Info
The opinions, comments and viewpoints expressed in articles are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the webmaster.
All press articles are still under copyright from the original source and provided for entertainment purposes and research only. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
by Noah Forrest, published on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 05:52:49 Guess what? Inception is not the greatest piece of art that we have ever feasted our eyes upon. Guess what else? Inception is a pretty damn good movie - and that's nothing to sneeze at. Reviewing movies has become a little bit too much like politics these days: you're on one side of the other and there is no in-between. So Jonah Hex is the "worst movie ever made" and Inception is the "best movie ever made," when the truth of the matter is that Jonah Hex may be a terrible film but not something I would put in the pantheon of terrible movies. And Inception is a really good movie that I wouldn't put in the pantheon of great movies. Sure, not every movie is polarizing,sbut there is such a rush to hyperbole that the films themselves become lost amid the frenzied rush to anoint it as something innovative or destructive. In this case, Inception can't ever live up to the expectations that the initial reviewers set for it. And the sad part is that I'll write this semi-review and call it a very good movie several times but, because I'll also point out the few issues I had with it, inevitably I'll be labeled a hater by the folks who think Inception is the most wonderful thing in the universe. When did it become such a crime to think a film was merely superb? But all of this has nothing to do with the quality of the film and it's really unfair to compare what the film is to what the early reviewers claimed it to be. Christopher Nolan is not the new Kubrick or the new Michael Mann (someone he's really more similar to stylistically) or the new anybody. With this film, Nolan has firmly established himself as his own man who makes Nolanesque films. He makes genre films that appeal to wider audiences, making blockbuster films out of seemingly niche concepts. He knows what audiences want to see and he makes films that cater to them. What he does so well, and what I think smart people tend to appreciate, is that the Nolan version of a blockbuster is a bit more complex than the average summer flick. He uses bold concepts and ideas, and then finds a way to make them appealing to everyone. And that is a form of genius. Tackling dreams is a difficult task and Nolan doesn't tackle the subject the way that Bunuel or Kubrick would - because that would turn off 95 percent of audiences. To set a film that takes place mostly in someone's dreams and to give it stakes is a really ambitious goal. Nolan makes Inception work by bringing boundaries and rules into these dream worlds. I thought it would be remarkably easy to poke holes in a plot that is so reliant not only dreams, but dreams within dreams within dreams, but the logic of the film is so sturdy that it's hard to find any giant errors. There are about four different strands that are all working at the same time and are all linked together and it's a testament to Nolan's vision and intelligence and focus that he's able to make those narratives work without a moment where the audience says, "no, that doesn't make sense." Sure, there are parts that don't make sense in a practical way, but in the world that Nolan creates, it all adds up. (For the purposes of this column, I'm going to assume that most folks have seen the film and therefore won't go through a recap of the plot, but I will avoid major spoilers.) For example, the dreams aren't the dreams that I have because my dreams often lack a narrative, but I accept the fact in the reality of this film's world, these are the dreams these characters have. I think most people's dreams don't have scenes of dialogue, but in the context of this film it makes perfect sense that people can have discussions and fights that look and feel like things that would happen in a film. I bought into that concept because this isn't a film that treats dreams as they really are, but as a jumping off point for a film that takes place within someone's subconscious. In other words, if Nolan were going for a realistic portrayal of what happens in someone's mind, it would be a lot more fragmented than it is. But, like I said, none of that bothered me because I bought what Nolan was selling me. I imagine, however, that for detractors of the film, this will be a sticking point. My sticking points are a bit more specific and have to do primarily with the clarity of Nolan's visual style. There is a scene set on a snow-covered mountain where snowmobiles are flying around, guns are brandished, bullets spray everywhere, and I have no idea what the hell is happening. The good guys are wearing white parkas, the bad guys are wearing white parkas and everything is cut so quickly that I have no idea whether a major character has been killed or just some dream bad guy. It's an unnecessary action scene to begin with, but if you're going to go through with it, then at least give the audience an idea of what is happening. My other issue is a smaller one, but one that still bothers me. If Cillian Murphy's character is going to inherit his father's company and has thought ahead to the point where he would hire folks to help him protect his dreams, then wouldn't he know who his father's main competitor was? In other words, how does he not recognize that Ken Watanabe is on the same flight from Australia to Los Angeles? It doesn't seem like Watanabe's character is the kind of behind the scenes CEO that nobody knows about, so wouldn't Murphy's character know what he looks like? That didn't really make a lot of sense to me. What works about the film? Nearly everything else. The look of the film is stunning for the most part, especially when Nolan takes the time to breathe and slow things down and not cut like crazy. I think what's so interesting about the film is that although it's fervent admirers will tell you it's the most original thing ever, it's not that original in terms of how the plot fits together - and that's a good thing. It's a heist film, essentially, in the same way that Ocean's 11 is a heist film. We have all the familiar plot points: a plan gone awry, re-assembling a team from scratch, planning the mission, going on the mission, things get screwed up, gambling on a newer and riskier plan after things get screwed up, succeeding. The way the plot moves from beginning to end is screenwriting 101 and it's not that hard to follow if you are paying attention to the rules being given to you. The subject matter might be a bit different and it doesn't take place on a plane called "reality" but that doesn't mean that the mechanics of the plot are any different from the "typical" blockbuster. I'm actually surprised that Leonardo DiCaprio would take on this film so soon after Scorsese's Shutter Island because the films are thematically linked and the characters he plays are plagued by similar demons. Having said that, DiCaprio is completely adequate in the role. He's not asked to stretch or to do anything we haven't seen him do before, but he is a commanding presence and a magnetic leading man and he carries the film in a way that many other actors wouldn't be able to do. He has to recite some pretty wooden dialogue - something I wish Nolan would have tightened - and he makes it work because he's so committed. The rest of the cast doesn't have a whole lot to work with, but everyone makes a good impression. I think Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of the most exciting young actors out there and he's great here, even in a role that is somewhat limiting; he's also lucky enough to star in one of the most fascinating and exciting fight scenes of the last ten years. Ellen Page is fine here, although it surprised me that Nolan didn't take advantage of her natural comedic abilities. The real standout among the supporting cast, however, is Tom Hardy of Bronson fame. He's just damn charming and impossible to dislike. The film gets a much-needed dose of levity and warmth whenever he appears. So many comparisons have been thrown around in the reviews and none of them were remotely accurate in terms of tone or ambition. I'm loathe to compare it to anything myself, but I really think that Ocean's 11 might be the most appropriate. It's a "get the band together" heist film that really lends itself to a sequel … despite admirers of the film insisting that it's different from all the other blockbusters out there. Inception is a really good Hollywood blockbuster, something that doesn't happen that often. The best thing I can say about Inception is that it stuck with me. When I fell asleep later that night and woke up, I wasn't sure if I was actually awake or if I was still dreaming. For a film to have that effect on me is pretty impressive. I saw the film with my buddy Blair who texted me a few hours later saying that he saw Joseph Gordon-Levitt when he was walking around Brooklyn; either that or that Inception was messing with his mind. Of course, I instantly texted him back, "Wake up! You're still dreaming!" I'm a good friend. The point is, that for a film to take hold in your consciousness for longer than an hour after you've seen it is a huge deal these days. There are only a handful of films that I've seen this year that I haven't forgotten about fifteen minutes after leaving the theater and I am grateful that Inception proved to be one that isn't easy to get out of your mind. There are moments of true terror and excitement and intensity to the point that I was nearly exhausted by the time I stepped out of the theater. I felt like I had gotten my money's worth, which is something that has become increasingly rare as years go on. As for the filmmaker, Christopher Nolan is a really good and really slick Hollywood filmmaker -- and that's high praise. Nobody is making big films like Nolan these days. His films are consistently aiming higher than any other Hollywood A-lister. I don't think he's on the level of visionaries like Fincher, P.T. Anderson or Wes Anderson, but he's an auteur in his own right. He might not be the greatest filmmaker in the history of the art form and Inception might not be the best movie of the year - I have it fourth on my list - but that doesn't make it any less a successful accomplishment or make Nolan any less a wonderful director. Enjoyable, smart films are rare enough these days and the fact that Nolan has used his resources to make a good film is something to be applauded. Source: www.moviecitynews.com |
Printerfriendly version · Read 20 times
Powered by Silver News 2.0.4
Last Update: 09/02/2010
© 2006-2010 Dominik Keppner
© 2006-2010 Dominik Keppner
