Okay. Lets not even consider this year, lets look at this past decade or in the 90’s. I have not seen a movie that has had this kind of lasting effect on me and probably many others. (Ok that maybe a little extreme. I have appreciated plenty of movies out there). However, none of them had me think about it for several days. Dissecting different ideas ..etc.
I can’t believe I actually replied to this article. I have seen negative comments about this film, and some are true. But I don’t think there is one positive thing here. Either you are an unique individual that doesn’t appreciate movies like this one, or you just really really hate Nolan movies (except memento…clearly).
Sorry good sir, but I entirely disagree with your article/post. I hope there are others who disagree with you as well.
“Films which we need to see more than once are more often than not failures from the get-go.”
This is probably the most retarded statement in the history of retarded statements. Charlie, you’re better than this.
The people have spoken, clearly. And I thought the Danish cartoonist had it rough.
JMW, your theory seems rooted in the fact that dissension and opinions outside of the majority are not only unwelcomed, but rather illegal. The fact that you’ve written an essay’s-worth in response to this post is your own form of dissension.
Adam: Explain the film to me and I’ll gladly post it on this blog. But you better be damned sure you know what you’re talking about.
Joe K writes that Inception has “an obviously well thought out, unbelievably original, complex plotline.” Really? Hm. News to me. Go tell that to the Wachowski Brothers. Or Paul Verhoeven. How about Spielberg. An obviously impossible discussion to have with someone like you, whose film history spans ten to twelve years.
Robert: Thinking about a film for several days does not make it incredible. I thought about Tyler Perry’s Madea Goes to Jail for a damn long time. Doesn’t mean I liked it one bit.
Zach: I was keen enough to qualify my statement by saying “more often than not.” Let’s not split hairs here. Seeing THE SIXTH SENSE more than one time is rewarding for obvious reasons.
Your what is wrong with “film” critics. I have no problem with you not liking the film or the director, that’s fine. But, the reasons you put forth show your clearly just to be a hater. Anytime a great deal of people say how great something is, hater’s automatically go and try to find something wrong with it. I mean come on, the idea that Inception is the Matrix “for dummies” is a joke. The movie only vaguely represents some elements and every idea has an origin from something else it’s as simple as that. Then, to just berate Nolan for how he uses the music or that to say that you know how the logic in a dream within a dream should actually be, really? Also, the idea that Nolan’s views should only coincide with yours is ridiculous. Every film has to fit in the exact parameters you give it?
I agree that that the movie lacks much emotional depth and that Nolan really doesn’t leave that much to the imagination. But, isn’t it nice not to see another sequel or ill-conceived summer blockbuster. Isn’t it nice to see something with a little more originality and that doesn’t so heavily rely on its big name actors. You can keep hating all you want but, to blast someone else’s ideas for not being exactly in line with yours only shows your narrow-mindedness but, thats what films are all really about: being close-minded, right.
Andrew James: “But, isn’t it nice not to see another sequel or ill-conceived summer blockbuster.”
For starters, yes some might say it’s “refreshing” to see a summer non-sequel blockbuster. But the film is by no means original. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here by giving Inception the benefit of the doubt “for not being another sequel.” Do you take that stance with all films you see? Movies should be considered on their own terms, not relative to the timing of Hollywood releases.
“Isn’t it nice to see something with a little more originality and that doesn’t so heavily rely on its big name actors.”
Hello? Leonardo DiCaprio?
“I have no problem with you not liking the film or the director, that’s fine. But, the reasons you put forth show your clearly just to be a hater. Anytime a great deal of people say how great something is, hater’s automatically go and try to find something wrong with it.”
Clearly I’m a hater for having an opinion. So what does that make you then. To be clear, I honestly didn’t hate the film–I just thought it was painfully average. Nor did I like the film. The review is more a critique on Nolan himself and his habits as a director.
But to classify me as a hater or a troll is absurd. I don’t go on people’s blogs posting 1-2 sentence responses to their blog posts. I wrote a carefully thought out essay that would serve as a foundation for positive discourse. That being said, I have thus far not seen any comments which take (according to your theory) a “non-hater” approach.
Ok, I agree that movies should be based only on there own merits. Also, the movie has been given all these positive reviews on the elements of the movie in such, not just because Leonardo DiCaprio is in it, that’s how I meant relying on big name actors, they were not only just pushing his star power for this movie. And, your certainly allowed to have a opinion, I said that. I said your a hater because you want your views to be matched by Nolan’s, the movie was over for you before it ever really started.
How can you call yourself a non-hater when you write things like :
“Shyamalan has tarnished his name so badly that it is now dangerous for him to associate his own brand with his films. My hope is that one day the same can be said for Christopher Nolan.”
That doesn’t sound very constructive nor mature to me.
I have my dislikes as well, but I never found it necessary to bash a director just because a movie wasn’t to my liking.
Well, I will absolutely agree about the music bit. The score was lovely, but excessive and LOUD. At times, I couldn’t even hear the dialogue! However, I don’t know if I’d go as far as to throw “Inception” into the pile of manure that “Avatar” resides in.
You seem to feel positively about the Coen Bros…I wonder if you ever grow irritated with them? I mean, they’re pretty routine as well. Same plot (more or less), but we’re supposed to accept it as their “style?”
Just curious.
Ps: The typical Ellen Page role would be soaked in sarcasm and rough around the edges. Were there even traces of that in Ariadne?
Hmm. Well, that was an interesting viewpoint in that main article. I think it could have done without the inflammatory parts but it was worth a read nonetheless.
Personally I’m not quite decided on Inception just yet. I know for a fact it is a far better movie than Insomnia, or worse The Dark Knight which was a complete mess what with all the irrelevant plotting (hockey mask Batman copies, the death of Rachel, the bombs on ships etc). Not sure if it will measure up to Memento/Batman Begins, which I love, and The Prestige, which I love even more and might just call Nolan’s best work to date, but like those films I’d have to see it again to be sure.
Honestly, vary rarely do I think his films are amazing the first time I see them. In the cases of Insomnia and The Dark Knight I knew I’d never want to sit through the whole thing again because they were deeply flawed, but the others warranted further study. I’m glad I did, because when I was able to fully absorb the stories and make sense of the audacious use of layers I realised they were great works. Inception has all the hallmarks of being another one of these.
I’m not at either end of the scale: I neither adore this and want to line up to kiss Chris Nolan’s hand like so many over on iMDB seem to, but neither do I think it’s entirely without merit. I’m reminded of when I saw Synecdoche New York too… I was blown away but not entirely convinced, to begin with. Again, after getting to grips with the density of the film and finding the emotional core that I wasn’t sure was there the first time around.
Incidentally, Inception does have quite a few emotional arcs; it’s not the cold and dead, unrelatable piece Charles seems to think it is. He must have missed the massive amount of screen time that was given to Cobb grappling with losing the love of his life, the amount of regrets about leaving everything and everyone behind. I’ve had dreams like that and thought, in it’s own abstract way, the film was pretty accurate. We can bury things deep in our subconscious mind, but somehow they’ll find a way to push through no matter what.
Sure there was some sci-fi storytelling license taken, what with the dreams within dreams, and there were the odd holes I noticed. These were all small enough that they didn’t cripple the story: it would have been better for the enemy “antibodies” to have had some kind of leader or characters of their own, Saito’s motive should have been clearer (i.e. he wants the idea implanted to stop Fischer’s company smothering the competition) and a few other things, but overall not a huge amount of things for a story so dense and symbolic.
On a more angry note, of course it isn’t original! What is these days. With the vast reference pools available, the internet being the keystone, it’s easy to see that nothing is. The most successful artists are those that amalgamate various parts together to form a pastiche that is both identifiable and challenging, building on their influences. I spotted the following during my initial viewing:
* The Matrix (1999) – Anyone who doesn’t see this must be blind; they seem to come from the same seam. It’s one of the few similar films that can stand up next to it though.
* Dark City (1998) – The buildings, the gravity. I can’t say more than that.
* Blade Runner (1982) – Chris loves this film. It’s more in visual styles than story but it’s there. And when I think of the title I can’t help but think of the term “incept date”.
* Star Trek TNG – For the holodeck reference/style mostly (think the “convincer” scene with Fischer in the final vault)
* Heat (1995) – The action scenes, despite the fantasy settings, seem remarkably tight and often quite realistic.
* Synecdoche, New York (2008) – The more I think about it, the more similar it seems to this film, and the more this film seems similar to Dark City. Which is why I like them, I guess.
* Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (2004) – Love is a big theme and how the mind deals with it an even bigger one. It would spoil Leo’s story arc to say more.
* eXistenZ (1999) – Can’t believe I nearly missed this one. In that film it is virtual reality, as with The Matrix, but there are still a lot of parallels.
* Ocean’s Eleven (2001) – The whole thing about it being a concerted team effort to pull of such an ambitious caper.
That doesn’t bother me, particularly. A lot of my favourite films are like this. The question is, are they more than the sum of their parts? In this case I would say, yes, definately. The incredible score and careful use of effects (although the Paris cafe one was a bit much) plus some great cinematography added to what was already there: an intriguing story and great performances by the main cast, even though a couple of them got lost in the shuffle – Yusuf for example.
This might not be his best work. But it’s definately one of his stronger ones.
This was one of the worst critiques I’ve read in a long time. Immature, incompetent, and sensationalist.
This is the classic trick of ‘bashing’ the book you were supposed to read in high school for a book report, to impress your teacher.
For the most part I agree with this review. Nolan is a competent filmmaker but no genius. I saw “Inception” on July 19th and when the movie ended a guy in front of me said to his friend as they were walking out, “Mr. Nolan is a GENIUS!”. Hardly.
Because of the overwhelming success of “The Dark Knight”, which was due in VERY large part to both Ledger’s performance and Ledger’s untimely (for him, but not for the movie) death, Nolan seems to be getting a creative and critical pass. That’s too bad. I’m not drinking the Nolan Kool-Aid. If one of his films is masterful I will be the first to admit it and defend it. “TDK” was not and neither is “Inception”. They are both interesting in their own way and worth watching at least once, but their flaws are obvious and numerous.
Take away the gravity-defying visual gymnastics of “Inception” and the film will have to rely more heavily on script and logic, and then it will be in real trouble.
The only part of this review I agreed with was when he talked about everyone laughing when M. Night Shyamalan’s name came up on screen because that happened at my theater as well, and I too groaned. As for everything else, complete BS. I’d love to see you make something better.
The author of this article is a moron. Inception was awesome.
Great review. I felt the same way. Its was decent as a popcorn flick but seriously guys? All this praise is totally undeserved. Its basically a bunch of totally under-developed characters explaining the limitations of Nolans self indulgent dream world to EACH OTHER.
And any of you who diss this reviewer for having an opinion seriously need to look in the mirror. I doubt he thinks its a terrible movie, just totally undeserved of all the praise its receiving. Cryptic does not equal smart storytelling.
Despite me not agreeing with most of this review(I thought the movie was great, entertaining, and has a little more depth than your average summer flicks, which really is all you need in a movie), some part of the review actually made me think. I don’t think the film needs repeat watching. I think most part of it was linear enough that if you paid attention you should understand it. But upon thinking back I did notice that much of the movie was “told” to the audience through explanation, and that feeling of being spoon fed is there. Although I guess in my case you can kinda see whats happening, then the film tells you, and you’ll be like “I know that”. Despite that, the visual, the story, and the action sequences still easily make it one of the best film in the last while IMO.
“In the disastrous disaster flick 2012 we had something “on-the-line” to worry about: hello? the end of the world?”
Okay, if there was ever a statement that proves that this mindless basher is completely inept when it comes to judging the quality of films, this ‘dumb as a bag of bricks’ comment is it!
You’re comparing the garbage film 2012 to a tense, psychological thriller like Inception based on the fact that there was “more at stake?”
Well, if we’re going to use that kind of logic, why not just go all the way with it?
Who cares if the Godfather involves a son slowly falling into the dark underworld of his fathers localized criminal organization and losing his soul in the process? BATTLEFIELD EARTH WAS ABOUT FREEING THE ENTIRE EARTH FROM ALIEN ENSLAVEMENT!!!