Watching Inception, I actually felt as if I had lost my short term memory faculty. I think various characters, especially little DiCaprio and his sidekick Joeph Gordon-Levitt, were forever explaining things. What had happened, what would happen, why somethings might happen and why other things might not happen etc etc. But after a while it became impossible to retain the nonsensical gobbledygook that was being spouted and I kept asking myself why are they doing this, why are they doing that? Why are they in the middle of a snow covered mountain? Why is that guy floating around, tying everybody up and stuffing them down a lift shaft? I think all this was explained. Was it? Oh I can't remember. But then a sense of complete ennui took over my body. A listlessness so total that I could not summon up the energy to even try to follow this nonsense.
Today's film makers often pay their respects to the great directors of the past, but their praise and appreciation is entirely bogus. It cannot be otherwise, considering they have no notion how to develop plot, how to create characters that live and breathe and exude vitality. For Christopher Nolan, wit drama and tension may be beyond him, but surely simple coherence is not too much to ask? I am very aware that many people love this film, indeed some even declare it a work of genius (dear oh dear!), but there are some dissenting voices. And for those who recognise Inception for the nullity it is, I have more than once seen the story of "The King's New Clothes" being invoked to describe how so many people seem to have been taken in by this nothing of a picture. But whilst I agree with most of the views of the dissenters, I must take issue with those who use the "King's New Clothes" as a simile. And the reason is simple, this movie is not fit to mentioned in the same breath, even via an unflattering comparison as Hans Anderson's marvellous story. Anderson created, in a few short pages a storytelling masterpiece,; a strong narrative, compelling characters and a classic denouement, all told with brevity wit and clarity.And at the core of the story is an ethical and moral issue that people can, and have debated for centuries And all these characteristics in this gem of the storytellers art, are totally missing in Nolan's boring incoherent mess. In short, rather than be compared to Anderson's great little story, Nolan should be studying it closely to see how a story can be successfully told.
Today's film makers often pay their respects to the great directors of the past, but their praise and appreciation is entirely bogus. It cannot be otherwise, considering they have no notion how to develop plot, how to create characters that live and breathe and exude vitality. For Christopher Nolan, wit drama and tension may be beyond him, but surely simple coherence is not too much to ask? I am very aware that many people love this film, indeed some even declare it a work of genius (dear oh dear!), but there are some dissenting voices. And for those who recognise Inception for the nullity it is, I have more than once seen the story of "The King's New Clothes" being invoked to describe how so many people seem to have been taken in by this nothing of a picture. But whilst I agree with most of the views of the dissenters, I must take issue with those who use the "King's New Clothes" as a simile. And the reason is simple, this movie is not fit to mentioned in the same breath, even via an unflattering comparison as Hans Anderson's marvellous story. Anderson created, in a few short pages a storytelling masterpiece,; a strong narrative, compelling characters and a classic denouement, all told with brevity wit and clarity.And at the core of the story is an ethical and moral issue that people can, and have debated for centuries And all these characteristics in this gem of the storytellers art, are totally missing in Nolan's boring incoherent mess. In short, rather than be compared to Anderson's great little story, Nolan should be studying it closely to see how a story can be successfully told.