review by Steve Grzesiak Patron
Inception 2010
Watched Jul 09, 2012
Steve Grzesiak’s review:
"Just because an idea is overly convoluted and complex doesn't make it cool. Going to multiple dream levels sounds like a really stupid idea."
I've noticed a distinct advantage in being something of an 'after the Lord Mayor's show' viewer of recent heavily hyped, acclaimed and analysed films. Much of the most complex and detailed analysis and theorising has already been done by people who actually know what the hell they are talking about, and therefore I can just come along and pick up the pieces and point out the pointless shit like someone's crap hairstyle or a boom mic in shot.
It could have been a particular relief in the case of Inception because there are clearly meant to be hidden depths to this film that a mind, in this case mine (funny that), that has been mangled by too many Brazzers porn reviews and attempts at Silo on Goldeneye (00 Agent level) is never going to be able to reach.
I say that there are meant to be hidden depths here because I would actually question whether they exist. There's a difference between being complex and being deep. Many films hit both those targets, but even more hit only one or the other. And having just switched off Inception, I am quietly convinced that there is a lot of the former and not so much of the latter.
It worried me from the get-go, feeling the need to chuck in the 'dream within a dream' concept five minutes in. I personally believe that if you are going to create a film that's two and a half hours long that you don't need to shoot one of your bolts almost immediately. It dabbled briefly with making sense when explaining the whole idea of the inception but then as soon as the team is put together it lost me to boredom once again. The plain fact is that it never even came close to compelling me to try and keep up with it when it came to its plot. Oh, and look. Another film that starts with what looks like the ending. I think we need a moratorium on this concept now, please.
It's not just the unnecessary complexity of the story that I took umbridge with, but the fact that it just didn't make me care about any of the characters. I think it might have helped if ANY OF THE BAD GUYS COULD SODDING WELL SHOOT STRAIGHT and actually created some semblance of peril for the heroes. I have watched an absolute shed load of James Bond films recently so I have seen more than my fair share of inept gunmen - but outside of that series, I can barely recall a film where I have felt less tense about the dangers the good guys are supposed to be facing. For me, in a thriller, I have to be genuinely worried that the heroes might be in danger. Here, I didn't think for one minute that any of them might cark it.
Outside of Leonardo Di Caprio and Ellen Page, none of the characters are characterised to a point where I might care about them anyway. The cast is, of course, great and I enjoyed almost all of the performances thoroughly, so that side of things was much as I hoped for and expected. But having received some gratification from the acting, I realised that the action scenes (save for Joseph Gordon Levitt's tribute in the hotel to Christopher Walken in the Fatboy Slim video Weapon Of Choice - well, that's what it reminded me of anyway) never really excited me one iota either.
Much like how quite often I can watch a film that I really love and totally understand why some people may dislike it, I can genuinely see why Inception would appeal so much to so many people. Its appeal to me, though, was very limited and my second dose of Christopher Nolan (after the very decent Insomnia) turned out to be the serious disappointment I hoped it wouldn't be.
Adam, check out my review if you have about an hour to spare (it's *long*).
This is my 2nd least favourite Nolan film, I rated it four but I watched it today and thought the exact same things!
It's my second least favourite as well - but I have only seen two of them to date!
My review.
An easy way to find friends' reviews is by going to the main page of the film, then scroll down to where it says 'watch by 1,234 people, including 567 friends'. Click on the number of friends link and it takes you to a page where you can sort through friends by reviews.
:)
Some of those comments scare the crap out of me. Nolan seems to attract some right nutters.
Steve, I believe Nolan has wide appeal because his movies are dumb enough to make ordinary people feel smart.
Truth is, they don't hold up to logical analysis *at all*.
Nolan has a wide appeal because he made some truly great films. Whilst as he gains more and more money his films to become more questionable, if you having watched his past ones you can say that every single person who watch it and enjoyed it is stupid then you must have a lot of time to go round to a fair amount of people and have them do an IQ test. I can agree with some of what your saying but I mostly think he should go back and do some more British films.
Memento and Insomnia are good. Everything else is shoddy garbage.
I'll probably try Following next. At least it's only an hour long or something.
I've heard his next Batman film is nearly 3 hours long? Woah.
I thought Following wa very good, my second favourite Nolan film!
I'm sure that eventually that I will have a go at the Batman films. I'm just intrigued by the reception of them. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't bother with them because I'm not really interested in superhero and comic book films at all, but I want to see if there is anything in them that would interest someone that has no interest in the source material whatsoever.
Great to know I'm not alone with Inception. I didn't mind the concept so much, but I hated that it turned into a bad action movie near the end with the snow mobiles.
The concept was great, the cast was excellent (Tom Hardy was superb, especially), it looked fantastic, and there were one or two really interesting characters.
It's not without its positives. But I just thought it didn't do the basics, such as the action scenes and gunfights, very well at all. That was probably the most disappointing aspect for me, come to think of it.
I wouldn't even call Inception complex, because that would imply its structure being simple on the outside, but not that simple at a closer, deeper look. Inception is just complicated.
Because when you try to look closer, you realize the movie doesn't even contain enough information to allow a context or common ground to exist.
I think Nolan's problem is, that he is only able to see one action/event at a time, without being able to put it into some sort of context. At least I think Inception and The Dark Knight are symptomatic in that regard. Because the substance of both of those movies relies on some kind of context, due to their overall scale.
And when you try to put anything you see in Inception in either the movie's own context or in a reality-based one (whatever you consider to be reality :P), you realize it isn't possible. Because there's no common denominator, just a bunch of cool ideas. Conveyed to the audience via mere fast-paced explanation instead of subtle drama.
Fortunately it's really cinematic on all other levels. You know, the ones that aren't as directly substance-related. :)
And it's still fun to see his kind-of-geeky wet dreams on such a large scale, even though they're incredibly unsustainable.
Because especially when seeing Inception, literally the second the movie is over I couldn't care less about what just happened.
(Plus, the score is incredibly awesome. :>)
I want to join the anti-Nolan hype club too but I can't be bothered to write long reviews.