Can Someone Please Explain Inception to Me?

July 13, 2010 | 8:08 p.m
Can Someone Please Explain Inception to Me?

At the movies, incomprehensible gibberish has become a way of life, but it usually takes time before it's clear that a movie really stinks. Inception, Christopher Nolan's latest assault on rational coherence, wastes no time. It cuts straight to the chase that leads to the junkpile without passing go, although before it drags its sorry butt to a merciful finale, you'll be desperately in need of a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

Writer-director Nolan is an elegant Hollywood hack from London whose movies are a colossal waste of time, money and I.Q. points. "Elegant" because his work always has a crisp use of color, shading and shadows, and "hack" because he always takes an expensive germ of an idea, reduces it to a series of cheap gimmicks and shreds it through a Cuisinart until it looks and sounds like every other incoherent empty B-movie made by people who haven't got a clue about plot, character development or narrative trajectory. Like other Christopher Nolan head scratchers-the brainless Memento, the perilously inert Insomnia, the contrived illusionist thriller The Prestige, the idiotic Batman Begins and the mechanical, maniacally baffling and laughably overrated The Dark Knight-this latest deadly exercise in smart-aleck filmmaking without purpose from Mr. Nolan's scrambled eggs for brains makes no sense whatsoever. Is it clear that I have consistently hated his movies without exception, and I have yet to see one of them that makes one lick of sense. It's difficult to believe he didn't also write, direct and produce the unthinkable Synecdoche, New York. But as usual, like bottom feeder Charlie Kaufman, Mr. Nolan's reputation as an arrogant maverick draws a first-rate cast of players, none of whom have an inkling of what they're doing or what this movie is about in the first place, and all of whom have been seen to better advantage elsewhere. Especially Leonardo DiCaprio, who remains one of the screen's most gullible talents. After his recent debacle in Shutter Island, Martin Scorsese's dopey insane-asylum bomb, one hoped for something more substantial from the easily misled Leo, not another deranged turkey like Inception. He should have stayed in bed.

I'd like to tell you just how bad Inception really is, but since it is barely even remotely lucid, no sane description is possible. Let's see. It opens with crashing waves on a beach. In the middle of a July heat wave, I wanted to jump in, but the thrill didn't last. Cut to the battered face of Leo, looking like a 14-year-old washed ashore facedown from a toy sailboat. He has come from another location conjured up in a dream, and is fond of muttering jabberwocky like "I am the most skilled extractor of dreams." In other words, he can close his eyes, enter somebody else's dreams with his pock-marked baby face and blow up China. The excellent Marion Cotillard, who has spiraled a long way down from her Oscar-winning role as Edith Piaf, growing a wart in the center of her forehead in the bargain, is the ghost of his ex-wife. Leo lives in a state of guilt for her death. He is also a thief, plowing his way through dark kitchens waving guns with silencers to relieve locked safes of their contents. Living in a continual dream state, he wants only to get home to his father (Michael Caine in a walk-on of fewer than a dozen lines) and two kids, but first he must, according to the production notes, "extract valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state when the mind is at its most vulnerable." To this end, Mr. Nolan works in something about the world of corporate espionage that turns Leo into an international fugitive. Now, Leo and his team of special "extractors" must achieve "inception"-meaning that instead of stealing dreams, they must plant some. If you're still awake, you're one step ahead of me. I dozed off ages ago.

Policed around the globe by anonymous forces, Leo is aided by a pretty college student (Ellen Page from Juno) with a kinetic knowledge of dream therapy who acts as a "brain architect" (whatever that is); a loyal assistant (a big waste of charismatic Joseph-Gordon Levitt) who floats through space without gravity; a two-fisted barfly (Tom Hardy from Guy Ritchie's abysmal RocknRolla); and assorted villains who sometimes double as saints (Tom Berenger, Cillian Murphy and Japan's Ken Watanabe from The Last Samurai). The script is gibberish: "We extracted every bit of information you had in there." "This isn't gonna work-wake him up!" "I'm not in your dream-you're in mine!" Every new dream brings to life a new picture postcard. One minute they're flying over Manhattan ("Our ride's on the roof!"). The next, they're heading for Buenos Aires by helicopter. In Mumbai, they join people sleeping on cots in a sort of opium den where the patients pay to wake up. "I'm getting off in Kyoto," says Leo, leaving the bullet train, and I wanted to shout, "Take me with you-and the movie, too!" In Christopher Nolan movies, I never know whether he's going to find an ending or not, but I never have any problem finding the exit.

Through the use of computer-generated effects, buildings fold like cardboard containers, cars drive upside down and the only way you can wake up within the dream is death. None of this prattling drivel 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. Since there's nothing to act, the cast doesn't even bother. It's the easiest kind of movie to make, because all you have to do is strike poses and change expressions. It all culminates on skis in the middle of a blizzard, as Leo is pursued by machine-gun-equipped snowmobiles, but you don't even know who's driving them. I have no idea what the market is for this jabbering twaddle-probably people who fritter away their time playing video games, which I'm willing to bet pretty much describes Christopher Nolan. He labors over turning out arty horror films and sci-fi action thrillers with pretensions to alternate reality, but he's clueless about how to deal with reality, honest emotions or relevant issues.

Inception is the kind of pretentious perplexity in which one or two reels could be mischievously transposed, or even projected backward, and nobody would know the difference. It's pretty much what we've come to expect from summer movies in general and Christopher Nolan movies in particular, but I keep wondering: Can he do anything of more lasting value? He's got vision, but creating jigsaw puzzles nobody can figure out and using actors as puppets who say idiotic things, dwarfed by sets like sliding Tinker Toys, doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment to me.

rreed@observer.com

 

 

INCEPTION
Running time 148 minutes
Written and Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe

1 Eyeball out of 4

 

COMMENTS (18 posted)

wow

Man, are you a bitter, pretentious d-bag. Your review is filled with more insults than actual "criticism", which makes this sound nothing like a review, but more like a jealous rant. Why don't you go steal some more CD's from Tower Records, i hear you're good at that.

Firing in order

Why would someone even let this guy publish this load of crap! Yes, he uses big words...but the guy must have taken like eighteen "negative nancy" pills before writing the review. Not only does he rip apart an acclaimed director just to be a contrarion, but he also rips apart the movie industry in general which leads people to question why he is even a reviewer if he cant enjoy movies. He must have some personal daddy issues or childhood rivalry with Nolan because I have never seen one transfer so much of their subconscious hatred into one horribly written manifest.

Occam's Razor

Have you considered the possibility that since all of the other movie critics are able to comprehend and enjoy Inception and Nolan's other movies, maybe you're just an idiot?

Pretentious claptrap

OK, it's one thing to explain why you don't like the movie, but this fumbling, venomous mess of a monologue is basically just a hugely overwrought slanted rant against Christopher Nolan's works in general, and to top it off, this d-bag has the nerve to call him a hack on top of it. Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. I try very hard to respect the opinions of others, and that opinions are not something that can so easily picked apart on a more technical level, but this load of drivel is so dead wrong it hurts.

To pass off all of Nolan's movies as incomprehensible is flat out wrong. Fans of his films, and there are many, know exactly what his films are about. They're complex, but not confusing in the least. If you don't understand any of his movies, you have a woefully deficient attention span. To sum up, you're displaying some seriously child-like tendencies here.

No credibility

A man who hates Christopher Nolan and his films for no reason should not be reviewing his films. This man likes to use the word "pretentious", when he himself is just that.

I'm sorry you didn't have the mental capacity to understand the film, the characters, etc. Mr. Reed but that doesn't mean Nolan's film is "Pretentious" with "idiotic things".

FIRE THIS MAN!

fail

I can't believe I took 2 minutes out of my life to make an account and to post this, but here we go:

This isn't a review. A review points out what's good or bad about a movie. I do enjoy how you've attacked every one of Nolan's movies. Just because you met Nolan 5 years ago and he didn't have the time to sign your hat doesn't make him a "hack" and doesn't make all of his movies (most of which are overly positively reviewed) bad.

Learn to calm down.

fail

I can't believe I took 2 minutes out of my life to make an account and to post this, but here we go:

This isn't a review. A review points out what's good or bad about a movie. I do enjoy how you've attacked every one of Nolan's movies. Just because you met Nolan 5 years ago and he didn't have the time to sign your hat doesn't make him a "hack" and doesn't make all of his movies (most of which are overly positively reviewed) bad.

Learn to calm down.

Please Retire

I don't know why people let this man write professionally anymore. What a terrible review. It's not the movie's fault that you're incapable of understanding it.

... and this guy is a professional critic?

I never ever post comments but this review was so ridiculous that I almost felt it was a duty. I am a film editor and writer myself and I think I am fairly cognizant of the mechanics of film criticism.

It is OK to be a contrarion and take the unpopular route of disliking a work of art or an artist who's universally acclaimed.

What is not OK is to make a personal assault on that artist in the guise of a film review. As someone rightly points out in the comments section, you should be fired from your job because you are completely abusing your position in the media.

And if you were a true professional, you should explain your stance, if you have one other than dripping poison.

Just get on with your life and retire already

Whoever the hell this guy is, why don't you Sir, just retire already. It's pretty obvious you can't comprehend what alot of other critics enjoyed. It really sucks to have to take the time to tell you that you are just bad.
You are just jealous and old.
I do not have the slightest idea why you are still publishing. You have lost your touch and your humanity.
And Nolan a hack?
Your so ill-minded and stupid.

I can explain it to you, if you stop acting like you're two

The movie is about a man who got caught up in a dreamstate to such a degree to where he lost tract of reality. It seems you of all people should be able to relate to this since it's obvious you have a grudge against Nolan and numbers he put up with his last flick. You clearly went into this flick prepared to hate it & made your mind up 2 scenes in that you already did. Congrats. I mean you're focused a wart on Marion Cotillard's forehead instead of what she represents in the film & that's a fail of epic proportions. You're computer should've automatically shut itself down after typing that useless drivel. Then again you thought Memento was brainless but it's clear who's really lacking the brains here. This is also the first I've heard of Mr. Nolan's reputation as an arrogant maverick. You're mad he's made an incredible career for himself huh? It's painfully obvious the way you type but it's also pretty silly to let it show in your reviews. Don't get mad you're either too dumb, too lazy, or too mad at another man's success that you just can't figure his movies out.

In Summary:

Spiteful simpleton with a thesaurus cranks out a review of a movie he can't be bothered to comprehend.

Really???

Having just seen this excellent movie I have to ask myself if we both saw the same film. Reed, are you nuts? You call Nolan a 'hack' and state the film is 'barely even lucid' and 'no sane desciption' is possible. Well, I saw the movie with a fairly diverse audience, and I was lucky enough to see a few of them in the coffee shop afterwards. While we had a great time discussing the movie and 'what it all means' there wasn't anyone amongst us who had trouble understanding the general concepts and themes of the movie. Great films inspire debate and thought, and stay with you for hours, days, weeks and if you are lucky, years. Nolan consistently delivers on this front, in terms of his themes, tone, images and the performances he gets from his actors, and Inception is no exception. Perhaps Mr Reed would prefer his movies spoon fed to him down his geriatric throat but I for one welcome the kind of brave, inspired and thought provoking films Nolan continues to delight us with. Inception is an excellent piece of filmaking that deserves better than the poison pill of an insipid moron reviewer like Reed. Do yourself a favor and disregard his review and SEE THIS MOVIE!

You did not watch this film and this is not a review!

I also created an account to respond to this. I have no problem with someone not liking a movie. I disagree with Roger Ebert, Michael Phillips, A.O. Scott and more all the time and still think they are brilliant men that I have much respect for. I also have agreed with you Rex in the past about movies that others have disliked and so on and so forth. However, this is not a review and more so it is not a review of this film. This is a rant against Christopher Nolan, science fiction, and the entire concept of blockbuster entertainment. This not a soap box or an article on the downfall of summer cinema. This is a place for informative reviews of films in order for us to get an idea of whether we should see this or not. There is nothing informative about this rant (I will not call it a review). This is actually a very hateful attack on individuals that you seem to dislike personally. This is mostly aimed at the Academy Award nominated Nolan but, you also seem to feel the need to attack anyone with a concept that is out of the ordinary (Academy Award Winning Charlie Kaufman gets called a bottom feeder). This is worse than political opinion journalism (next I expect you to post a picture of Nolan, Kaufman, Arnofsky, The Wachowski's, etc. with a Hitler mustache). I see some terrible films every year and filmmakers like Uwe Boll create some pretty awful garbage but, I would never call them the names you throw out here. Words like "pretentious, hack, brainless, incoherent, arrogant, scrambled eggs for brains, clueless, inert," and so many more that I coud fill a whole page with, are thrown at those who you dislike or seem to not walk the straight line narrative that you love so much. Perception or the way and order in which we perceive are relative to our point of view. We may not like things but, that is our opinion. It is important when stepping into a world outside our own that we pay close attention to the rules laid out to see if something makes since or not. A film making since does not always make it good or bad. However, when you accuse films of not making since than you open yourself up to the question of why it didn't. You never answer this about any of the films that you attack here. You just spout of angry rantings about how much you dislike someone. I saw this movie on Monday and unlike many can answer your posed question. This film is a dual narrative film about a man, Cobb, who has lost his children and wants to get back to them. However, a lingering memory of his dead wife and some false charges will not leave him to move forward and be with them in America. Which leads to the second narrative about a man, Soto, who wants him to implant a memory into his business competitor so that his company can compete in an expanding energy market. Cobb must complete this job and let his wife go so that he can move on with his life. It is also about a host of other things and every character (there are many) is dealt with in a sufficient amount of detail considering all the rules that have to be explained in a movie like this. Some of these characters, Cilian Murphy especially, have emotionally resonant stories of their own that could have been their own little films. As many will figure out on Friday, much of what you do say about this movie is not correct in its explanation. You say Cobb must "extract valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state when the mind is at its most vulnerable" in order to get home to his children. That is an explanation of what Cobb does and not what he mut do to get home. You also explain that the world of international espionage turns Leo into a fugitive. This also makes no since. He is wanted for murder in America for reasons I will not divulge so as not to ruin the film. The people chasing him are the ones that hired him for the first job that he fails when the movie opens. Also, the faceless people attacking them in reality and the dream world are faceless for a reason. They are meant to make you wonder if the real is even real at all. This devise is used by Cotillard's character as a devise to convince Cobb that the limbo world is real. It is also used simultaneously to convince the audience all the way until the end that it might all be a dream. This is a brilliantly conceived screenplay that does a masterful job of explaining everything you say it doesn't and making since of what you call gibberish. Anyone can make gibberish but, it takes a master screenwriter to turn gibberish into something tangible. It also requires the audience member to utilize that I.Q. you speak of that most seem to check at the door. If you would have payed attention you would have noticed that everyone knows exactly where they are, what their goals are, who they work for and what they're doing. If they don't then they are not supposed to. I honestly believe that either you are either a pretentious, brainless, incoherent, arrogant, scrambled eggs for brains, clueless, inert, hack or you did not watch this film. I'm going to be kind and go with the door number 2.

good review because its honest

Though clearly not a popular choice among the responses here, I enjoyed your review. Nolan's work has had a similar effect on me, though perhaps not quite to the level of your opinions, but your review made me realize it. I too felt the Dark Knight in particular was a case where a movie just got manicly overrated beyond its true quality level (and still is.) I'm afraid to say it but I thought it dull. Haven't really gone back to it very much since. Just sayin'... Same with his other flicks, never felt like they were classics or even "great." I'm still kinda interested in this flick and may see it on bluray or something.

Finally a review I can agree with!

I completely agree with your opinion on Nolan's work. I think many people consider his movies as complex because he introduces many subplots and characters. His main plots are very simple and characters permanently underdeveloped but few viewers seem to notice that what at first glance appears to be intricacy, diversity and versatility is actually a gimmick, a element that doesn't trully enrich the story.

It's that time.

Mr. Reed,

In the future, when you try to pinpoint the moment you became irrelevant to the conversation about cinema and the modern audience, this would be an excellent place to start.

http://www.observer.com/2008/

http://www.observer.com/2008/arts-culture/bat-future?anonymousId=2208224...

Here's Rex Reed's review of The Dark Knight.

I shall now quote Rex Reed from said review
"The Joker is indestructible. Batman is incorruptible. And The Dark Knight is insurmountable fun."

I shall now quote Rex Reed from this review
"...the mechanical, maniacally baffling and laughably overrated The Dark Knight"

Between the time that The Dark Knight came out and now, Rex has caught on that the "hip" and "controversial" thing to do is to dislike The Dark Knight.

His lack of comprehension of the plot is due to him not wanting to understand the movie because he wanted to write a bad review of a movie that will get hailed as one of the greats.

Post a Comment
Not a registered user? Register here.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Don't have an Observer.com account? You can use your Facebook account instead.