Chris Nolan and "Inception"

[Milan Spasic]

It looked good on the IMAX screen but the rest was quite frankly disappointing.
Stacked up dialog with no beats or space, suspect acting in some parts and WAY too many explosions and shaky-cam gun fights for a presumably cerebral movie. No need.

Then again, I also thought that Avatar was kitsch crap, so take that for what it's worth.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I didn't like it nearly as much as I wanted to...

But I guess I liked his "small" film Memento much better. I hope he goes back to working on character-driven musings on the nature of memory, time, and space.

I guess I didn't buy into the rules of how dreams work..that limbo thing, when it came up, had several people in the audience actually laughing out loud at a place that wasn't intended to be funny. The metaphysics of the film had all kinds of bizarre rules..."oh, it works like this down here, once you're properly sedated" - huh?

And geez, those dream projections, for all their firepower, could not hit the side of a barn. That seemed a little implausible, for all the bullets expended.

And I didn't think the love story at the center worked either. I felt like DiCaprio had to "sell" their vast love for each other with his acting (which he did well, considering it wasn't actually represented, only the evil narcissism of Mal actually made it onto the screen), but the stakes didn't seem all that high for that relationship, and that tended to flatten the stakes for the rest of the crew, as a result.

All of the individual actors did great jobs with their parts, but I never really felt like the group gelled, thereby once again, lowering the stakes for me, as a viewer - they needed to be not only interesting as individuals but also more of a "Fellowship of the Ring" type group dynamic for me to care.

Some phenomenal special effects, simply phenomenal, but at the end of the day, that doesn't carry a film for me, once the adrenalin wears off.

I know this isn't the prevailing opinion but I do think a few of these observations explain the mixed reviews....I know it wasn't only me, in the sold-out theater that I was in.

 

[Brian Petrie]

I didn't like it nearly as much as I wanted to...

But I guess I liked his "small" film Memento much better. I hope he goes back to working on character-driven musings on the nature of memory, time, and space.

I guess I didn't buy into the rules of how dreams work..that limbo thing, when it came up, had several people in the audience actually laughing out loud at a place that wasn't intended to be funny. The metaphysics of the film had all kinds of bizarre rules..."oh, it works like this down here, once you're properly sedated" - huh?

And geez, those dream projections, for all their firepower, could not hit the side of a barn. That seemed a little implausible, for all the bullets expended.

And I didn't think the love story at the center worked either. I felt like DiCaprio had to "sell" their vast love for each other with his acting (which he did well, considering it wasn't actually represented, only the evil narcissism of Mal actually made it onto the screen), but the stakes didn't seem all that high for that relationship, and that tended to flatten the stakes for the rest of the crew, as a result.

All of the individual actors did great jobs with their parts, but I never really felt like the group gelled, thereby once again, lowering the stakes for me, as a viewer - they needed to be not only interesting as individuals but also more of a "Fellowship of the Ring" type group dynamic for me to care.

Some phenomenal special effects, simply phenomenal, but at the end of the day, that doesn't carry a film for me, once the adrenalin wears off.

I know this isn't the prevailing opinion but I do think a few of these observations explain the mixed reviews....I know it wasn't only me, in the sold-out theater that I was in.

:iagree:
Excellent review, couldn't have said it better. My feelings exactly.

 

[Milan Spasic]

But I guess I liked his "small" film Memento much better. I hope he goes back to working on character-driven musings on the nature of memory, time, and space.

I guess I didn't buy into the rules of how dreams work..that limbo thing, when it came up, had several people in the audience actually laughing out loud at a place that wasn't intended to be funny. The metaphysics of the film had all kinds of bizarre rules..."oh, it works like this down here, once you're properly sedated" - huh?

I second this. I was a fan on Memento.

Also agree on the "dream rules". It cheapened the whole film premise with lines like "5 minutes equals 1 hour dream time" or whatever Arthur stated with a matter-of-fact certainty.

I can also see the studio meddling as part of the reason for this. I'm sure that "we need to dumb it down for maximum box office success" and "needs more explosions and guns" was part of the $250 million contract.
Pandering to ADD riddled audience ruined cinema.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I second this. I was a fan on Memento.

Also agree on the "dream rules". It cheapened the whole film premise with lines like "5 minutes equals 1 hour dream time" or whatever Arthur stated with a matter-of-fact certainty.

I can also see the studio meddling as part of the reason for this. I'm sure that "we need to dumb it down for maximum box office success" and "needs more explosions and guns" was part of the $250 million contract.
Pandering to ADD riddled audience ruined cinema.

I think we should all remember that Chris Nolan is a commercial filmmaker. As much as I like Memento, there’s no doubt it is a very commercial film with all the familiar hooks. The same goes for The Dark Knight. It is a Hollywood blockbuster. All these films are designed for what you call the “ADD audience” and are very literary and plot oriented. Nolan, however, infuses these fundamentally formulaic stories with just the right amount of creativity so even the casual viewer has his attention bombarded on, and there’s enough interesting material to keep a regular viewer engaged. Even casual viewers are compelled to "Think", albeit this kind of "thought provocation" is largely superficial in a "puzzle solving" kind of way.

There does seem to be a "Hollywood Blockbuster Code" though. Nolan just does enough to keep it interesting, but there's no doubt they fall under the familiar trappings of Hollywood Blockbusters. I agree sometimes the constant bombardment of happenings/quips/action, gratuitous exposition, constant contrived plot twists, etc. etc. can be grating. I try my best to look over them and just enjoy the film for what it is.

 

[Thor Melsted]

I guess I didn't buy into the rules of how dreams work..

That's why it's called "suspension of disbelief".

I'm a hardcore atheist, skeptic and all around buzzkill at new-age parties, but I have no problem accepting rules at face value in movies like this, provided they're clearly laid out and more importantly, adhered to. Nolan not only explained the rules very well, he stuck to them throughout - which is more than I can say for most "mind-benders" I've seen.

 

[guy fancher]

It looked good on the IMAX screen but the rest was quite frankly disappointing.
Stacked up dialog with no beats or space, suspect acting in some parts and WAY too many explosions and shaky-cam gun fights for a presumably cerebral movie. No need.

Then again, I also thought that Avatar was kitsch crap, so take that for what it's worth.

i saw it in imax and i noticed some major problems. first of all, it was shown at an aspect ratio of what looked like 1.85:1 which if i'm mistaken is a cropping from the 2.35:1 of the trailer... second, the 1.85:1 that they projected was shown in the center of the imax screen which is a more square shape, so the top and bottom of the screen had black bars projected which first of all was distracting but second of all made me suspect it might have been a digital projection. as i watched i became convinced that it was a digital projection and not a very good one. the poor contrast ratio and overall softness of the picture was distracting.. anyways, i'd recommend avoiding the imax theater, at least in portland oregon, if not everywhere.

anyone else who saw it in imax notice the cropping and such?

 

[Tim Hole]

There will always be letterboxing unless it was made for IMAX, which Inception wasn't eventhough it was partially shot in IMAX. The benefit, that you are meant to get in IMAX is more contrast and brightness, due to two projectors running, and the sound, as well as the large curved screen - even if it doesn't go floor to ceiling, which is kind of one of the major points of IMAX. Just about every film playing in IMAX are letterboxed apart from CG films like Alice, AVATAR, Shrek etc...

Find it strange what you experienced. The only thing I can think of is that they only played it through one of the projectors which is not a good idea because of the silver screen. It suffers a bit with only a single projected light. It would NOT however just be a digital format. IMAX are very particular about what is played through the projectors and the KDMs only work per projector so although in a normal digital print you can ingest the same film into multiple projectors there is a KDM per projector.

The IMAX I have been playing it through looks stupendous. Sorry you experienced a less than satisfactory show.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

That's why it's called "suspension of disbelief".

I'm a hardcore atheist, skeptic and all around buzzkill at new-age parties, but I have no problem accepting rules at face value in movies like this, provided they're clearly laid out and more importantly, adhered to. Nolan not only explained the rules very well, he stuck to them throughout - which is more than I can say for most "mind-benders" I've seen.

Thank you for that re-statement of the obvious, but it misses the point.

One of the things that made Memento so interesting was that it wasn't just its own hermetically sealed world with made-up rules...it was also a larger meditation on the nature of memory itself. Which gave it a level of profundity that I found lacking in INCEPTION.

Dreams, like memory, have a real-world metaphysics and this movie ignores those in favor of what I'll academically call "making shit up." This film, by comparison, was a totally self-referential, sci fi action-adventure piece, not really commenting in any way that I could see on the nature or the metaphysics of dreams.

Did I enjoy it at that level? Yes. It was very pretty. Had phenomenal effects. A storyline which held my interest, for 2-1/2 hours. Did it blow my mind, like Memento? No, because it did not transform my thinking or understanding about the larger subject in any way, which is what, in my opinion, really good mind-bending film does.

I want my mind-bending media to generate insight the nature of reality -- either our reality or a parallel reality which offers an intriguing mirror on our reality, not just to score points by following its own rules. Truly high-quality mind-bending media educates without being didactic, while keeping us wildly engaged. I was entertained. I was not informed. I hoped for the best of both worlds, because Nolan has shown himself clearly capable of delivering it.

Chris Nolan set the bar that high with his earlier work - he is still the undisputed king of mind-bending cinema, in my opinion, but missed the mark here.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Tim Hole]

Chris Nolan set the bar that high with his earlier work - he is still the undisputed king of mind-bending cinema, in my opinion, but missed the mark here.

Your mileage may vary.

Thats stretching it a little. But it depends what you mean by mind-bending cinema...Tarkovsky or Lynch are the kings of mind-bending cinema...in the other way Aronofsky is more of a mind-bender with Pi, Requiem for a dream and the Fountain. Are you talking of playing with time specifically. On a mind-bending level Gasper Noe, eventhough he copied Memento's style made more of a mind bending experience with Irreversible.

I don't think making one film like Memento makes you the undisputed king of cinematic mind bending...

...all in good conversation my friend.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

As a writer I think he created an amazing new world. As a director I think he made a very entertaining film. Say what you want about Inception vs Momento but the truth is Nolan is a huge talent and Inception cements his considerable influence on world cinema. BTW I liked it.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

Thats stretching it a little. But it depends what you mean by mind-bending cinema...Tarkovsky or Lynch are the kings of mind-bending cinema...

I'll give you Tarkovsky, Lynch, and Aronofsky...perhaps I was over-stating the case, to avoid the charge that I was biased against his work somehow. I'm not. I think he will be the first to marry the mind-bender to the blockbuster form, which has mostly, though not exclusively, been the province of indies and smaller films. I was hoping this would be the one.

 

[Kevin Wild]

Love it or hate it, give Nolan credit for writing and directing something incredibly challenging both to create AND for the audience to consume. Gosh, I dream of a day that even 20% of Hollywood films challenge me to think like "Inception" did.

For the record, I loved it. That is not to say I can't pick it apart, if I chose to. I would rather ignore some of the small errors and look at it for what it is: a huge art-house type of movie released in a Hollywood manner. So, I think we should applaud his efforts. Compare this to "Avatar" on a story level and Avatar looks like a short story. Again, I loved that movie, too, for different reasons, mostly technical.

I do disagree greatly with "Memento" being put up on a pedestal. I never saw the brilliance in that. I thought it was a "gimmic" movie whose story would have been pretty lame had it been in normal, forward chronology. I would go as far as to say that the device he used didn't even really match the story! I have always thought that the way he should have illustrated the "lack of short term memory" would be to write the scene and just throw out the first page of every scene. He actually used this in "Inception" when he several times said "do you remember how you got here?" It's funny...it's almost like he wanted to use that in Memento, but didn't. There was actually a great (New) Twilight Zone-The Series that used this gadget MUCH better than "Memento." The guy thought he was going to assassinate the President and kept showing up in scenes without any introduction...as if he'd forgotten how he'd got there. (It ended up that he was there to shoot an assassin, rather than the President. Great twist!)

Just my $.02. Go see "Inception." I hope the creative risks he took will be rewarded so we can see more wide-released movies that challenge us like this one.

Kevin

 

[Jameson Jordan]

Some really interesting discussions on mindbendage and the Kings thereof, but I don't look at Nolan as a mindbender in the likeness of anyone like Lynch. He's a philosopher. He makes films about ideas (resilient parasites if you will -- fear, anarchy, regret, obsession) and he just happens to take the protagonists to the edge of their sanity. And I suppose many will argue that one follows the other as far as bending-philosophizing, but I just watched an advanced screening of Aronofsky's next film and sadly it's a good example of not saying anything.

That being said I agree with much of Meryem's analysis. And 'Love' tends to be Nolan's weakest subject thus far in his career. Ironically this works in Inception because Leo's love is merely a projection which he calls himself out on.

I didn't like it nearly as much as I wanted to...

But I guess I liked his "small" film Memento much better. I hope he goes back to working on character-driven musings on the nature of memory, time, and space.

I hope he doesn't go back, I want him to keep moving forward with new material, ideas,.. and of course character driven musings. But in the process I hope he keeps teaching the industry to stop underestimating the audience.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It totally sucks when you have to think during a movie.

Complex does not necessarily mean deep.

I've seen a mountain of shitty indie films which were ridiculously complex with less depth than a Colgate commercial.

In fact I just saw Gamer this weekend and my 'review for friends' was summarized as 'overly complex plot'. One of my favorite films of all time is The Sacrifice. It has an absurdly simple plot but will leave you thinking for days.

I know I'm in the minority but I wasn't a huge fan of Dark Knight--I thought it's plot was overly complex and ran too long.

 

[Steve Das]

Complex does not necessarily mean deep.
I've seen a mountain of shitty indie films which were ridiculously complex with less depth than a Colgate commercial.

Agreed..but what are some of the complex indie films you refer to..?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Top of that list would be Donnie Darko.

It throws up a smokescreen of depth by confusing and blinding the audience to cover up the fact that there is nothing there of substance or value.

People tend to think movies that confuse them are really intelligent. Often they're just stupid plots needlessly obfuscated behind poor film making passed off as 'mystery'. The rare exception being Mulholland Drive which was fiendishly complex and still well thought out.

Another example of two movies I actually like but one is overly complex:
The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded.

Which of those films is more complex? Which one is more intelligent?

The Pirates of the Caribbean sequels suffered from Overly Complex in spades. The original was simple and brilliant. The sequels collapsed under their own girth.

 

[Tim Hole]

I agree with Donnie Darko it was all smoke and mirrors, although I enjoyed it (more the tone of the time really than the plot - although that helped too) it seemed to me that the people who went mental over it were the ones who had either not seen a lot of intelligent films and mistook this was a massively orginal and intelligent movie.

Primer is an example of an overly complex plot compounded by the problem of less than perfect sound and bad direction.....when you are seeing the back of the head of someone talking a complex sci fi monlogue and the sound is bad...it aint good.

I really liked The Matrix, hated the sequels apart from the Merovingian scene. The originality to those films were the size of the live action effects, the story was far from original yet people marvel at it...

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I am completely in agreement with Gavin here. Nolan's films also fall under the "complex plot" category. It hasn't stopped me from enjoying them a great deal, but to expect something of the stature of The Sacrifice would be futile. Sometimes I have struggled to understand why Nolan’s films are being called “mind-bending”. But I do understand that it is “complex” on a different, more superficial level.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

But in the process I hope he keeps teaching the industry to stop underestimating the audience.

a very good point, Gavin, and actually what I was getting at with my hyperbolic "king of the mind-bending film" mis-characterization - I do appreciate any director who puts the thought process back into the enjoyment of film.

I get tired of all the silly and obvious narrative gaps and obvious implausibilities that great effects can slather over because the blockbuster audience would rather be entertained than challenged. To his credit, Nolan didn't do that here...as someone said, at least he sticks to his own rules. It was just a case of too many rules of convenience that dragged me out of the story....

And I don't understand why the hating on Donnie Darko - I thought that was a pretty good film - once again, a melding of a reasonably entertaining film with a larger meditation on fate and how it works. I do think it held up a mirror to making choices and choosing fate - the film took something we do unconsciously, every day, and brought it into conscious representation ...kind of interesting and a bit of an achievement.