Great Action Caper; Disappointingly Straightforward
Inception made me feel a bit cheated. Which is unfortunate, because it's actually quite a good film. A great film, even. However, it is a film that goes in a profoundly unexpected direction by, ironically, not going in an unexpected direction.
The premise of the film is not entirely new, though it's not old hat either: the heroes are capable of entering the dreams of others to mess with their minds, so they get paid to go do just that. The theme of entering the dreams of another in order to screw with their minds has been done before by Paprika
, Nightmare On Elm Street
, Changeling: The Lost, and probably a few others I can't think of at the moment. It was the use of this narrative device that drew me to the film, in fact. I always loved the mind-bending nature of the idea, and after his work with Shutter Island
(which is my favorite Leo film), I walked into the theater with the hopeful expectation that the film would give my brain some delicious, twisty Mind Screw
to chew on.
What I got was a straightforward caper film. A very good caper film. The acting is amazing on all counts (Leo is a tour de force as usual, but I especially liked Arthur, who was a walking Crowning Moment Of Funny
), the plan is satisfyingly Gordian, the writing is tight and moving. Yet I still felt disappointed at just how simple the metaphysical landscape of the plot is. With the exception for the movie's first sequence, you are rarely asked to reevaluate what you have seen, and when you are, it is no more than a simple "oh, so the last couple shots might have been All Just A Dream
". The structure of the dream world is too neat and one-dimensional, making it all too easily followed. I know it's weird to bitch about a movie for not being incomprehensible enough, but the Mind Screw is half the fun, dammit!
All in all, a great action caper. Just don't go in expecting crazy Mind Screw
dreamscape shenanigans, because while they got the "crazy dreamscape" down pat, they left out the Mind Screw
20th Dec 10
20th Dec 10
21st Dec 10
that they did the crazy dreamscape part just fine, you know....
But you're right, I should've said "superstructure", and probably should have explained "metaphysical landscape". This is my first review, and the word count limit really caught me off-guard.
Anyways, since I don't
have a word count limit here, I can clarify all I want. =) I was referring to the fact that the film, despite its premise, ultimately does not ask you to question the nature of reality and consciousness. It brings us this whole ambiguous duality of reality and dream, but the lines never blur. Which, as I stated in my review, isn't really a bad
thing, exactly. It's just that I know I'm not the only person who walked into the theater expecting something philosophical that made you think. Instead, Inception
was an action caper that used the dream as simply a background. Which, once again, I never said was bad
, but it's more than a little disappointing for people like me who enjoy being confused by an intricate puzzle. In fact, that disappointment actually colored my initial impression of the movie, and I walked out of the theatre not actually liking the film very much. It was later that I realized I was letting my premature expectations color my view of the film, but I know quite a number of people with similar experiences.
So, yeah, bottom line: great film, but don't mistake it for a mind-bending examination of the boundaries between dreams and reality, because it's not.
21st Dec 10
I think I understand now. You wanted the dreams to be part of the plot instead of just the setting. By the way, "superstructure" isn't a great substitution. "Metaphysical nature" and "The separation of the dream world [from reality] is too neat and one-dimensional" would probably get your point across better. Those substitutions are not as literal.
22nd Dec 10
Okay, I wanted to let this lie, but I find I cannot. You keep telling me that I am miscommunicating, yet it seems your own grasp terms I have used is at best flawed, and instead of trying figure out what the proper definitions are, you are repudiating their use.
First, "Metaphysical nature" is completely non-specific. It just means "the nature of existence", which only barely approximates what I'm getting at here. To whit:
Metaphysical: Relating to the nature of being.
Landscape: Can mean either the expanse of scenery visible from a single frame of reference, the aspect of land characteristic to a particular region, or an extensive mental view or interior prospect. (Paraphrased from a Dictionary definition.)
So, when I say "Metaphysical Landscape", I mean both the aspects which are characteristic of existence (What is real? What is reality like?) and the way those characteristics interact with limited, singular perceptions of an individual. I am obviously not
talking about geography, or the word "metaphysical" would never have even entered the picture. That would be the "dreamscape", or the "landscape of dreams", or even "oneiromantic landscape" if I were feeling particularly daft.
As for the "structure of the dream world" thing, that was actually a separate complaint. I do
mean its structure, or possibly "superstructure" depending upon how you'd look at it. The fact that the dream is nothing more than a straight up and down ladder bugged me. I mean, what? Did they really think we couldn't handle something more complex than that? I could think up something more interesting right off the top of my head: The dream world is like a network of rooms, where each room is a dream. All of them have doors to all the other rooms, but many are locked on one side, or locked on both sides. This is just an example, of course, but my point is that just making it a 1-dimensional ladder is downright unimaginative. They can't even get lost in it!
But I digress. Point is, you are telling me I shouldn't use certain words because you misunderstood what they meant, even though I used them in a verys specific way that has a very specific meaning. So no, I do not think your suggestions would get my point across better. In fact, they distort my intent, and upon rereading I find that my original wording was quite clear. Next time you feel like lambasting someone, please take the time to actually read what they've actually written instead of lifting single words out of context and then claiming they mean something they do not.
4th Jan 11
4th Jan 11
(edited by: shiro_okami)
7th Jan 11
(edited by: MarkAntony)
7th Jan 11
In order to post comments, you need to