By convoluting the various planes of experience, by overlapping and obscuring ostensible realities and ostensible dreams, Mr. Nolan deprives us the opportunity of investing emotionally in any of it.
Alright I JUST saw the movie and let me clear something up. There is an emotional story in this film. It revolves around Leo's character. So I'm not really getting these critics who seem to think its devoid of all emotion. It may be that it simply wasnt emotional ENOUGH for them but I mean emotion surprisingly makes up a large part of Leo's character's story.
Jul 16 - 04:23 AM
That is because you have emotional capabilities of a mustard seed.
Jul 19 - 06:56 PM
Letting go of lost loved ones. It can be seen in both Fischer and Cobb. There is also one on accepting reality for what it is as is with dreams. There is also a strike against suicide to justify the fact that they have to kill themselves to wake up. A sprinkle of promise keeping when looking at Saito and perseverance considering he is did all this to go home and see his children.NO, no heart at all.
Apr 2 - 07:52 PM
RT really svcks!!!!
Jul 16 - 04:42 AM
go back to reporting stocks. you are not good at criticizing movies
Jul 16 - 04:54 AM
New York connection
Jul 16 - 05:00 AM
and a conservative at that.
Jul 16 - 05:29 AM
who cares if he's a conservative????
****...points to him for not being a libtard
Jul 16 - 06:06 AM
If I'm understanding this the right way please tell me. You're saying that the plot of Inception was too layered and they should have made it simpler because you couldn't focus with all the pretty colors distracting you? And how is it not emotional enough? This film isn't meant to be a drama. People are shot and the rest of the cast just go about their business because of the plan they have. It's a movie that's meant to make you think. It's not a romantic comedy. And saying that Leo responds too quickly when asked a simple question about the job he's had for years is thoughtless. If you've been a movie critic for a considerably long time and someone asks you what chair you use when you write your reviews, you're going to respond pretty quickly. So don't complain about the movie's level of plot depth because your simple mind can't handle it. Maybe you should get examined for ADD.
Jul 16 - 05:01 AM
Ole Mattis Opperud
Ever heard of repeat viewing?
I think alot of people are, sadely, going to judge John Anderson's review solely on the curt paragraph above, but I did enjoy his review and found it to have some good points for me to take into my movie watching experience. The Wall Street Journal, along with the New York Times, are awesome Friday papers for movie reviews. I strongly encourage people to not attach themselves to products, because then it becomes personal. The act of watching a film is completed for some when they write a review, and that process, when shared (positive or negative), gives life to a piece of art. C U @ the movies everyone!
Jul 16 - 06:33 AM
Well said. I agree, there was an emotional story in there, but I never felt truly invested in it.
Aug 13 - 10:35 AM
So because it would need to be dumbed down for you, all movies everywhere should be dumbed down for everyone. I see. Are you trying for a CEO of a company, perchance?
Jul 16 - 07:08 AM
All negative reviews for this film thus far are like nightmares that surround the movie...they are logic-less, and it makes you scared to think these are critics who 'Went to college'. XD
Jul 16 - 07:57 AM
I love how these critics gave this movie low ratings just for the fact that they couldn't hold on the story. Well if critics are too "dumb" to understand movies and the "simple" audience understands them then why critics are paid for since they have no idea what they're talking about? How about paying real people who recognize and understand good movies without bashing them for being "too complicated". Watch Transformers if you don't like to use your head much.
Jul 16 - 08:44 AM
I think everyone missed the point of the review. John Anderson isn't saying the movie is devoid of emotion; obviously a major part of the story is the emotional struggle of Leo's character. He's saying that as a viewer we don't identify with the emotional plot because the there is a lack of char depth and development, the plot bounces too much and the premise is too fantastical to really identify with it. All this makes it difficult for the viewer to get emotionally invested. If you read the article he had a good idea of the plot, it's just the plot was a little goofy. A masterfully shot movie, that didn't really follow through on all that it promised with the plot.
Jul 17 - 11:42 AM
Excellent summing up of this movie's promises and failures, J.K.
We keep being bounced around, while in real life REAL complexity requires preparation and setting-up for difficult accomplishments.
I think this movie is designed to suit an ADD public, and it is not those who did not enjoy it that failed to get it because of ADD.
Some of the negative reviews and comments are clearly by people who were not confused about the plot...
Jul 18 - 01:48 PM
Cineaste Cahiers Du Cinema
The main problem with people who like this movie is that they think everyone who doesn't like it "doesn't understand Inception" and are therefore idiots. The Nolan fans' premise about people who dislike this film couldn't be further from the truth.The film is poor because it can be summed up in one sentence "it was all just a dream". In screenwriting 101, the best way to infuriate your audience is to end a film this way, or to construct your film using these devices- reason being- there are no real stakes, no danger nothing to make any of the character's journey actually matter- all that the audience invests in (as little as there was) is all for nought. Ultimately, the film becomes 2.5 hours of wasted time and money. Additionally, we never know who Cobb is, we never really get to know anybody so therefore his psychological dream state is moot to the viewer. If we don't know, we don't care. We are not going to search for something that is not there and look for false inferences of character behavior. The dead wife back story is cliche. The dream world is far too literal and frankly, boring."Nolanoids" (Nolan fans) seem to have some sort of jihad for those with dissenting informed opinions about their savior's films- as evidenced by their vehement, grammatically incorrect, and incoherent rantings. Now I know how easy it is for the Taliban to recruit malleable and ignorant minds- just read through Nolanoids' comments on rottentomatoes message boards for startling yet predictable evidence of this.
Jul 25 - 10:49 PM
Completely agree with JK. Nice to hear a moderate tone beneath the shouts of "The greatest #$%^ movie EVER MADE!" As if those kinds of comments aren't telling about their poster's really cinematic experience.
Jul 26 - 02:59 AM
This man is proof as to why the Wall Street Journal is failing.
Jul 16 - 12:50 PM
Yes, there's the whole emotional framing of Leo's character with his kids and wife, but just because they want you to care, doesn't mean that you should, or do. I wanted to care, but I just couldn't. One of the most disappointing movies I've watched in a long time. For shame Mr. Nolan.
Why is the Wall Street Journal considered a top critic publication? What the hell do market gurus know about good cinema? Rotten Tomatoes you fail on this one. Especially when said Journal has been responsible for giving The Dark Knight, Up, and now Inception rotten reviews meanwhile Twilight gets a fresh?
Jul 16 - 08:46 PM
well jeez, last i checked, it's not a critic's job to agree with the majority
and sophisticated newspapers once upon of time were the first and only movie critics
did you bother to read the review or did you already make up your mind about how the guy knew nothing because of the score and the paragraph above?
besides is a 21 year old college drop out that made a website better prepared to write reviews than 45 year old phds?
but don't get me wrong, i loved inception, i just respect his review and so should all of you 13 year old fanboys...
Jul 22 - 03:17 PM
Exactly... I don't understand why people get mad about reviews they don't agree with. Do people come to this site to whine like little bitches, or to learn something? Personally I feel this film is a brilliant ride, but it definitely has its drawbacks. John Anderson simply took particular issue with one of them.
Aug 25 - 12:30 PM
What is all this "US" business your talking about? Make that "ME" and speak for yourself. I was certainly emotionally invested, don't put words in the audience's mouth.
Jul 16 - 09:08 PM
Omar Angel Vargas Aguilera
You really need to look for other job, as a critic you are too over rated.
Jul 16 - 09:35 PM
saw the movie....brilliant....you sir on the other hand are a moron
Jul 16 - 11:39 PM
Oh will you shut the fuck up already? I saw you on EVERY negative review I've seen so far thrashing it with your repetitive comments that are utterly devoid of intelligence or sensibility of any kind. It seems that some people really don't have anything to do but spend their time on sites like this and insult others, no matter how wrong they are. It is all relative. Someone likes the movie, someone doesn't. Someone provides good, conclusive arguments to support their opinion and their review and someone doesn't. WHO THE FUCK CARES? I cannot believe that I registered just to write this at midnight while reading this cluster fuck but here I am. I'll probably copy/paste this as an answer to every similar person like yourself because it would be blasphemous to waste any more time and energy on writing new comments. The movie has flaws. It is nearly impossible to make such a complex film without any holes. The movie also neglects certain aspects that should've been explored further perhaps. But then it would last a lot more than 2.5 hours. All in all it is a breath of originality in the world where the words cliche and remake have taken a whole new meaning. In my opinion, it is definitely a movie worth seeing. An intelligent, very well executed piece of art that will (if you let it) put your mind to the test. I am not saying that I understood everything, but I think Nolan went for exactly the thing he pulled off here - you just need to go with the flow. And in the end, you will be left with something to reflect upon. It is engaging and unique, it makes you think. It should be noted for its technical merits too, though frankly, I'm tired of all these special effects taking over the film industry. In fact, they can no longer be called special. One last thing to add - the ending was certainly NOT a disappointment for me. A wise teacher once told me in high school - if you ever write a book, leave the ending inconclusive, leave the readers guessing. It is precisely that which will make it great. Leave it upon them to finish and tailor the ending according to their desires. Last but not least, it is worth mentioning that my official IQ is 143 - this is for all the assholes who are mentioning "lack of intelligence" in their critiques. In addition, English is NOT my vernacular so pardon any grammatical mistakes or inaccuracies of any kind regarding use of the language.
Aug 11 - 11:11 PM
In my country, all the critics are raving about "Inception", with the lowest rating from any publication a respectable 4 stars at least. Most are either 4.5 or 5 star reviews. These critics are absurd.
Jul 17 - 04:54 AM
I literally heard gasps at the end of the movie in my theater. I don't know what was wrong with yours, but my audience was emotionally invested.
Jul 17 - 06:56 PM
John Anderson just revealed that he is utterly unqualified for his job. If you found the various planes of experience "convoluted", you're simply lacking the mental capacity to review anything more complex than Transformers 2. Seriously, I'm tempted to write the WSJ about this turkey of a review. It exposes an obvious fault in what's left of their editorial standards.
Jul 18 - 12:01 AM
Mr. Anderson, Rupert Murdock is so proud of you.
Jul 19 - 06:39 AM