Here’s a little news worth sharing: Christopher Nolan does not shit solid gold. Like most people, he shits shit. Inception, for example.
Let me explain:
Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his trusty sidekick, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt and his trusty sidekick, a can of Layrite) specialize in a unique kind of espionage: espionage of the mind! (I believe the exclamation point is legally required.) Entering the dream of the victim by means wisely left vague, they and the rest of their team trick the dreamer into revealing whatever secrets the client is paying to retrieve — plans for the big corporate merger, what have you. The act of inception is the more challenging process of planting an idea in the dreamer’s mind that will make him awake thinking the idea was his own, causing him to take a different path than he’d intended — breaking up his dead father’s giant energy company, say. But it can’t be done! Or can it!
All in all, I liked it better when they made this movie with Dennis Quaid.
Inception is the kind of movie that never stops throwing things at you, presumably in the hope that you won’t notice it’s really something very familiar: a heist movie. There’s nothing wrong with heist movies, of course, and as with any other genre, the quality is all in the execution. Just an example here, to give you an idea of how original the bones of this film are: Nolan wrote, then reviewed, considered, and retained the following line: “I just need this one last job.” You might have thought this line would be banned from heist films forever, but no. Only the taste and originality of the filmmaker stand between you and hearing that line over and over again. Instead of needing that one last job to set himself up on a desert island, or to get out of this crazy business once and for all, or to open an adorable bakery in Noe Valley, Cobb needs that one last score in order that he can clear his name of murder charges and return to the US and the two children he was forced to abandon (he murdered their mother — or did he!).
Is this more original or interesting than the desert island or the bakery? No, it’s just Nolan’s way of washing all the goings-on in a thicker-than-usual layer of sentimentality (while also allowing the game DiCaprio to basically replay his role from Shutter Island). Without the specter of lost children, Inception would have to rely on the development of its characters, earned emotion or, I don’t know, actual ideas, all of which are in short supply despite its 148-minute running time.
There are no bad movies, of course, only badly-executed movies. Inception is so loaded with potentially rich subject matter — the subconscious, regret, our need to delude ourselves, the yearning for lost love —that it’s easy to imagine this having been a good or even great movie. But between creating visual spectacle, teasing along the cheap emotion, and having his cast awkwardly explain what could have been confusing plot points, there’s very little time to make things cohere.
The problem is Nolan and his usual lack of subtlety. Is there a moment of actual levity in any of his films? I struggle to think of one. Inception has barely a single sustained minute when the ponderous, bass-heavy score relents and allows some tone other than doom and pretension; when any member of the cast unfurrows his or her brow long enough to convey something besides complete seriousness; when the pace of the film is anything but deliberate and plodding. Even when his story is little more than 10th-grade psychology wrapped around 8th-grade science, Nolan treats it as if it’s Einstein giving a college lecture on Jung. This approach served him well enough in his forays into comic book adaptations (the workmanlike Batman Begins and the painfully, infuriatingly, ludicrously overrated Dark Knight, the reputation of which is mostly driven by hysterical reverence for Heath Ledger, the hysterical reverence for whom is driven by his talent, but just as much by his early death), because we expect a certain juvenile self-seriousness from comic book adaptations. But seeing a Nolan movie is generally like eating at a mid-priced steak restaurant that serves nothing at all but steak. Steak is fine, even when it’s overseasoned and undertenderized, but Nolan seems to have no awareness at all that a salad is a nice tonal contrast.
But about that visual spectacle: it’s jaw-dropping. This is something you can’t take away from the man. To call Nolan a great architect of visually inventive action and grand imagination is an understatement. Inception creates dream worlds that are how we wish our dreams could really be, but still feel familiar, with their own logic and recognizable rules, all rendered with a unique visual flair that uses CGI not just to show off, but in service to the underlying idea. (To some extent, Inception’s dream scenes recall the mind-erasing sequences of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, with the main differences being scope and audacity). Every set piece outdoes the last (at least until the final, climactic one, when even Nolan seems tired and confused about which characters are supposed to matter); and it’s only in the film’s second half that the pleasures of living in that world collapse under the accumulated weight of emotional incredulity.
When it comes to Nolan’s films, I find myself increasingly at odds with most of the rest of the world. I’m aware of this. Like Brie or helium balloons, the enthusiasm for his movies leaves me waiting for the moment when everyone cracks up and says, “Nah, just kidding. That shit sucks.” If anyone has a guess how much longer I’ll be waiting, please let me know.
34 responses
But were you not entertained?
Watching Inception, I think you have to suspend disbelief more often than with most other movies, but if you do you’re rewarded to a really entertaining ride of a film. It doesn’t say much about the subconscious (all the dreams are very literal, the weird shit that actually happens in dreams, absent), but I feel it does a fair job with “regret, our need to delude ourselves, the yearning for lost love.” As fair a job as a movie that was probably predicated on the idea of an action set piece that takes place simultaneously in three separate dream levels could.
And at the risk of sounding like a moron, I don’t know if subtlety really belonged in Inception. For one, would it ever have gotten made if Nolan treated the Cobb/Mal storyline with anything but sentimentality? It’d be too hard of a sell. It’s rare that a major studio will throw millions of dollars at a director whose vision is off the beaten path of standard Hollywood scene-setting and character development. It happened (to some extent) with Where the Wild Things Are last year, and that was a dud at the box office. Plus, subtlety in a movie that handles dreams this literally would have made the film feel a bit schizophrenic, I feel.
Also, the whole “filmmaking metaphor” argument (articulated here: http://tinyurl.com/2bj88lt) should be considered before writing off the movie as “shit.” If you’re not going to look at the movie’s subtext then you’re just as guilty as Nolan for being too literal-minded.
Man, I couldn’t have cared less about these characters. I realized this during the avalanche scene, when they were climbing up a cliff to somewhere for some reason I couldn’t figure out. As the snow came towards them I had no emotional response whatsoever.
My favorite part was when Joseph Gordon Levitt introduces the Escher staircase to Ellen Paige just so he could use it 20 minutes later on a villain chasing him and exclaim, “Paradox!” as the villain falls to his death. It was like the episode of Knight Rider when in the beginning the mechanic shows off the new, sideways-driving wheels she’s put on KITT. I wonder if they’ll come in handy later that episode.
It was a visual spectacle, but I really would have enjoyed this film more if it had been good.
John, you raise a number of interesting points, so I’m going to the list format:
1) I don’t think my problem was a failure to suspend disbelief. There’s a fundamental breakdown in a critical discussion about a movie the moment the person who liked it makes the leap that, if only the person who didn’t like it could have stretched himself in the right way or brought the right attitude, he could see its charms. For example, I hated Sex in the City, and the hordes of people who loved it are quick to assume that this is because I don’t care about fashion, or I hate romantic comedy, when in fact it was just *horrible filmmaking*. Likewise, I hated Inception not because I was unable to experience it in the right way, but for all the reasons in my review.
2) You have a good point about expecting subtlety in an action movie, although I would argue that after the Batman movies, and with DiCaprio on board, Nolan probably had all the leverage he needed here to make exactly the film he wanted. In terms of its emotional content, the way it conveys its ideas, its tone and everything else, I find Inception to be perfectly consistent with all Nolan’s work; which is to say that if he had subtlety in him, we’d know by now. This isn’t to say that you can’t be great filmmaker without being subtle (it’s a slippery concept, obvously)–there are lots of filmmakers whose work hits you right over the head, like Charlie Chaplin, for instance, or John Frankenheimer.
You also seem to be saying that subtlety is not possible in mainstream Hollywood films, but I can think of several hundred films off the top of my head that contradict that idea.
3) At the risk of drawing too fine a line, I’m going to object to your saying that the theory about Inception being about filmmaking is a subtext at all. If that really was Nolan’s intention, that makes the movie a metaphor, but it doesn’t mean there’s a subtext here. The only reason I make this distinction is because Inception, in my opinion, had no subtext–this is exactly its problem: it isn’t the sort of movie that could possibly have a subtext, because it’s theme’s are underdeveoped and handled with all the sophistication of an eighth-grade play.
4) I hadn’t considered the fact that the dreams are all very straight-forward, but they certainly are, and now I have a whole new reason to hate this hamfisted turd.
My friends keep on hitting on these same arguments about Nolan films: the dialogue sucks, they’re so pretentious, there’s no character development. And for the most part, I agree.
But, and this is a big but, Inception is a big budget summer popcorn flick. People are grading this beast on an art house curve which is kind of misguided. It’s like going into the A-Team or Transformers and complaining about the plot holes and lack of believable characters. If you’re interested in seeing a shut your brain off summer action movie, what are your choices? Knight and Day? Jonah Hex? The Losers? Inception. Which of those would you go to? Obviously, I’d go with Inception. At least I don’t feel talked down to sitting through that.
I can’t disagree with any critique that was made here but I still came away really having enjoyed the movie. It’s been a long time since I felt like the filmmaker really earned my ten bucks, and for it to happen in a film where I didn’t feel all that invested in the emotional journey of any of the characters is even more of an impressive feat, I think.
So, we all agree the movie was pretty. But apparently only some of us, Mr. Fahey included, are willing to recognize that all those mysterious machinations and convoluted metaphors weren’t brilliant plot twists, but just dead-ends constructed by a lazy filmmaker. A film should be a visual spectacle, but it’s not too much to ask that it also be well-written.
@Larry,
I didn’t mean to imply that a Hollywood film can’t be subtle. But “subtlety” certainly isn’t what we think of when we think of Hollywood films being made today. But, yes, in a movie that appears to want to (but doesn’t really) say something about human subconsciousness, subtlety should have maybe been considered by the writer/director.
Also, I believe I misused the term “subtext.” haha
And also, okay, it’s not exactly subtle, but the way Cobb’s guilt is handled (by having Mal constantly and violently disrupt what he needs to do once he’s inside the dreamscape) was pretty good, I thought. It was an interesting way of showing how his shame really messes him up, how even in his sleep he can’t escape the memory of what he did. Which makes the moment at the end (in limbo, I think) where he’s finally able to let go pretty effective, for me at least.
Salvatore, I see your point, but Nolan can’t have it both ways. I think anyone who judges his films by art-house standards is totally justified, given his work’s humorless pomposity. He positions himself as an auteur, and it’s fair to judge him that way.
As it happens, I saw the A-Team, and I feel safe in saying that no one involved in that film has the least idea that it’s about anything but explosions. No one will ever compare the A-Team with Inception, but Nolan’s work should have a fraction of that movie’s good humor and self-deprication.
Hear hear, Mr. Fahey. Nolan seems hell-bent on freaking out his audience by suggesting that reality is, like, maybe not real, dude, but in the end there’s nothing substantial to chew on– from a psychological, emotional, or philosophical perspective. It reminded me of an unremarkable acid trip or a codependent relationship, only with (mercifully) less of a time commitment.
Thank you. I too am waiting for everyone who has given this guy’s movies positive reviews to reveal they have actually been paid off by the Scarecrow or that they have lost their short term memories or are otherwise being manipulated by “the man”.
Finally! But let me qualify that.
Nolan does not shit gold contrary to popular opinion because the movie does not really introduce anything new to me. Even more, I am not comfortable with how blatantly the movie copies ideas such as taking from Rene Descartes’ Meditations without referencing or reinventing.
As for layered and lucid dreams, they are as normal as anything goes. We have, at one point at least, manipulated our dreams. We have, at one point at least, woken up from a dream to a dream.
And my favorite poem of all time is Edgar Allan Poe’s A Dream Within A Dream, so every time the characters say that phrase, which is about 300, I wince a little.
As for entertaining, I was entertained. I enjoyed the visual spectacle. But it is no mindf*ck, as many describe it, that’s for sure.
I like brie.
Hi, Mr. Fahey,
I’m loving this. Great review. I love brie, but I know what you mean. I feel the same way about asparagus.
All best,
Ruth (fellow Rumpus-er)
Thanks, Ruth. This has been a fun one. And I especially like how no one even tries to defend helium balloons. They’re beyond redemption.
you own the argument here, larry. in a way that i could never muster the gear to slog it through. and you have style. a few of your more long and winding sentences really defied gravity. such an excellent thing to stumble upon in a film review.
i actually loved the movie and thought he was working with a lot of fragmented pieces that had their space and subtlety. at least i took away nuggets from it and was thoroughly entertained. i think a major part of the perspective lends itself to what your first commenter, John, said, suspension of disbelief. i respond to people asking me about the movie by warning that they have to carry this with them at all times.
i guess i kind of went in wanting to like it and did. that sometimes backfires. but you could just as easily go into it looking for a loose thread and have a sweater by morning.
i read stephen elliott’s meta review in the rumpus daily email, and after reading this i felt like i was cornered by two guys at a party i didn’t know, but really liked for some reason, who may hate me for what i think about this movie. but then i stopped and thought, wow, isn’t it great that writing could make me feel all that.
you made an excellent sweater. thanks.
Larry, and wr to John.
Most of the review is how I felt about the film. In addition to the embarassingly lame sentimentality which was a bit thickly laid on, about the needing to go back to the kids, and Larry you bring out all the right film references; I was also ‘let down’ by the pathetically silly grand ‘purpose’ behind the whole stupid plot. For little new boss to want to break his company up or whatever after he gets it from big daddy–really, is that remotely even the best you could come up, even under a serious hangover?
An idea this cool and zany, and going into dream levels to influence subconsious, for such a lame-ass, cheesy purpose?
I wasnt annoyed, but merely ‘let down’ because this is the Nolan that made memento. And I remember talking about this exact subtlety thing and true mind-bending that memento manages that was nowhere present here in Inception, and the big-film show was the Nolan that made the lousy batman, my views on that film are exactly yours– heath ledger and all the rest.
I’m just surprised no one’s spoken of Memento here wrt Nolan and what he can do.
Larry, I agree with your response to John that give his pretty big superstar status and buddies, Nolan had all the hollywood backing he needed already, to make a truly interesting, mindbending film. It’s just disapointing to see another hollywood flick in the guise of some ‘totally new’, we’re going to challenge your ideas, plot. Why the guise? Make either kind, but do make it well, ’cause you have the awesome budget that others dont! There is an idealist craving for the ‘film this could have been’ and I’m not sure that’s my fault, for feeling it, or because I feel I’m being made to feel it when I’ve been given a ride that was so much and lots, but still not quite there.
Larry, this is a great review, even though I liked Inception. It’s true the movie has very little character development or emotion, which I think is a good thing. It’s a curse that so many movies still feel the need to mimic the realist conventions of the novel, with characters growing, changing, realizing insights, etc. Film can do so much more than that. Inception is so over-the-top (and like you say, the music is a big part of that) visually that it almost veers into pure abstraction. If there’s one complaint I had with the movie that’s it: that it didn’t do a better job of dispensing with character “development,” emotional growth, etc. It comes close to being surrealist in its best parts, but it’s as if Nolan figured he had to have some typical Hollywood backstory, hence Cobb longing for his kids, etc. Inception comes close to being just pure visual spectacle. It’s strange that Hollywood has all the tools to dispense with narrative altogether and make purely abstract films, but that it still relies on realism as its ground zero. Some major release films–like Darren Aronofsy’s The Fountain or Gasper Noe’s Enter the Void–come close to letting film run free into uncharted visual zones, but most fall back on Charles Dickens-ish storytelling. I liked Inception for the film that it almost was: radically abstract.
I discussed this review with a friend last night, and I think I realized why I feel inclined to defend the film. (Though I can’t really argue against the points in your review, for they’re all valid.)
It has to do with film criticism, I guess. This review largely focuses on the “text” of the movie, the story, giving only a paragraph to the visual spectacle. I guess I’m more forgiving of movies when they have the issues you’ve described (underdeveloped themes, lazy lines, lack of subtlety). If these issues arose in a book, though, I’d instantly dismiss the book. I think it’s easier to hone themes and dialogue and incorporate subtlety in a novel. I think that form is more welcoming to those features of storytelling. That’s why whenever a book-to-film adaptation is released, reviewers always say that the movie, in its short running time, stands an almost-impossible chance of matching the original text’s depth.
But the filmmaker chooses film, a visual medium, to tell his story, and I think his handling of the film’s visuals deserves as much critical attention as, say, a novelist’s prose.
My friend said this view of film criticism is too forgiving, that I should look at all stories (films, books, poems, etc) with a similar (almost-identical) critical approach. The story takes primacy over the storytelling medium, basically. I don’t know, it’s just something interesting to think about. Appreciate the review, by the way. It was far more sensical than Armond White’s.
If you’re the first to say of Nolan’s movies, “That shit sucks,” let me be the second. I’m delighted to see the phrase “infuriatingly, ludicrously overrated” in the same sentence as “The Dark Knight.” But the most infuritaing thing is, I’ll probably go see Inception. And afterwards say, “What the hell did I do that for?”
Chris, thanks so much for your comment. That’s about the nicest thing anyone’s ever said to me in a comment section. Though, for the record, most of my comments come from my brother, and tend to focus on childhood embarrassments or weight gain, so I guess the bar is low.
Nick, that’s a really interesting idea–Inception pushed in the other direction, embracing visual spectacle and dispensing with emotion or, perhaps, even narrative altogether. I’d really like to think Nolan’s sensibilities could be that noncommercial and unconventional, but it’s hard to imagine. As for Hollywood not making purely abstract films, I don’t find that strange at all. Who would watch them?
This film was such a disappointment – not because it wasn’t visually stunning (it was), not because it didn’t start with an interesting idea (I think it did), but because it was so. poorly. executed. I felt cheated!
Nolan had all these cool, beautiful ideas for how to film, he had a new kind of twist on an old story that had potential… and then no one taught him how to write. SIGH. Do he and James Cameron have some sort of secret club?
Inception bored me to tears.
Really liked this. Well written and insightful.
Here’s a summary of the Rumpus Review of Inception: “Inception is a movie built on a standard trope, except slathered with trite trappings of sentimentality and overburdened with self-importance. But it was still visually stunning.”
In other words, this nearly 1000 word review can be summarized in less than 30. It’s at least as bloated and self-important as anything Chris Nolan has put out.
10th grade psychology? What high school did *you* go to?
Overhyped boy-on-boy action flicks like Inception automatically raise my hackles so I probably won’t see that shit anyway. (Until my husband, who loves overhyped boy-on-boy action flicks, illegally downloads it.) But I agree with you so, SO much about Dark Knight–well nigh impossible to sit through, in my opinion. Unfortunately, about Brie you’re just plain wrong.
Thank you for this review. I’ve been trying to put my finger on what this film would actually be after all the levels of dreams were peeled away, and the heist film label is perfect. I like heist films but did not enjoy Inception. I suppose Inception’s fandom has done more to turn me off from this movie than anything. I can agree about the visual spectacle and the slick concept but, no, the film never fucked with my head or made me think. Fandom seems intent on pushing the last two points.
Everett, I’m sorry you didn’t like the review. It’s fair to say that just about any piece of writing could be shorter, but in fairness, who would read a 30-word movie review, and how much discussion would it generate?
My biggest challenge was keeping my review as short as it was. I had a long list of complaints, and left out about half of them (for instance, when Cillian Murphy opens the vault and walks in at the end, it’s a clear visual quotation of the last scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I find this as nonsensical as it is arrogant.) It can be hard to argue well for a strongly held opinion and not sound self-important. My apologies if I’ve failed here.
Dear Everett,
That’s such a good point! I prefer your shorter review. Although it offers no insight into the claims behind the argument and doesn’t teach me anything, I like how it’s not self-important. What a breath of fresh air!
Yours Truly,
Ted
Larry. There’s nothing like a soft and modest word to heap coals and shame upon an antagonist’s head. You have my apology for the rudeness of my comment.
Actually, I enjoyed your review. But just when I thought the appetizer was over and the entree was en route, dinner concluded. In that way, it was a little like Inception: the onlooker sees potential in the concept and promise in the execution, but is left waiting for the payload. There is also a key difference between Inception and your review: I don’t think I could have withstood Inception much longer. Rather than attaining depth, Inception spread an already thin film over an exponentially increasing surface area; any probing and the bubble bursts. In contrast, your review was more like ripples on the surface of deeper water. I wanted more from your review and just felt like we didn’t make it deep enough to warrant the ‘This shit sucks’. But I know I would have enjoyed the meat and potatoes it if space had allowed.
By the by: can you recommend (or compare Inception to) an intense, visually impressive movie with the type of subtlety you enjoy?
To: Ted Wilson
From: Everett
Subject: Like, no way!
How ironic that you in turn pointed out the irony in my response which in turn pointed out the irony in the review. We must be–what–three levels deep now? When we get back, you get a cookie for using identical rhetorical means to point out the reflexive principle of my comment. But first, let’s make sure we orchestrate those kickbacks perfectly: I’ll push you off of your pedestal if you’ll push me off of mine.
Very best regards,
Everett
No worries, Everett. I’m no stranger myself to regretting reflexive rudeness. No harm done.
As I mentioned in my review, there’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It’s much smaller in scope than Inception, of course, but I think it manages to juggle a complex idea and an effective (if modest, in comparison) spectacle while still delivering on the sort of emotional payoff Inception seems interested in, all with wit, subtlety and grace. Another movie that comes to mind, a little obviously, is the Matrix. There’s little emotional fulfillment from it (for me, anyway), but then again it promises none. It, too, makes a a complicated (if no more sophisticated) idea easily understandable, and creates a convincing world of its own. For whatever reason, I also thought of Kurosawa’s Ran, which is a much different proposition, of course, but creates incredible complexity and is visually epic in every way. Off the top of my head, some other movies that come under the heading of “visual spectacles” that I think come through with layered, fascinating stories and/or ideas: the aforementioned 2001, Disney’s highly underrated 1960 Time Machine, the original King Kong, Cloverfield, and Metropolis. We probably shouldn’t leave out martial arts movies, either, my favorites of which are among the most visually impressive movies I know. Once Upon a Time in China, comes right to mind, as does The Legend of Drunken Master and the original Ong Bak.
After all these years, you still crack me up. I was thoroughly entertained for 2 hours. And what’s wrong with helium balloons?
Yeah, but Bob, you own A Walk in the Clouds on laserdisc, so let’s put this into perspective.
Ok, I know I’m chiming in a bit late here but really? None of you liked Inception?
You need to read a review from a man with immense intellect. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100714/REVIEWS/100719997
I also read your column or article on Roger Ebert a couple of hours ago. . .really? I found it quite silly (to put it mildly) and apparently so did everybody else who commented. I’m not trying to bash you or anyone else who has commented agreeing with your articles but that was quite audacious of you. You say Nolan uses grade 10 Psychology. Well, I’m sorry to inform you but I’m in my second year of University at the University of Victoria and we are discussing dreams. And psychologists have studied dreams for decades, dreams are a fascinating thing that no one has been able to figure out that is why Inception is so brilliant, it takes you into the dream. You also say things about the lack of character development. I once again disagree with you. Through this movie you can care for Cobb because of the situation with his wife and two kids. You cannot tell me you didn’t feel bad for Cobb when his wife commits suicide thinking she is still in a dream. You can also see him change, Cobb when first introduced is a confident man who seams to be at the top of his game, but while doing the inception job he breaks down, cracks, shows his true inner self to the audience. To me that is character development. The other characters are not the protagonists. You don’t get as much insight into their lives as Cobb but they still develop. The architect for example (forgot the name) you learn she is a college student and she becomes the second lead (in my eyes) because she becomes so involved in Cobb’s issues. You see her show sympathy and empathy towards Cobb and passion towards her work (architectural work that is) when at first she wasn’t so enthralled to do so. At first wanting to leave, and in the end she turns into a hero in some ways. You then address how you think Nolan did a horrible job with Batman, when in fact he has reinvented Batman from its old cheesy plot and setting to a new magnificent plot with well written characters, much better than before. I won’t get to far into that. I just don’t get how you can hate a man who has created 3 very good movies (I’m on the fence about memento, it was good but how does he know he has short term memory loss?) And another man who has defined movie criticism for the longest time (Ebert). To me you just seem like a man who likes to go against the grain, disagree with everyone for the sake of disagreeing with everyone. A ‘non-conformist’ if you will. Hey, maybe I’ve judged too soon, maybe I’m off my rocker but I felt the need to say something.
Hey Larry, great article! I honestly thought that Inception found a way to put both Avatar and The Dark Knight for most overrated films of the past few years. Honestly, I believe Nolan was a brilliant filmmaker who’s begun seriously pandering to mainstream audiences. Nolan started out making the amazing Following in 1998. The film, a stylish prelude to Memento filmed in black and white, was everything Nolan’s films have become. Then obviously he followed it up with the outstanding, gimmick or not, Memento. So I only disagree with you about his films being compared to a steak that you got at Outback or whatever a mid-priced steakhouse is. Remaking Insomnia seemed like a horrible idea especially with the odd cast, but I was on board. I’m one of the few people who hates Scarface, and believes that the Pacino has been great in maybe 3 films(including Heat and now Insomnia.) Somehow the movie was just as great as the original, if not somewhat more effective with David Julyan’s moody score and Robin Williams’ brilliant nod as a psychopath.
Fast forward to a few years later, and Batman Begins was actually a masterpiece compared to what Burton and that guy who made The Lost Boys had made it. The Prestige is his last great film, and the last time Julyan composed the score for the now Big Hollywood director. The Dark Knight is overrated, but not as bad as Inception. This is Nolan who will now be chasing Oscars, because earlier on, he was basically ignored. Leonardo DiCaprio was chosen banking on an Oscar nod for him, Ellen Page from the Godawful “Juno” which not only ripped off a film from our brothers from the East but miserably failed at creating a Heathers-eque fun dialogue. The movie was an abortion so that should have been the ultimate ending instead of the happy ending that’d make Spielberg pimp out an an ex stripper. And instead of David Julyan who actually makes a powerful scores for films but probably won’t get nominated for an Oscar like Hans Zimmer(watch The Descent, Eden Lake, The Prestige, etc.)
This is the beginning of the end, and I’m guessing fan boys will back him faithfully like they do Cameron.
Oh well, I do not hate Nolan, and I’m hoping that he’ll return to making atmospheric films that don’t rely on special effects, and aren’t made PG-13 solely for the reason to be played in IMAX theaters. About your article I would have commented on your spot-on article about Ebert, but couldn’t find a spot. No more huffing paint after watching It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia for me but I digress. You should have just focused on the fact that Ebert gave Blue Velvet 1/2 a star and both Garfield movies 3 stars. Hollow Man may have sucked, but it’s far better than either Garfield movie. And I’m also certain that the film ATL shouldn’t have gotten a higher rating than A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, Phantasm, or Heathers. I believe that’s why so many old people flipped out at the fact that you would dare trash the prestigious R. Hyde who used to write with Russ Myer.
And to the last commenter, John… Ebert has immense intelligence? He actually considered Copland a racist film(not to mention Very Bad Things, because one guy accidentally kills an Asian prostitute and to cover it up they kill a black guy they were more than willing to pay off yet he accidentally saw too much.) The man refuses to see films that aren’t Hollywood made, and he’s a surprising xenophobe who isn’t aware that Takashi Miike is having his ideas stolen by Tarantino while giving Kill Bill 4 stars. He’s known for championing foreign films early in his career, but haven’t seen his reviews for Martyrs or A Serbian Film just yet. Yet he found the time to watch the dreadful “A Human Centipede” and wouldn’t give it zero stars.
“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” belongs in a select company (with “Night of the Living Dead” and “Last House on the Left”) of films that are really a lot better than the genre requires. – Ebert(he gave TCM 2 stars, Night of the Living Dead 3 1/2, and Last House on the Left 3 1/2 as well.) Such an outstanding critic!
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.