Inception. The idea is to plant an idea in someone’s subconscious and allow it grow and fester until the person believes this idea to be the monumental truth, whatever the situation. To do this Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and a team of the world’s greatest ‘extractors’ team up and invade Robert Fischer’s (Cillian Murphy) dreams and plant an idea that would destroy his father’s legacy. They dally around in his dreams, creating layer after layer, transcending each layer to plant a single idea in Fischer’s mind and then attempt to escape his dreams unscathed. Got it? No? A little confusing? Very confusing? Indeed. This film is 2 and half hours and continues to get more and more complicated with each passing minute. The story itself is an interesting premise but the way it’s played out is full of holes and continuity errors. I don’t want to give away any spoilers but I’ll give a few examples of little holes; there is a scene where Cobb needs to drug Fischer to put him to sleep and so he palms a sedative and drops it into a glass of water in front of Fischer. In my mind, that’s a very risky move. Although the person who poured the water (off scene) was in on the drugging plot it would have been much easier and less risky for the entire plot of the movie for that person to have drugged the water. Another example is there is a guy who is driving a pick-up van and being chased by a slew of men with guns who shoot at the van repeatedly over a 40 minute period (things happen in between). His front side driver’s window explodes in fragments like 8 times! These are little plot holes/continuity errors, but the film is made up of these! Another huge issue that needs to be brought up is that there is no bad guy; or at least not clearly portrayed as a bad guy, the person displayed as the 'bad guy' is truly more of a victim than anything in this film. You can't have a film of such 'grandeur' without a bad guy. It made the weak ending even weaker.
The movie is so long, and a lot of the film is rehashed over again through extraneous dialogue; its imagery is pretentious and the movie is horribly predictable. By 30 minutes in I was ready for it to be over. By the time it finally ended, 2 hours later my head was just pounding. I know I seem to be hitting this movie a little harshly, but I didn’t hate it, per se. I didn’t like it… but it was far from fantastic. Christopher Nolan is a fantastic director and he brought this story to life in a way I don’t believe any other director could, the problem, in my opinion rests in the script. For example for such a complex film the ending was too simple. And by ending I truly mean the finale; the final 15 – 20 minutes. I’ve already gone through other holes in the story and there are a lot more, I’d just rather not give away the story for those who plan on going to see it. The entirety of the film felt too much like a
Matrix wanna-be minus the cool kung fu.
The acting was half decent though. Leonardo DiCaprio is a very strong actor and I enjoy seeing him in films. I can’t remember the last film I’ve seen him in that was under 2 hours though. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is another very interesting actor whose career has been very up and down, but more recently he has found his own niche and is blossoming into a fantastic actor. Ellen Page, albeit given the most boring character of the bunch, played her with enthusiasm and managed to make what could have been a very dreadful lead character slightly interesting. I was hoping for more from Michael Caine; however his role just turned into a two scene cameo. But altogether, the acting was decent, the directing was superb… the problem with this movie rests in the underwhelming story.
If you truly want to check out this film, try it on a cheap Tuesday.
2 out of 5
I invite--or rather IMPLORE you to compose a spoiler-ridden account of the failings of this movie plot-wise. The 'continuity errors' you have highlighted are at most filming goofs or oversights so minor that they don't even begin to matter.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the lack of a villain, I can't believe that this is actually a complaint. This is a movie that dives deep into the psychology of the characters, both literally and figuratively. As is expected under those circumstances, the conflict is therefore internal for both Cobb and Fischer. Darth Vader has his place, but it isn't here. The inclusion of a villain would have ruined this film (although it seems you are of the unbelievable opinion that there isn't much to ruin).
Make no mistake: any pretentiousness here is not in the film. Inception is Science Fiction of the highest order.
Ok Kenmore... let me tell you why Inception is a pretentious piece of crap.
ReplyDelete1) The lack of an antagonist (unless you count inner angst as a compelling bad guy). If you want to engage an audience then you need to have forces that conspire to thwart your best efforts. They should be overwhelming, and they should make you worry for the protagonist. The "subconscious" doesn't cut it for a myriad of reasons. First of all they are impossible to quantify (in some scenarios there are thousands of them, and in others there are a handful), and their threat level is inconsistent. When you watched the Matrix you knew that it was "impossible" to defeat an agent. When the agents showed up... you worried for the characters.
2) Convoluted plot. I can describe the plot of the Matrix easily. The Hollywood "buzz" term for this is "high concept". It means that anyone hearing the plot instantly gets what the story is about. "Inception" is a film in which people who left the theatre weren't really sure about what just happened. In fact I was laughing my ass off listening to people try to describe the plot to their friends on their cell phones. If you need an abacus and thirteen different coloured pieces for string to map out the story to someone then it FAILS.
3) Passive storytelling. When a viewer doesn't know what the hell is going on, their brain switches over from being engaged in the story to merely watching it. Effective storytelling should draw you in. You should feel nervous for the characters where they are in danger. If you're merely dazzled by the special effects, then it fails.
4) The lack of a story editor. This beast runs for 2.5 hours!! That's a loooooong time to not know what the hell is going on.
5) Giving away the ending right at the beginning. Since the film opens with Saito as an old man "full of regrets" we know how the damn film is going to end. Why even drag out his character through 2 hours of the movie when you told us in the first 5 minutes that he died? We also know that Leo isn't coming back with the others because you've already SHOWN US THAT!!!
6) Nothing is at stake. Films need to draw us in with a "primal need"... For instance, if New York city had a nuclear bomb dropped on it, would we care? The answer is "no"... I mean, we'd feel sort of bad for all of the people who got evaporated, but since our character is having a bubble bath in Toledo is doesn't really matter to him eh? Now... put his DAUGHTER in New York and suddenly it's not a bunch of strangers dying. What's the worst that happens to Leo if he is trapped in his mind? He gets to spend eternity with the woman he loves (even if she is imaginary). Do you call those "big stakes"?!! Sounds pretty decent to me. Besides, (spoiler alert)... that's pretty much what happens to him in the end anyway right?
7) OR DOES IT? Bullshit endings. The hallmark of a pretentious filmmaker is the guy who can't think of an ending and so he leaves it up to us to decide what happens. Hello "Sopranos"... Hello "Lost"... Yes, you too can be a pretentious art film fan by sitting around discussing films and what they "really mean" for days and weeks. Me? I think on my own time. Tell me a damn story.
I just watched this flick last night. I was thoroughly entertained. I loved the cinematography, and I didn't realize that the film was 2.5 hours until I read your review. I disagree with most of your review, except the bit about needing more Michael Caine. I agree it was a pretty complex flick, but I didn't feel like it was too unsorted to follow. When Leo was getting sucked back into his subconscious at risk of getting stuck there, I felt anxious. I thought Ellen Paige did a good job at playing a more serious role and I think 3rd Rock also did a great job. There were a couple of laugh out loud moments, and if there WERE continuity errors, I didn't notice them, and they certainly didn't take me out of the film. Weather you liked this movie or not, it's defiantly one that is WAY better to see on the big screen than a tv set at home. Go check it out, and when you're finished, try to describe it to your friends.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. I disagree with nearly every one of your points, but I suppose it's your prerogative to feel the way you do. All the same, I'd like to underscore where I think you are wrong.
ReplyDelete'Inner angst' does not make a compelling 'bad guy' but it does drive internal conflict. The guilt of Cobb, and Fischer's desire for the esteem of his father (and the presumed lack thereof) are the real conflicts here. These internal struggles are the key ingredient to making this movie what it is. An obvious external villain would do nothing but distract from these two driving conflicts, which is why it's the chief complaint of yours which demands the attention of a direct response.
Most of your other complaints strike me as a matter of your personal preference, which is your prerogative, as I have conceded. But the story as written could not have been shortened without neutering important arcs in both Cobb and Fischer's conflict/development, and it would be difficult (possibly impossible) to simplify the plot and still make the stakes as high as they are. For while you seem to think price of failure is pretty low, I feel that when the alternative to success is a descent into madness, the stakes couldn't be higher.
As far as I can see it, if the filmmakers had fitted this movie to your seven complaints it would have garnered none of the acclaim it is currently enjoying. It would be big and fun and an excellent ride, no doubt, but it would have actually MEANT nothing. The highest achievement of any art form (film included) is to communicate something bigger than what is immediately apparent. Thoughtless narrative hedonism lies in the borderlands of the realm of pornography, which has never been a place I've found particularly compelling.