Inception. Impressive? Sure, but not for the reasons you think. The phenomenon that fell out of good old Chris Nolan's rectum and swept the nation has been impressive, but only for the simple fact that it convinced so many people that it isn't an absolute pile of wank.
Trust me on this one. inception is a terrible film, and here's why:
Firstly, don't think that the obvious plus points have been overlooked, because they haven't. It is visually stunning, very well acted, and the idea, the basis, is awesome. But these do not a good film make.
Being visually stunning is fine if all you want to do is root footballers, or impress a retard baby, but this was trying be a thinking man's blockbuster, a new age showstopper. So, the image had to be supported by intellect. Which it was not.
Breaking inception down simply makes this easier to understand, as i can hear the chorus of boos manifesting already.
Inception is not a film about the subconscious, this is merely the setting. Woody A sets his films in New York, Star Wars is set in space, and Inception is set in the mind. But we do not judge a painting by its canvas, and we should not judge Nolan's creation on ins setting. Especially one that stopped being original in the 60's.
What the film is about is a robbery, or rather an inverted robbery, and this is where it becomes fully retarded. It is a fully terrible heist film.
1.Planning. If 'inception' is so difficult, why do they come up for the idea of how to do it in ONE meeting? i'll paraphrase.
'how are we going to do it?''errr, i dunno, maybe, get his dad to tell him?'
'perfect'
For something that's meant to be basically impossible, that was far to freaking easy. DID YOU EVEN READ THE SCRIPT NOLAN?
Any good heist film has a good plan. This one was so concerned with bending the ground it forgot about it, evidently.
2. The actual heist itself. Again, for something so difficult, it was far to easy. The only difficult bit was the minions that appeared to protect the main enemy dude. AND THEY WEREN'T EVEN MEANT TO BE THERE. Without them, there was NO fucking challenge. None. Again, don't tell me something is difficult when it clearly isn't. If something isn't hard. why am I watching a film about it? (Lad)
3. That whole time thing was clearly unplanned bullcrap. So each level extends the passage of time. I didn't carry a watch, but it definitely didn't match up. That car fell off the bridge for as long as all the other bits put together. Horseshit, and the consistency of Custard. Call me crazy, but if you set up a premise, I expect you to at least stick with it.
Failing as a basically coherent, well-thought out heist film isn't the only problem with this turd masquerading as a diamond, there are innumerate other flaws. The ones that really got me are listed below.
It was probably inspired by some book with the entirely flatulent title 'psychology for dummies'. Sure, lets try and filmicly represent the subconscious. Lets do it by just having four levels. Where physics is slightly wacky. WOW. NAAAAAAAT. Freud is rolling in his grave. Anyone with even the slightest bit of education could've done it better, and anyone who even knows a tiny bit about the human mind would know that any level past the first one would be far more nuts, and wholly irrational. Fairly certain mine would have an awesomely cool dad/horse/dolphin cruising round being hilariously racist.
It had fucking Juno in it. The weird foetus/woman who stole two hours of my life moaning about emotions during pregnancy. And then someone pulls her. fairly certain there's a law against that.
It ends with the a laughable piss-take of DALLAS. And anyone spoofing that should be shot.
Simply put, thanks but no thanks. I'd watch Toy Story 3 any day.
No comments:
Post a Comment