Can a film be great without question? Is it demented to find fault with "Inception?" Or "Citizen Kane?" Not at all. Scolds have emerged in recent days to smack at those critics who disapproved of "Inception," but as a fervent admirer of the film I can understand why others might not agree. In fact, the reasons cited by David Edelstein in his much-attacked negative review seem reasonable. I don't agree with him, but that's another matter.
I've been trying to think of one film that everyone reading this entry might agree is unquestionably great. You might think I'd name "Citizen Kane" or "The Rules of the Game," the two films that in recent decades have consistently been at the top of Sight & Sound magazines' poll of the world's directors and cineastes. But no. I've taught both shot-by-shot and had many students who confessed they didn't feel the greatness. There are people Bergman doesn't reach. And Ozu. I've never met anyone who doesn't like Hitchcock, but I promise you I will in the comments under this entry. Many Hitchcock fans don't admire "Vertigo," which I think is his best film.
"The Godfather," I think, comes closest to being a film everyone agrees about. It's currently #2 on the (debatable) IMDb list of the 250 greatest films of all time. "The Shawshank Redemption" is #1, and in the #3 position is..."Inception." It will drop. The first two have 900,000 votes between them, and "Inception" only 20,000.
All the same, if you say you dislike "The Godfather" or "Shawshank," I can't say you're wrong. The one thing you can never be wrong about is your own opinion. It's when you start giving your reasons that you lay yourself open. Many years ago there was a critic in Chicago who said "The Valachi Papers" was a better film than "The Godfather." "Phil," I told him, "film criticism is a matter of subjective opinion. Only rarely does it stray into objective fact. When you said 'The Valachi Papers' was better than 'The Godfather,' that was an error of objective fact."Edelstein wrote: "Inception is full of brontosaurean effects, like the city that folds over on top of itself, but the tone is so solemn I felt out of line even cracking a smile. It lacks the nimbleness of Spielberg's Minority Report or the Jungian-carnival bravado of Joseph Ruben's Dreamscape or the eerily clean lines and stylized black-suited baddies of The Matrix--or, for that matter, the off-kilter intensity of Nolan's own Insomnia. The attackers in Inception are anonymous, the tone flat and impersonal. Nolan is too literal-minded, too caught up in ticktock logistics, to make a great, untethered dream movie."
Edelstein is correct in his comparisons with the other films. "Inception" does lack those qualities. I love his phrase "ticktock logistics," and plan to steal it. In my case, I didn't crack a smile while watching the film because Nolan didn't call for one, nor was I looking for the qualities David found in the other films. I found it refreshing that Nolan's villains didn't wear matching uniforms (do the bad guys in "The Matrix" and the Bond movies all share locker rooms?). It's true that Nolan is literal-minded and logistical, but I believe the film depends on the conceit that you can think your way into someone else's dream with your own intelligence. The last thing he wanted was an untethered dream movie. Nolan successfully made the film he had in mind, and shouldn't be faulted for failing to make someone else's film.Edelstein concludes: "The movie is a metaphor for the power of delusional hype--a metaphor for itself." This is a statement with a certain appeal. The notorious thing about metaphors, as everyone who has ever graded student papers knows, is that almost anything can be read as a metaphor of whatever you want it to be. (The New Yorker used to have fillers headed, Block that metaphor!) But Edelstein is right that "Inception" was preceded by enormous hype on the internet. Only once you had seen it, of course, could you decide if it was delusional hype.
It's unlikely Nolan anticipated the "delusional hype" and made "Inception" as a preemptive metaphor, but you never know. Still, I understand where Edelstein is coming from. I can understand how a critic could react to the film in his way. His review is justified and valuable, more stimulating to a lover of the film than still more praise. It helps you to see it. If you don't agree with his litany of faults, you have to ask yourself, why not?Compare Edelstein with Armond White, whose review joins David's in the dock at the current online heresy trial. White calls "Inception" a "con game," and explains: "Its essential con is that, as in 'Memento,' Nolan ignores the morality of his characters' actions; he accepts that they will do anything--which is the cynicism critics admired in 'Memento,' the con-man's motivating nihilism."
White is correct to say Nolan ignores morality, but is he correct to think that's a fault? Does White admire other films that ignore morality? What about "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," which he found superior to "Toy Story 3?" White doesn't say why a film shouldn't ignore morality. Where does Bunuel fit into his view? Actually, we learn, Nolan lacks not only morality, but basic craftsmanship: "Nolan doesn't have a born filmmaker's natural gift for detail, composition and movement." Then what is White's idea of great composition? Of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," he writes: "In the history of motion pictures, Bay has created the best canted angles--ever."
Ever? Many would argue that "The Third Man" makes a better use of canted angles. You could also make a case for "Night and the City," and indeed "Citizen Kane." If pressed, I might be able to make a case for every noir ever made. But never mind. White never illustrates how Nolan's compositions are lacking. He cites no shots that are badly canted. He assumes artistic gifts are "natural," implying filmmakers are born, not made, thus coming down on the side of genetics against environment. Maybe he's right, but it would take an essay to defend that sentence.
Edelstein's review describes the film I saw, and deals with it. White dismisses the film with preemptive contempt for anyone caught enjoying it. Edelstein's review is about the film. White's review is about charlatans defrauding the ignorant with snake oil. There are, of course, other dissenting reviews of "Inception." Matthew Zoller Seitz, didn't like the film, and tweeted this about Steven Boone's review on the new site Capital:
Boone's review fits my definition of usefulness. It doesn't matter whether I agree with him. He helps me see things. So, always, does Stanley Kauffmann. That Seitz praised the Boone review and was even moved by it, implies something good to know about him as a critic. He wasn't doing it simply because he agreed.There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures. The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves. They're looking for support and vindication. In the area of movies, no phenomenon has dramatized this more than the rise of Rotten Tomatoes. When a movie is running at 100% on the Tomatometer, an inevitable death watch occurs, as readers await the first negative vote. Recently the perfect ratings for "Toy Story 3" and "Inception" were "spoiled" by Armond White. There was outrage. The Twitterverse was in flames. A. O. Scott and 22 others also disliked the film, but it was White who got the attention, because he has been cast as the spoiler. As many actors will tell you, it's more fun to be the villain than the hero. Actually, the Meter on "Inception" is holding at around 84%, but that's small consolation for some of its fans. They require perfection.
It's possible that if the Tomatometer didn't exist Armond White would attract attention only from those readers who actually wanted to read what he wrote. There would be a lot; he's not boring, and is capable of wicked insights. It's also possible that there's a method in the manner he uses to assiduously vote against the grain--which is why the Tomatometer can be mischievous.
In the "open marketplace of ideas," it is believed, the better ones will eventually rise to the top. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes are where critics bring their ideas to market, but some readers come only to window-shop. It is a melancholy fact that for some, ideas have been replaced by the Meter reading itself. It doesn't matter nearly so much what anyone actually said, as whether "everyone" agrees with you.This is not a hypothetical conversation:
"What did the critics say?"
"Seventy-three."
I've seen it claimed on the web that Armond White said "Grand Theft Auto" (the video game, I assume, not the movie) was better than "Inception." He did no such thing. He compared them. He wrote: "Like 'Grand Theft Auto's' quasi-cinematic extension of noir and action-flick plots, 'Inception' manipulates the digital audience's delectation for relentless subterfuge." This is true. He assumes such a parallel would be bad. The point is that some of White's attackers never actually read his review. That wasn't necessary.For some fans, what was necessary was to find validation for their opinions. The Tomatometer, Metacritic, MRQE, Movie Review Intelligence, and the IMDb User Score are easy places to do that. What it comes down to is, you "liked" it and so you require everyone else to "like" it too. When I attacked "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," I got 874 comments. About 600 of them were outraged, and most of those were offended that I disagreed with them.
So what? I thought "Dark City" was the best film of its year and "Synecdoche, NY" the best film of its decade. I was in the minority both times. Long years ago, I was also in the minority in my love for "Bonnie and Clyde" and "2001." Lots of people, right at the first, disagreed. That's the way it goes. I was outraged, but not about some goofy meter reading.
That's the problem with the Internet. We suffer from our ability to see everyone else's opinions before we even have a chance to form our own. Mob mentality to the extreme.
Roger, you mention that "A.O. Scott and 22 others also disliked" "Inception," according to Rotten Tomatoes. However, Scott gave it a rating of "See it" on "At the Movies" this weekend. Obviously determining whose review warrants a fresh tomato and whose gets a rotten tomato is something of an inexact science. (I'm glad Scott didn't water down his TV review to "rent it," as the amazing visual effects in "Inception" deserve to be seen on the big screen.)
Ebert: See what I mean? RT rates Tony's review with a rotten tomato, and Metacritic scores it at 60. Movie Review Intelligence summarizes his newspaper review as "good," and his "At the Movies" review as "very good." I think MRI comes closest of them all on his print review.
I quite agree with your take on "Dark City." It is the best dark sci-fi/fantasy/noir/thriller that no one knows about. A friend showed be "Videodrome" several years ago and I thought it was rubbish. Opinions are entirely subjective, it's true.
I confess that I often fall into the habit of showing disdain and contempt for people who dislike movies that I believe are obviously great and beyond reproach. How can someone not see the value in a work that is so obviously, to me, brilliant.
But the I calm down after exhausting all insults about their taste and intelligence and try to probe into what it was they didn't like about the film. And while unfortunately most people can't speak coherently about what it is about a movie that rubs it the wrong way or confess that they just don't "get it" every now and then I come across someone who is able to succinctly and effectively criticize something that I hold quite dear in a way that while it doesn't in anyway dim my passion for the work in question, does force me to look at it in a different way that more often than not eventually yields greater appreciation. And therein lies the subjective beauty of art.
But, like I said, most fall into the latter category and leave me dismayed and sadden that not everyone can be as enlightened as I. ;)
Ebert: Yeah. Sometimes you just want to tell someone, "You know what you are? Dumb as a box of rocks."
"There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures. The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves. They're looking for support and vindication."
Thank you, Mr. Ebert, for summing up in three sentences what (IMHO) is wrong with our society today. Not just when it comes to films (just take a look at politics... oy vey).
I loved Inception, but recognize that others might not feel the same way. I must admit I've commented on sites where people have not agreed with me, but I am always civil, and I carefully think out every word--- hoping not to provoke, but to encourage further conversation.
Of *course* it's okay to not like Inception. And thank you for (once again) encouraging people to think beyond the movie itself and reflect on human behavior.
Roger,
This is my first time commenting on your blog, but I've been a long-time reader and viewer of your reviews; I matured into my movie-watching self during the middle and end of your career with Siskel and have found your insights to be inspiring and always constructive in growing as an appreciator of film.
To my mind the unemotional nature of "Inception" spring directly from its positioning as a film taking place within the dreams of other people. Certainly one can think themselves into another reality, but to share feeling and connection with them is an entirely other matter altogether.
The greatness of "Inception" lies not in some cinematic perfection but in its generative capacity to inspire debate and conversation; the film is structured as a constellation of multiple referents that all encourage and provoke thought and dissection, taxonomy and philosophizing. It is a metaphor, not just for hype, but for the cinema, for the auteur, for the internet, for spirituality of Christian and non-Christian denominations. And it is this multi-valenced nature makes it vital.
Surely any film that inspires these volumes of conversation and dialogue prior to opening for the movie-going public must possess in it some seed of greatness. The movie has planted itself in the minds of everyone who has seen it and it has grown there, equally for those who embrace the film as those who react against it. By inspiring this discourse Nolan's film has already proven his thesis to be accurate, empirically, whether the dissenters agree or not.
Ebert: Yes. In my mind, you make a nearly unanswerable defense of the film, because you show how what some call weaknesses are part of its strength.
I think a better system is thinking of a filmmakers raw talent for comparison. For example, I personally did not like The Godfather, but I appreciate that its a well put together film. It's just like how I dislike Jazz music, but can't deny that many Jazz musicians are talented individuals.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And I believe most of INCEPTION's media detractors have no hidden agendas in their negative views of the film. I found Nick Schager's (of Slant Magazine) negative review quite accurate in describing the film as unwieldly in its verbose explanations.
But there is something to be said when many of these same critics whom intelligent moviegoers rely on to see films, in the end pan an intelligent film blockbuster which (at least I feel) is very much worth seeing. They complain that summer blockbusters have become predictable, boring, uninspired, lazy, products of corporate money making machines.
And yet here is a finished product which is undeniably smart, well-conceived in its story and its characters, and requires you to by Jove, THINK! How can I take these critics seriously when even Nolan's high standards aren't good enough?
Being a film critic, responsibility to your readers exists side by side with that of your personal tastes. I find myself flabberghasted when A.O. Scott can recommend TWILIGHT: ECLIPSE, and yet not recommend INCEPTION regardless whether his readers are affected by "the ratings fad" or not. I'm not saying one should be dishonest for the good of the public. But how can one deny a film's assets at the expense of one's preference?
Ebert: One of the things every review should do is give the reader some idea of the experience he might expect.
Provocative arguments. I am not going to pretend to understand all of this; I lack the movie critic's keen perspective. But you have caused me to appreciate this stuff more.
Thanks.
Well foo, just foo. My favorite subject and I won't be able to see the movie 'til available on DVD.
Foo.
I don't get what the big deal is. Judging by the reactions of so diehards online, you'd think Inception was being panned across the board. Newsflash - it's not! Most people liked it, but the attention goes to those who didn't. Now, I loved the film, but it's really interesting for me to read some negative reviews and talk about why I disagree. That kind of discussion is vital, but lashing out at a critic because he disagree's with you? That's ridiculous. (Of course, folks like Armond White deserve that kind of treatment. They're only trying to get attention.)
Now, I'm a fan of the Tomatometer. When you're out looking for a movie to see, it can help weed out the trash. Still, it's not perfect but it can help give you a general idea. Now, however, it's been causing these fights as negative reviews can me more easily targeted, and that only discourages dissenting viewpoints.
Basically we are simply continuing to learn that the Internet makes things more complicated. As more and more people can have their say, that enriches the discussion but also introduces problems.
Some people just can't accept an opposing opinion.
I loved Inception. Like all of Nolan's films, I felt Inception was an experience. It was fun. It was not without flaws, though, but for me it was negligible compared to the experience as a whole.
What I love more about the film though is that I can discuss it with others. I can talk about what I liked and why I liked it, or what I disliked and why so. The complexity of the subject matter made conversation topics much less predictable compared to other recent movies I've seen. Films are fun when shared. It's just a shame that some choose to argue over opinions than talk about them.
As for the film, I considered the hotel scene ground-breaking, and unlike anything I've seen. With that kind of opinion, I'd be surprised if anyone begged to differ. But it's nothing to get angry about.
What I'm more shocked about are the comparisons. I don't understand why people consider it Kubrickian. I'd say the film, Bronson, is more Kubrickian, but not in the positive sense like other reviews I've seen of it. If Inception deserves any kind of label, I'd say it feels more like a Nolan film.
Mr. Ebert, a wonderful piece that summarises my frustration with the site I was once a part of. I launched and ran the UK version of Rotten Tomatoes for three and a half years, and left this past March to go freelance. As much as I always believed RT provided a platform for critics on a form of media that was going out of its way to drown them out, I was always disappointed with how people used the site.
The Tomatometer has never been an accurate guide of the quality of a film, and really only serves to feed this strange practice of vilifying critics who dare to differ. A bad review of a much-anticipated film is always "badly-written" and often "biased" without ever any thought to the arguments on offer. The threat of destroying a perfect score blinds people to the content of a review - they see red (or rather, green) and fail to understand why a critic disagrees, instead rushing to claim the critic lacks credibility for being so contrary.
I've always had a theory that the world's most exciting, ambitious and original cinema usually hovers around the 50% mark. The curious bahaviour of the Tomatometer means that films which are either loved or hated end up around this mark, and some of my favourite films lie in this area.
I could never figure out why some of those brilliant films were always ending up rotten - I don't think there is a solution to be honest - but it told me all I needed to know about the Tomatometer. While it's one of the most indispensable tools in selecting a film to go and see, it's also as useless as asking the opinion of a random stranger if you only ever stay on the Tomatometer page without properly absorbing any of the reviews.
What I learned during my tenure is that people use the site to get the score and have little concern for the reviews themselves. As you can imagine for a business owned by a profit-making corporation, we were of course never tasked with doing anything above and beyond providing a link to encourage traffic off the site, but then it was never really our responsibility - we provided the links, but it was up to our audience to follow them.
After tweeting my initial reaction to Inception, I received some rather aggressive comments from Nolan fans and found myself compelled by all the reactions they had to the negative reviews which followed. But despite all of the hostility to Edelstein and White I've seen in the last few days, this is the first and only time I've seen anyone actually debate the content of either of their reviews. Curious.
Thank you. This was very helpful. Now to get some of my friends to read it...
Roger, I agree with this post 100%. While I've seen a lot of reviews merely responding to the fanboyism surrounding Christopher Nolan (I'm looking at you Armond White and Rex Reed), there have been a few negative reviews - namely Edelstein's and A.O. Scott's - that I found to be quite stimulating. As you stated above, they made me really consider *why* they were wrong. They forced me to justify my own love for the movie, leading me to explore it much deeper than I had when I first left the theater. Because of these reviews, I now have a much, much deeper appreciation of the film.
On another note, I couldn't help but be reminded of "Synecdoche, NY" when watching "Inception." I felt like they were exploring similar territory (dreams vs. reality, man trying to reunite with his family, etc.) while coming from two completely different perspectives (the arthouse flick vs. the sci-fi/action blockbuster). I think they would make a great double bill.
I was one of those who followed the TOY STORY 3 ratings, first with interest, then with intrigue as opening firday afternoon came it still had a 100% rating which almost felt like an impossibility. As much as I loved it, it didn't even feel like the best Pixar film so far but yeah, it was incredibly hard to dislike. And then those 3 negative votes came. What bothered me greatly about them was how late in the game they arrived, almost like the authors had the chance to have their votes stand out, but reading here about what this guy White has done again, as a reader of RT, in my mind I've sort of put him in a "suspicion" category of not being sincere in his reviews in order to call attention to himself, maybe he did, maybe he didn't but it seems to me like being insincere about your own opinion about a movie would be THE cardinal sin for anybody who wants to call himself a critic.
By the way, I still haven't seen INCEPTION, it doesn't open until next week down here.
While I don't review films for a living, I do take pride in viewing cinema as an art form worth taking seriously and letting that influence my choices regarding which films to see and which to praise and/or revisit.
Recently I saw The Secret in Their Eyes here in Nashville on the big screen, and similar to Inception it is about how ideas can take hold of us at an elementary level and consume us. That's about the only similarity, but as I look back and compare the two, I realized something - and your essay helped draw the conclusion out.
Respecting a film for being well made and liking a film are two different things, and while I can respect Inception for Nolan's writing, vision, and execution, the truth is I didn't like the film. If I'm going to watch a film that wrestles with a theme (like, say, how ideas consume us), I appreciate films that do it within some context of being human. Nolan gets all the technical aspects right, but his characters were all just puppets at the mercy of his idea and never felt human to me (like Steven Boone's review alludes to). At the end of the film, I wasn't moved by the film because I wasn't able to connect with the characters.
The opposite occurred with The Secret in Their Eyes - the characters were real to me and their emotions and struggles gave me insight into the problems they were dealing with, meaning that the twist at the end left me reeling for hours. I was changed.
Inception didn't do that. And so I realized, and your essay drew it out for me, that it's not that Inception is a bad film, but it's that I shouldn't look to films like Inception to entertain or interest me.
I think it's fair to say that some of us dislike things for the sole purpose of appearing seemingly different. Just a thought, anyway. Mind, I thought Inception was a brilliant film and visually stunning.
Thank you Roger; as sensible as ever. It's not the liking or disliking, the sucks vs awesome babble to which the web has given significance if not respectability, it's providing reasons. I get a great deal from well written negative reviews of things I like, and vice versa. It's supposed to be a discussion about art, not a consumer report.
Personally, I think film is well served by insightful, literate commentary these days. It's instructive to look at the collective Metacritic ratings for music and compare. You'll find a sea of blandly positive green, with few prepared to stick the objective boot in. You need someone to call "crap" at some stage, if only to test the ideas of all those who didn't. At this point in the process, an intelligently reasoned negative review of "Inception" will have more to offer than another hosanna.
We all know a scared cow or two that should really be butchered don't we? Or a diamond that should be tweezered out of the turd pile?
The only movie I can't think of that everyone seems to like is Casablanca. At least I don't recall ever meeting someone that didn't like it.
Ebert: You may in fact be right.
I like to go on Rotten Tomatoes and look at the quotes from the rotten reviews (and the fresh ones too). I did this before seeing Inception to see if I agreed with the bad reviews or not. I found that I see some of their points but the movie was good enough to overcome its weaknesses.
Armond White's reviews deserve to be ignored. They are derogatory, mean spirited and condescending. Nobody values his opinion, even if he likes a movie we like. Even you called him a troll. Why would we indulge him?
Also, White wasn't the first to give negative reviews to either Toy Story 3 or Inception.
By the way, A.O. Scott actually gave Inception a "See It" on the show.
"White is correct to say Nolan ignores morality, but is he correct to think that's a fault?"
Ignores morality? Nolan establishes a complicated moral hierarchy unique to the individual character and doesn't underline the right choices for the audience. We have to suss it out for ourselves.
Cobb (Inception)--places love for his kids above everything, including "do unto others..." Family motivates him. It's streamlined, simplified, but not amoral.
Leonard (Memento)--Leonard has destroyed his life with his choices and this destruction sends him further into his delusions. Leonard is a tragic figure. We pity him, and fear him, because of his twisted morality. Nolan is not on Leonard's side. A very moral film about self-destruction.
Bruce Wayne (The Dark Knight)--Bruce must make complicated moral choices throughout most pointedly in the climax where he has to choose between utilizing police state technology to locate The Joker--violating individual freedom--in order to save the city. The Dark Knight is a giant morality play possibly to a fault.
Will Dormer (Insomnia)--Your own lies will destroy you.
Robert Angier (The Prestige)--Pride, revenge, jealousy. This negative emotions will destroy you to the point where you can't live with yourself. You hate the bitter person you've become so much that you repeatedly try to kill him.
I honestly have no idea what White is talking about. Nolan is a very moral filmmaker.
I rarely go to Rotten Tomahhhtoes because that site gives me nothing I need aside from links to reviews. I certainly ignore the scores, and I am consistently shocked when I see people quoting the scores on that site as if they meant anything.
I read film reviews for the same reason I read criticism across the board: I enjoy good writing and strong opinions.
Like the devil, the truth is in the details.
A second exciting question you might want to put on the final exam: is there such a thing as a perfect film review? Why and why not? and in what circumstances?
Please inform what makes Citizen's Kane a great movie. A recent viewing makes one wonder
Ebert: Well, here's what I wrote...
http://j.mp/bN8gKs
I did have the same feeling as Edelstein while I was watching the movie. "Why are these dreams so lacking in mystery or eroticism? Both Freud and Jung would not be happy!". But then I realized these were not "normal" dreams. They were consciously constructed dreams. So the ever pragmatic ego is still in the foreground. Therefore those kinds of dreams probably wouldn't have made sense. And it's really an attempt to trap and brainwash a guy--so of course they should be hemmed in.
Dear Roger,
Just like your reviews, this journal entry is provocative. It makes me think about film opinion and my views of films like I have never before. For example, I enjoyed To Kill a Mockingbird, and I was actually disappointed that you did not. I understand why you didn't like it, but I still feel that you were wrong. As wrong as Armond White is when he thinks that Transformers is better than Inception and Toy Story 3. But this journal entry makes me wonder two things.
1) If its just one's own opinion, why the heated debates of Siskel & Ebert? To prove who was right? Don't get me wrong, I love these debates, for they make me think about the film and my own feelings.
2) How is the objective fact that (for example) Inception is better than Transformers, discovered? And if I can say that I truly believe Pandora's Box is a better film than From Dusk Till Dawn, but personally enjoy watching From Dusk Till Dawn more, then is my honesty at arms with fact?
As always, thank you for a thought-provoking entry.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. People in general fail to realize that opinions are just opinions, and everyone is not going to have the same one. I may have to watch "Synedoche, NY" again because i definately didnt think of it as the best film of its decade. I feel that "Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind" is the King of that decade.
Cant we all just get along? (Sorry. More cheap puns to follow, probably.)
My daughter Kate & I almost always do Rotten Tomato-esque assessments while walking away from the movie we just saw. After the midnight premiere showing of INCEPTION, we were united in a "pretty good." I think my "pretty good" will get an upgrade upon rescreening, because most of the negative keeping it from "excellent" or "four stars" is frustration from not Getting It all the first time.
It's funny to see critics criticized, and so on, and remindful of a young Harlan Ellison's phrase in his not-quite-classic "Invulnerable" (which I've never read, and owe Stephen King access to this phrase): "...guards to guard the guards' guards. Kind of like a threedream sandwich, innit? Or a three-dream circus...
Armond White is certainly getting his comeuppance. First the TOY STORY 3 review diss/analysis, and now this see-for-yourself cant-comparison. Perhaps the idea will be planted in his too-clever-by-half head that he can take his formidable bag of tricks up another notch, and his ethical compass higher on the High Road, by ceasing use of the Belittlement Fulcrum he invariably employs. Should he do that, his rickety CANTilever (de)Construction will be superseded by more durable edifissence. (In an effort to write&dream I'm pulling much of this out of my Flying Buttress.) Hope so.
Here comes the water. Defibbing, dysplayzhing, overing, outing. Waking!
This was an absolutely amazing movie, and by the films conclusion, you are left with two possible outcomes, one for the simple minded viewer, given the fact then they kept along, and another for the veteran viewer, who with further dwelling, will uncover a much more logical solution to these types of movies, along the lines of "the twist happened near the middle and the rest was fake".
Hi Roger. Fascinating article. But, alien to me on this one.
Inception, to me, was just a movie. Not a trailer, which I think I only saw one of. Not a review - I only read yours and only after seeing the movie. Not a Tomatometer, which I still haven't looked at.
Just a movie. Which I saw today. Twice. Back-to-back. (Like I did with "Book of Eli", and for a similar reason.)
First viewing: I recognized instantly that this was a movie that I would just have to let unfold in front of me. Hang with it. See how it played out. Enjoy the acting, and puzzle out the plot later.
2nd viewing: Ah, now it's making sense. I'm seeing the setups. Understanding the dream layers. Hearing a couple of laugh lines that I missed in the first showing. Completely understanding the Inception, both of them. Wow.
Inception is intricate. Layered. Precise. Just trying to keep all of the layers, and their differential timing, in my head was stimulating.
I'm not a big DiCaprio fan, and I blanched at the plot commonalities here between Inception and Shutter Island (which I hated). But I have to say Leo was really very good in this one. And he carried a good cast along with him. Leavitt-Smith, Murphy, Page, Cotillard, Berenger - all very good, very good photography of them.
I could have done without the militarized projections, but they had a purpose - which was to force them to improvise. Drama.
An excellent day at the cinema for me, with my own version of a double-feature.
Transformers 2 actually ended a friendship of mine. It was a long time coming, but it was definitely a nail in the coffin. Definitely one of those "less mature" moviegoers.
I actually love to read and hear viewpoints on movies that differ than my view. Usually when talking to someone one on one you get to the point of not where someone is right or wrong but where exactly they are coming from. Sometimes it gets down to very personal reasons, and once you get down to those you can't really fault the other for feeling the way they do. Beyond all the layers of how we approach films what gets down to it is what the viewer brings to their experience, and how it effects what they take from it.
That's what I think gets lost in taking percentages and whatnot from sites that count the positive and negative reviews of films, and how everyone's up in arms when one critics point of view differs from the mass of critics, not so much their own. So what if White hated "Toy Story 3" and thus helped it not reach 100% at Rotten Tomatoes? The reader can instead assess all the critics they admire and consider and take the macro assessment of their reviews. Certainly there's no such thing as a perfect film that everyone can agree on. I don't like "The Shawshank Redemption", for one.
And while I enjoyed and admired "Inception" I can see where a critic like Edelstein didn't like it, and agree with him to a point about how impersonal the narrative could be. I felt Nolan could have made a wonderful gesture in the end by making it about the character and not the gimmick. Wouldn't it have been great if instead of the reveal happening in the last moment of the film, just for the audience, that instead it was discovered by DiCaprio's character, in which he understands where he is and chooses to accept the limitations that comes with being happy in such a state of existence (something he denied himself beforehand until he could really go home)? I think so. Maybe I felt the very end wanting because I saw it coming for a while and hoped that with the reveal it would bring something heartwrenching, instead of simply a reveal.
Steven Boone reviewed Inception , NOT Daniel Boone. Not too many frontiersmen writing movie reviews.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2010/07/219074/inception-eye-catching-and-profound-usher-concert
I have fallen in love with the film INCEPTION. I was blown away in EVERY way.
I saw Inception last night and loved it. It made me think hard, but did not confuse me. It made me smile, though not because it was funny. It was nearly 2.5 hours but seemed shorter.
I can understand and perhaps agree with some of the criticism that I have read. I can usually appreciate thoughtful disagreement. What I hate though, is when a person would rather watch Die Hard for the sixth time instead of a film that is regarded by many as something special.
@Mike Rogers
Actually, I think I might add Seven Samurai and Toy Story (just the first one) to the list along with Casablanca.
Maybe.
Although I'd imagine some critics might have issue with Seven Samurai's length.
I'll admit, although it is one of my favorite movies and I highly recommend it, in my memory the biggest failing is that when a samurai dies, you don't feel for him as a character (for most), but what you do feel for (and where Kurosawa shined) is that the village has lost another protector and the mission is further jeopardized.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would say that the reason I tend to want critics to like the same movies that I like is that I want those films to do well at the box office. My thinking goes that if "Inception" gets great reviews and makes lots and lots of money, there will be more big budget movies like it for me to enjoy.
However, this presupposes that critics actually influence box office take. They certainly did not in the case of "Transformers 2". In "Inception"'s case, however, I don't think it would have done quite as well had critics universally panned it.
For me, however, it's more of a rooting interest than anger. Certainly a sane person could write a negative review of "Inception". Internet trolls are another matter altogether.
Ebert: I feel like that when I despair the box office non-existence of a film like "Julia," with Tilda Swinton.
Time Magazine didn't like Casablanca and no, it wasn't written by Armond White. Neither did Martin Scribbs of Low IQ Canadian (great band name).
As much as I like to talk with my friends about the movies that we like, I actually enjoy it more when we don't agree. When that happens, we'll talk about why we did or didn't like the movie. I've never had my mind changed by these discussions, but they've always provided material to think over.
Roger,
As one of the 16% who gave INCEPTION a (mildly) rotten review on Rotten Tomatoes, it is amazing at the amount of pure hatred going on in some of those comments (Only one person amongst them seems to have actually read the review in its entirety). The rest are merely a discussion of other reviews that have yet to be posted that will raise/lower the Tomatometer rating.
I know it's only a minority of people who get that vehement about the percentage of red vs. green blots, but man, are they vocal about it.
When I first started reading criticism, I always found pieces that contradict my opinion to be more useful than ones that support it. Strangely, some of the same people who rave about INCEPTION--going so far as to say it challenges their very perception of reality--won't allow even the slightest negative statement about the movie to challenge them.
P.S. Watched the director's cut of DARK CITY for the first time a couple days after INCEPTION. It's a vast improvement to an already exceptional film. Great work on the commentary.
I have been trying to think of a film that simply cannot be torn down and I agree with Mr. Rogers. "Casablanca" might be a perfect film in that regard.
One of the issues I imagine some would have with "The Godfather" is the violence. As I age, and manage to stay alive year after year, I find on-screen violence less and less tolerable. So that's about the only clear flaw with Coppola's film.
Roger, the YouTube clips you stack up at the end of this piece run the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous. I love the grouping (and thanks for the reminder to watch "The Third Man" again soon.
Thank you Roger for the great article and thank you Christopher Nolan for writing/directing this film and sharing it with us. Inception achieved its purpose. A summer movie that transcends entertainment by providing both visual and intellectual stimulation. Inception lets us forget about oil spills and the everyday ache of modern politics. Inception gives us a few hours alone with a bunch of strangers to share a smile, a tear. And then leaves us with the urge to do it all over again. And if we can't have it right away we'll just have to prop ourselves against the water cooler or an empty LCD and argue with a temporary enemy or a new friend.
Great thoughts Roger. I loved Inception and want to see it again just to see what I missed. I keep thinking there were details in "real" world that will help shed light on the reality/unreality. At that very basic level Nolan did something that 95% of other filmmakers are unable to do. He out Cameroned James Cameron and he didn't even have to be cheesy about it.
I thoroughly enjoyed Dark City and have been saying that it was a superior to The Matrix in every way. Especially viewed in light of the rubbish that the Wachowski's gave us for parts 2 and 3.
Taste is subjective, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However, there are those who honestly dislike a film (or song, or entertainer, etc. for that matter) for reasons that are true to them, and then there are those who would fall into the "hater" category. Haters are contrarians by choice - the Devils' Advocates of taste and culture. If a significant portion of the public loves a certain thing, these individuals are sure to rail against it.
While I can respect anyone's honest opinion on subjective matters such as film, I cannot respect an opinion that is borne not of honest criticism of the subject, but rather the populace's reaction to the subject, or worse - a need to stand out in the crowd and BECOME the subject (Hey! Look at me! You all loved it? Well I think it sucks! Nyahh Nyahh).
I find that the most interesting discussions about films are generated from movies that have divided critics and film goers. Who wants to read about universal praise? (Natural Born Killers, Crash, Eyes Wide Shut)
I just had this discussion last week when trying to convince someone they needed to see 2001.
I told them, 2001 is the one film I would consider essential for a film lover to like. As in, if somebody tells me they think the movie is boring, too long or pretentious I know I have no interest in what that person has to say.
Maybe that's unfair on my part, but I can't help it. Call it a personal flaw.
And for the record, I'd like to say I think CASABLANCA is a good film but inferior to Hitchcock's NOTORIOUS, his best film. Well, his best film along with VERTIGO, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, PYSCHO, REAR WINDOW, FRENZY, THE LADY VANISHES.... I suppose with a great director the list goes on.
Negative reviews are a good thing, in my eyes. If nobody argues your opinion on things, it doesn't stay an opinion, it becomes a fact. Without the opposing ideas, you generally have no base for WHY you enjoyed the film so much. My arguments for films generally become much stronger once someone argues them.
Interesting article Roger. I watched Inception yesterday, and already want to rewatch, and that's been a rarity with me recently, even with films I loved. But I don't think the film is perfect, nor could any film really be, as it's subjective. I think Inception is successfully true to it's internal logic (as is The Prestige, another Nolan classic that I felt had some parallels with this film) and thats really all the writer/director can aim for in my book. What elevates a movie to a 'great' status is what happens over time, a film's influence, the realisation that there is a lot of bad filmmaking out there in comparison etc. As well as the performances, artistry (both flawless in my book). And the score by Hans Zimmer is truly moving (oops, slipping into fanboy territory!)
But again, just my opinion.
A question, does anyone out there dislike 'Back to the Future'?
I just saw the movie last night, and have been checking in here
http://www.metafilter.com/93850/Cigars-within-cigars
all day - it's about a 200-comment thread so far, and people are pretty seriously riled up about it, pro and con.
Me, I think it's great, probably not flawless (although I'm not particularly convinced by any of the ones I've seen pointed out). And I wasn't ever confused as a lot of people say they were, the ending didn't seem ambiguous to me, etc. So I'm rather amazed by the range of opinion out there, so much if it very strong...
I can only think of a few movies I've ever seen, though, that kept me thinking about them all the next day like this. Blue Velvet and The New World spring to mind, not sure what the connection would be... maybe that it seemed like they were so overwhelming in their own ways, that they slipped something straight into my subconscious... almost as though Nolan was doing that on purpose.
Once you get past the trolls though, the differences of opinion- about what it meant, about what even happened- are fascinating. The furor doesn't prove it's a great movie of course, but it sure is interesting to see the different ways it affected peoples' minds.
Pulp Fiction. I have yet to hear a negatrive word about that film. The modern day Casablanca.
In response to Mark above me, debate is a different thing entirely from disagreement. Debate is like a relationship, of two elements working against and for each other, to produce some rough-shod, but virtuous and mutual truth. I don't think it's honest to anchor yourself to an opinion until it's been tested in the arena of dialogue.
Actually, I don't like Casablanca. I don't mean to be contrarian, and I understand its significance in film history, but honestly it doesn't appeal to me much as a film noir or a love story.
I haven't seen Inception yet, although I already have watched other people argue about whether it's brilliant or trash. Their comments make me more interested in the movie than I previously was.
Opinion is such a strange thing. I know a film student whose favorite movie is Twilight. I know at least ten who refuse to see any of the Twilight movies. Although to quote you, Mr. Ebert, the Twilight fan's opinion is most likely an error in fact.
This all kind of begs the question raised by great films like "Summer Hours" and, most recently, "Exit Through the Gift Shop."
What is art? And what makes that art good or bad, valuable or worthless?
It's certainly not majority rule, like Rotten Tomatoes' and IMDB's systems suggest. It may be in the eye of the beholder, but is the untrained eye as qualified as a critic's? Could it be what you've suggested, Roger, that constructing and articulating a coherent argument for one's position gives it inherent value, despite another's difference of opinion?
Maybe it's just that good art is good art, that there is some sort of objective truth that transcends our own opinions and reviews and blog posts and Twitterings, and it's when we tap into that source that our appreciation is justified.
"Beauty is truth; truth beauty"--that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
--Keats
Hey, Mike Rogers, I dislike 'Casablanca'! I found it totally uninteresting. Watched Ebert's commentary, too (had to buy the movie too, just to get the version with the commentary), still didn't find it gripping or original in any way. LOVED 'The Third Man' though. My vote for best movie, though, goes to 'Lost in Translation'.
(Runner-Up: 'Kill Bill' Vol. 2', which, for me, takes the largely subjective category that Ebert described as the film that 'most perfectly embodies the romance of going to the movies', which, for him, was 'The Third Man'.)
Ebert:"Nolan successfully made the film he had in mind, and shouldn't be faulted for failing to make someone else's film."
I love this. I read an article today that thought Inception lacked the style of dream atmosphere that 'Waking Life' had. That it lacked the 'absurd'.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2010/07/15/f-inception-review.html
If I was to lucid dream I think my mind would try to remove the absurd. Inception was about controlling it and manipulating those aspects of dreaming. Whatever. I think the writer of this article just wanted to reference movies he knew about dreaming.
Surely everyone is entitled to their own opinion about this film, or any film. However I find myself wondering if these critics missed something.
First, the emotional connections. I was struck by Fischer's epiphany as the idea of "I will break up my father's company" took hold in him as "My father wants me to be my own man." That scene should have touched any father or son. There is then the emotional connection between Cobb and his father, and between Cobb and his children as they are reunited -- or are they?
For as the spinning top makes plain to the audience, there is another way to think about this heist film. Rather than a job where Cobb recruits Fischer deep in Fischer's very dreams to implant an idea in Fischer's own mind, I see it as a job where Cobb is recruited to implant an idea in Cobb's mind. The idea that he can go home again. That he can leave the dream world that he is trapped in. He is brought into this through the complex series of events we witness on screen, but all of it is within his mind, even the airplane trip.
This explains how Cobb can introduce the train into a dream level in which Arthur is the dreamer and Fischer is supposdly the subject, because Cobb is really the subject. It explains how they find resistance, because of Cobb's own training, and the resistance of course is a surprise to Cobb because he doesn't know he's dreaming. It explains the mysterious powers of Saito to have what Cobb wants. It explains Cobb's father's begging for him to "get back to reality, son," and why Ariadne is so strangely capable, because she was recruited by Cobb's father to go into Cobb's mind. And of course it explains the spinning top at the end.
So, then, back to our reviewers. What then of the dubious morals that White points out? The film presents the action of a group of his friends, colleagues, and probably his father, acting together to save him. What could be more moral than that?
I really appreciate your humanity and wisdom, Mr. Ebert. What I think is most important about movies is to experience them and react to them. I can seriously accept that I may have your reaction or David Edelstein's. If I go with a friend, we might have a wonderful and elucidating argument. This is the kernel of the humanist/philosophical frame of mind. Movies can not be objectively judged or measured as scientific data. They are emotional.
Is Armond White the most ego driven movie critic ever?
His reviews of Inception and Toy Story 3 seemed to be as much about his desire to place himself above the intelligence level of the filmmakers, fellow critics, and general movie loving public as it is about the actual film itself. The way he tries to put down Christopher Nolan in his Inception review sounds like a bitter schoolkid talking about one of his classmates.
He constantly talks about how his opinion is not the popular one, just for the sake of reminding people that he goes against the grain. Note that this is different from how you handled the Knowing backlash. You blogged about it and made some valid points, you didn't use it as a source of critique in your review.
He often cites an alternative movie, usually one panned by most critics, that he considers superior. If he did it on occasion, or when necessary, it's understandable. But doing it in EVERY review feels like a defense mechanism.
White comes across as someone who is trying too hard to sound intelligent in the way he writes. I may be wrong, and that might just be his style, but I think he's often attempting to write his way around the idea that his points are not insightful by engaging in clever wordplay. I don't consider myself as knowledgeable or intelligent as Ebert or White, and I had a hard time understanding this Inception quote when I first read it: "Like 'Grand Theft Auto's' quasi-cinematic extension of noir and action-flick plots, 'Inception' manipulates the digital audience's delectation for relentless subterfuge." Isn't there an easier way to say that? Or am I wrong for even sking that?
He desires to be the loner and the one voice of opposition. A big ship in the vast sea of film criticism on the internet. Which I guess he is now, with all the attention he's getting. But for all the wrong reasons.
I never understood the greatness of Citizen Kane until I listened to your audio commentary on the movie. I still remember vividly your excitement when the camera pulled back within the Kane boarding house and how, in order for the shot to be accomplished, they split the table into two pieces for the camera to dolly seemingly through the table. Or the interplay of shadows symbolizing Kane's dominance of Susan Alexander. Or how a window sill can make the guffaw of Kane seem like a futile grasp for rosebuds which have spilled on a fleeting train: "A man always seems the same size to himself, because he does not stand where we stand to look at him."
To be honest, everything in life is subjective. Film, even more so. For example, of all the masters of film, Federico Fellini is the one whose movies leave me coldest. I've seen "La Dolce Vita" and "La Strada," and it honestly felt like nothing happened during them both. The worship he gets is beyond me. Additionally, I've seen two of Jean-Luc Godard's movies ("Breathless" and "Band of Outsiders"), and both have convinced me that, although he's enormously important to film history in pretty much kicking off the French New Wave, his films are lifeless and inept. As for "Citizen Kane," when I first saw it I was underwhelmed, but seeing it again gave me a better idea of why people love it so much; it seems like one of those movies that grows upon repeated viewings.
As for "Inception," I put up a Facebook status update saying that its rank at #3 on the IMDb Top 250 demonstrated a lack of sanity or perspective in the IMDb voters. A friend of mine told me to reserve judgment until I saw the film. I replied that I was reserving judgment, but seeing something like that made me both overly excited and incredibly wary.
What I realize I should've said, now, was that I wasn't judging the movie. I was judging the people who get way too excited about movies. I'm a film buff, but I take great care not to get into hyperbole about a movie, to the point where I reserve giving movies on NetFlix 5-star ratings until the end of the calendar year. The people on the IMDb, however, seem to see a movie, like it (which is fine), and then give it a ten without thinking (not fine). This has put some decent movies on the Top 250 (I don't think "Toy Story 3" is better than "Casablanca," for instance, but I can understand people's love for it), but also some truly mind-boggling ones as well ("Kick-Ass?" Above movies like "Gandhi" and "Casino?" Are you kidding me?). I'm honestly thinking that the top 250 and Bottom 100 (which is even more broken and useless) just need to be scrapped; by this point, they serve no purpose other than infuriating people when Movie X is on one or not on another.
It's sad when people seem to view a movie's rating on a website like the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes as Serious Business. I don't think they should be dedicating their energies to important things like politics, considering their lack of perspective. But they really need to do something new for once.
I don't understand the hate some people have when someone disagrees with them, especially about a movie. I think the entire internet has some self-esteem issues.
Just saw the movie a few hours ago actually. I thought it was really fun and smart, especially compared to regular summer blockbusters. Inception is certainly exposition heavy, maybe a third of the dialog is explaining whats going on. It isn't really a deal breaker though because the only other option was not explaining and having audiences be even more confused.
Armond White is a classic internet troll and I wish people would stop talking about him. He riles people up in order to rile people up. He causes controversy for the hell of it. Please stop talking about him.
While I'm sure his opinions are valid as a human being, I am convinced his film criticisms do not reflect his actual opinions, and thus should be discounted.
Don't feed the troll.
-ab
Great art does not match the drapes.
Great art does not win prizes. At least, not at first.
Great art, I hope we would all agree, does something new. It makes us think, question, and change. This creates discomfort, and few enthusiastically welcome discomfort.
I liked Inception for a number of reasons, but I can agree with Roger because it was so damned ambitious. I can't think of another story it reminds me of.
At the same time, a friend texted me that her son had seen and she thought she wouldn't, because it seemed like a smart people's movie. She'd been confused by "A Beautiful Mind" and committed to stay away from movies that confused her.
As a previous poster observed, it may be that the "best" films balance around the 50% mark as some viewers embrace the challenge of the film while others want a story that produces no struggle to comprehend.
How often do you disagree with yourself? Never? Well then it's safe to conclude you're always right.
I appreciate your reviews Roger because while I don't always agree, I can't take offence to anything you say because it's clearly yours.
The problem I have with reviews like the one you mentioned is that they take something that is theirs ('ignoring morality is bad') and assume it's universal.
The only factual things in reviews are usually the spoilers.
(i'm a long time reader and never-before commenter, so must also take this opportunity to say thankyou)
While i can see where your calls for understanding and not flaming people for having different opinions i dont think that can extend to armond white. I started reading some of his older reviews and checking what he bitched or praised films for. His decisions always seemed to be 180 degrees from what every other human on the planet felt. he never cites any particular scenes to back up his claims and seems to throw around "composition" as his go to praise/hate excuse. Me smells a troll
another brilliant post mr E.
not that you asked…but had a thought
this conversation about audience responses to films and the critics who elicit/facilitate them seems to be coming up a lot these days.
i've been wrestling uncomfortably with a few thoughts ever since your blog on frisson and can't seem to shake the troubled conclusion i keep reaching.
transformers: revenge of the fallen infuriated us all because it epitomised this new age of low-attention-span cinema, yet as much as we loathe to admit it, this is what audiences have been conditioned to want; consider comparing the most popular films of the 60s to the most popular films of the 00s (there's no doubt some fitting quote from Easy Riders Raging Bulls that could go here but nothing comes to mind).
rather than attempt to build a case worthy of all the other wonderfully articulate blog commenters on here i guess i'll just jump straight to my frustration..
do you think we've passed a point of no return in terms of the classic-artfulness of the cinema?
Steven Boone's review on Inception complained that it was not as 'deep' as it could have been, likening it to the glib pyrotechnics of an Usher concert. he compared it to Paprika which in his mind was a far deeper and more thought-out film about dream exploration.
He's probably correct, but the fact remains that Paprika made 900k in its entire run and Inception has already made over 60m in it's opening weekend - meaning that shallow as he may find it, this is what people are watching.
must we evolve with our audiences and accept that the rules have changed and audiences can never quite be entirely positioned to appreciate the Bergmans, Herzogs and Gordon-Greens of this world?
i recall your review on the Dardenne's incomparible 'The Son' in which you state "If you find you cannot respond to it, that is the degree to which you have room to grow".
but maybe audiences want to stay as they are? i had some friends sit through a viewing of 'the son' with me recently and while I sat there with my heart thumping so loud i could feel it in my ankles, they sat there baffled that i could say it was a more important film than 'the notebook' or for that matter 'twilight'.
at least with a film like Inception you know there's going to be some kind of intelligence pulsing beneath the explosions and gunfights.
maybe i'm being too pessimistic, but i wonder if directors like Nolan - maestros of big budget set pieces - are the new artists, and special effects are the new human face.
I have to admit that I find Hitchcock overrated, and some of his films also come off that way on first viewing. But often his films just stick with you, and hang around in your mind until you watch them again and realize they're better than you thought, if that makes any sense at all.
But while I still believe Alfred Hitchcock Presents is some of the finest television I was lucky enough to watch in reruns growing up, I can't say that I find him to be the infallible director that many hold him up to be.
As for Citizen Kane, I often tell people that it isn't the best film ever made. But in the end, what is? There isn't one, I don't believe. But it is a marvel of filmmaking, very few people find absolutely nothing in it to admire. Even if you look at it sheerly for historical impact, as a piece of the fascinating career of Orson Welles, or if you only take a few images, a couple scenes, or a stray bit of dialog into your mind, the film has some bit for the bulk of people. But I can understand why some people wouldn't enjoy it, which is why I say it isn't the best film ever.
But I still believe nothing is. Oddly enough, the last time I had this conversation with a couple of fellow film-students, the other suggestions brought up were Vertigo and The Godfather.
Few things infuriate me more than when I try to recommend a movie to my parents and they ask, "How many stars did it get?" As if there is only one universal and omnipotent granter of 'stars' that can predict whether or not they will enjoy a movie.
As far as your reviews are concerned, I always appreciate them for your depth of analysis and the pure joy of reading your prose. Whether or not you liked the movie - or whether or not I agree with your conclusion - is almost irrelevant. I want to know what you thought about it.
The only review of yours I have ever had serious issues with is 'A.I. Artificial Intelligence'. I always felt that your whole objection to the film - that "the robot does not genuinely love; it genuinely only seems to love" - completely ignores the first ten minutes of the film in which we are shown a robot that "only seems to love", and are then told that this new child robot will be different. That it will, in fact, genuinely love.
That was the whole point, and I could never figure out why you were so resistant to the premise when it was so directly stated.
Then again, my son was about that age when the movie came out, so I may have had a little too much emotional investment in David. I still have to leave the room during the 'abandoned in the woods' scene.
I am astonished by the praise for Inception given by critics and non-critics alike. I will join a previous commenter in pointing to Nick Schager's review in Slant Magazine, which articulates very well why Inception did not work for me.
Edelstein faults Inception for being too caught up with "ticktock logistics" and being flat and impersonal. You, Roger, and most others don't see this as a problem, but I do. With no human interest in the story (Leo's character is the only one with any depth at all), what is there to make it interesting? Not the details of the heist itself or of infiltrating someone's dream - after discussing these points with my sister, we decided they weren't really important to understand. Most of the film is spent explaining these details and fitting them into an elaborate psychological framework, with the only real pay off being a zero-gravity fight sequence (which, I admit, was pretty awesome).
I don't think the amount of conversation over the film necessarily implies greatness. It seems that the mere presence of philosophical and psychological ideas combined with great special effects are enough to cause chatter.
Back when two guys were on TV castigating each other for holding a opposing opinion on a movie, you would hear conversations like:
"So what did they say about (some new movie)?"
"Two thumbs down"
"Figures, so let's go watch it..."
We've always window shopped. The internet has just exposed how most people actually regard reviews. Which is disheartening to those that write them. These same people who complain about how much of a "ripoff" going to a movie theater is, spend more time reading reviews on electric toothbrushes.
In addition to tribalism, the whole interpretation of scores results from our worship at the altar of metrics. SAT scores and grade point averages determine where you spend the rest of your adolescence. Companies determine raises and promotions based on metrics. We attach a greater meaning to them than we should, because we've been steeped in the metrics kool-aid for so long.
Scores from aggregated movie reviews are viewed as judging a film's "perfection" or "greatness", when that is a plain stupid notion. Perfection is something we aim for, but never reach. Greatness in art can only be seen in hindsight, when the magnitude of a work's influence cannot be dismissed.
One does not see an attempt to apply a numeric score to the works of Shakespeare. If someone tried, they would rightly have their own intelligence judged.
But we accept that kind of craziness on to the various aggregated scores for film reviews. That somehow, these numbers that are mysteriously generated from a critic's prose, represent where a film ranks in the pantheon. People don't read the reviews because they've been trained that the number holds the meaning, when that is completely backwards.
But we accept stars, numbers, grades and thumbs for movies. There must have been some realization in the prehistoric past (e.g. before the "internet") that we are lazy clods who are not going to read a review.
tl;dr: metrics bad for film reviews, but thumbs are metrics too, I give Roger's post 4 out of 5 stars.
By Mike Rogers on July 18, 2010 11:29 PM
The only movie I can't think of that everyone seems to like is Casablanca. At least I don't recall ever meeting someone that didn't like it.
Ebert: You may in fact be right.
It's hard to dislike. But I didn't exactly like it either. The cute runway ending works but is obviously and inevitably coming from Bogie's first hesitation at joining in, I wish I could share Roger's enthusiasm for Ingrid Bergman but... I dunno, I guess I'm more of a Barbara Stanwyck kinda guy (to my undoing no doubt)... and there is some fun dialogue in "Casablanca" but many noir films have much more. Not to ask for too much or anything but the whole world of the film was a little bland for me -- I understand why people would wanna get the hell outta that limbo! (I just went to pick up some milk, which means I have to pass the local bar. People lined up the out the door in the pouring rain... Jean-Luc Godard's conceptual hell was a traffic jam in "Weekend", mine may be that whole bar experience. So unless a well-read English student is accompanying me, Rick's hang out just aint my scene.) That said, if I was pressed for a "thumbs up"... it'd be difficult for me to give the movie a thumbs down... I may just do it though, see how it goes, then take it back some day if the film grows on me. It did what it set out to do, I don't see the triumph that most film buffs see though. I guess this makes me a very exclusive party.
I personally got just as much if not more of an emotional experience out of "Adventureland" last year... and would much rather be trapped at an amusement park! So move over Bogie, Jesse Eisenberg's neurosis is the new definition of star power! (Okay, I take that back, Bogie is great of course and can stay forever. But Eisenberg is my kinda hero, what with his computernerd-fast speaking rhythms/ inability to brood the way a manly man is supposedly expected to (and Bogie did so gloriously... and subtly, something modern actors forget). Then again, I'd rather see an aging Woody Allen in the lead (and making an hilarious mess of) an action blockbuster than most buff commando actors, so I guess I'm just crazy like that. Though I think my "cast the last guy you'd expect as an action hero" theory was proved correct by casting Eisenberg as the successful survivalist in "Zombieland."
And sort of off-topic but, on Eisenberg for a second, I know everybody is talking about "Inception" this weekend but how amazing was this trailer (that played to audible audience "ohhh! really? no way!" reaction before "Inception") for David Fincher's "The Social Network" about the cybernerds who were looking to boost their popularity amongst the frat crowd by creating a network to bring the college experience online and, in doing so, inadvertently created for themselves future careers as successful internet entrepreneurs... and court cases, countless drama... and what we now know was "Facebook": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaaGLogbrfY
The choice of Radiohead's "Creep" as the theme song for this is so funny, so true. This is how Gen Y's social lives were changed forever, by a guy who just wanted in with the cool kids and all their parties (with girls!) and connections.
Regarding Mike Rogers comment, I love Casablanca but always wince at Bergman's line, "You'll have to do the thinking for both of us!" Nor does loving it prevent me from seeing how, for instance, part of its appeal comes from the way that it appeals to patriotic sentiments. Nor does loving it prevent me from considering the love triangle rather ridiculous (if Elsa goes with Rick, the Nazis win?). So I can certainly see how someone else, with a different background, might watch it, perhaps respect it, yet not like it especially.
Critical opinion will sometimes have an effect on my pre-conceived notions of a film. A Nolan fan, I was looking forward to "Inception", but unsure as to whether I'd find time to go and see it. Then, upon watching interviews with the cast (marketing working at its best here!) and a few other clips, as well as hearing about the early critical buzz, I made time to see it on opening day.
So I saw it here in the UK last Friday, and came out mixed. I thought the first half was lacking, and suffered from the same empty cinematography, bad continuity, stubborn editing and flat script that The Dark Knight had (albeit only apparent through repeated viewings for me). However, the second half (essentially the entirety of the heist) was nothing less than outstanding, in my opinion, and made up for any earlier shortcomings. Never has an action sequence gripped me more (thank goodness for reserved cuts).
I felt empowered with my opinion, as I knew it was my own - I didn't seem to love it as much as the critics. Nonetheless, like the parasite that is an idea, the film wriggled its way deeper into my mind, until I became obsessed with going deeper into the film. I couldn't wait until its home release - I had to go back for more.
I came out of it yesterday (Sunday) having enjoyed it far more the second time around. I wasn't so concerned with my previous first-half complaints, as there was now a lot of other detail I was looking for instead. All in all, it was a glorious experience, and for the past few nights has changed the way I approach my night's sleep.
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that, with this film, I can agree with those who loved it, and understand with those who didn't, as I was once in that category. Film is totally subjective (I agree though with your exceptional cases of objective fact!), and it's often silly arguing too heatedly with someone who presents a well-justified contrary opinion.
My rule to choosing your reliable critic is to pick a few who, more often than not, agree with you on past films. Not just by overall rating, but by what they say in their reviews. For example, you are one of mine. Occasionally you'll be completely different to me, though, which is why I take everything with a pinch of salt, so to speak. What I can guarantee is that your reviews will always provide extra food for thought, and further thought and discussion is one of the many joys of cinema. I do disagree with those who believe the cinema is a place only to 'enjoy yourself, not have to think about stuff.'
PS - I'm not trying to suck up to you here, I'm just speaking truths!
Didn't really want to say much about this posting (I agree with most of what you said regarding subjectivity in film criticism) but just wanted to thank you for having two pics from my favorite scene of all time (as well as my favorite final shot of all time on your twitter feed). Keep the flame alive!
"All you do is talk and talk and talk and I have this splitting headache"
Ebert: I love your pulp westerns.
More than anything, the hater/fanboy dichotomy is boring. It immediately turns the conversation away from the movie and into one about the hater/fanboy. I can't count how many message boards, blogs, etc have been destroyed by it. Your blog has for the most part miraculously avoided it. How does he do it?
I didn't see the film because I was clear it was not my cup of tea irrespective of it's merits within it's genre. My son lapped it up twice on two successive days. I certainly don't hold it against him. But in making a viewing decision I always consult your review and NY Times if available. As you say a professional review (not Blogger reviews, which are more of self indulgence) should convey what it's about as well as how, and leave the reader to decide. This is one place where you have scored by providing a reasonable compass and not imposing your viewpoint or taste. And now, by having declared Shoah as one of the noblest movies, you have launched me on a voyage which I eagerly look forward to in the coming days
Ebert: That one will make you feel as if you've embarked on a long, sad pilgrimage.
Different medium, similar problems; the folks over Ars Technica's game reviews had a brief piece discussing why they don't appear in Metacritic.
I actually think A.O. Scott's review suffers as well fom exactly the same defect Roger found in Armond White's. Roger wrote, "White is correct to say Nolan ignores morality, but is he correct to think that's a fault? Does White admire other films that ignore morality? What about "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," which he found superior to "Toy Story 3?" White doesn't say why a film shouldn't ignore morality. Where does Bunuel fit into his view?"
In Scott's case the issue isn't charlatanism, but rather :wrestling with philosophical issues." Here's the relevant passage: "It trades in crafty puzzles rather than profound mysteries, and gestures in the direction of mighty philosophical questions that Mr. Nolan is finally too tactful, too timid or perhaps just too busy to engage." It seems to me that here, for criticism like this to be taken seriously (a concept whose ostensible unseriousness I think Scott too often draws retiring shelter from), the critic would have to show what questions were gestured toward, and how they were unsatisfactorily dealt with. Otherwise you really haven't demonstrated a fault, merely asserted it. I just came back from the film, and to my mind a number of philosophical questions were clearly posed, if not exhaustively explored. In my experience film is a medium that best raises philosophical questions, and is quite unsatisfactory in resolving them. That is what prose and conversations are for. Film is like life - rich philosophical discussions can't commence until the action stops and we begin to reflect. Scott seems to think fully-formed ideas clearly stated are de rigeur in film (for example I just saw his Times video piece on La Grande Illusion, and he unhesitatingly told me exactly what the film's message and ultimate meaning is), when in fact within the artistic medium of film, such philosophical literalness is a very specific, and far from universal aesthetic value. Gestures and suggestions toward ideas in film can be just as valuable as fully fleshed-out ideas, and can allow the artwork to be more of its own quality as film because it isn't trying to have the logical rigor of a philosophical treatise.
I am in the minority for disliking Slumdog Millionare. Others just say it's overrated, I go all the way and dislike the film. I think very highly of Inception, and am inclined to believe it is objectively good. So many are inclined to believe that Slumdog is objectively good.
I have felt dissapointed to be in this minority. I have constantly demanded vindication for this opinion, and have recieved very little. If all opinions are subjective, then why are we convinced our opinions are right? Is it not highly subjective to believe no opinion is wrong, or at least, less right?
The one critic defended his negative review better, yet it seems he disliked it for the wrong reasons. He explained that other films, such as dreamscape, explored similar concepts in a superior way. If dreamscape and Matrix attempt to utilize similar themes Inception does, then can we not objectively weigh how each film's flaws make them more or less effective in carrying out such themes?
I bet a good writer can coherently defend Patch Adams, and I know you'd be eager to tell him he's wrong. I have a hard time believing that everything is objectively subjective.
Slumdog's message isn't genuine. It is supposed to be about recconecting with someone after getting out of a dire situation, but the audience only pays attention to the film because there is kalidescope cinematography, cute actors, fun music, and.. money.
How can I take this film seriously when it is never solemn? We laugh and join the ride into the world of make believe as we first follow the children's incredible journey of running away from cops, getting an autograph from a bollywood star, and running into funny fecal, and genital humor. Never does the camera stop to observe people as they are suffering. Sure Jamal's mother is killed and tortured, and the kids are enslaved, but it amounts to nothing when it isn't convincing or engaging. Almost every movie has a death scene and hardly any of them are genuine. We have no trouble acknowledging that, but we only believe the mother's death is moving, because.. well because our hearts go out to the people of Mumbai. The kids escape enslavement with the ease of an Indiana Jones sequence. None of it is engaging, I am not movied, I do not care.
We are told, literally told there is a religious war going on, as we observe a kid condescendingly dressed as shiva.
The symbolism isn't subtle or engaging. Brevity is the soul of wit, and nothing in this film is subtle. Symbolism works best when it's subtle, and engages us on a more subconcious level. The symbolism of the puzzle ideally blends with the drama and atmosphere of the film, enhancing it rather than distracting us. A pretentious kid dressed as shiva, is a distraction. It is a futile attempt, by the director, to be clever. B=America buys it because American audiences are lethargic to begin with.
We are told Jamal and Latika must fall in love. We aren't shown they should. Casablanca showed us why the characters were so connected.
Sure, it makes sense that Jamal should reconnect with her after being seperated for so long. It doesn't make sense for them to be certain they must become soulmates. When teens become adults, they become different people. If you want to marry someone you only knew up until they were a teen, then you essentially want to marry a different person than who they are.
Jamal and Latika don't develop any chemistry as adults, we just see them smiling together. We are not shown that they have chemistry, we are told they do.
If you believe plausible characters are a necessity in good films, then these are objective criticisms.
Above all, what concerns me most is that if one kid from the slums becomes rich, it isn't a triumph. If a bomb falls on a large group of people and one person survives, it isn't a miracle.
In Schindler's list, in despite having saved some prisoners, it is ultimately a tragedy there are so many who could not be saved. To ignore them would be a disservice to the holocaust victims. Apples and oranges? It is a disservice to the people of Mumbai when our inclinations towards greed and selfishness as a society allow us to focus all our attention to just one ridiculously lucky person. Dev Patel literally applauds at himself at a Daily Show appearance.
The film is not about turning a bad sitution into a good one, it's about creating a good situation out of thin air. That's not hope, that's the illusion of hope. And people in America want to avoid reality and continue dreaming.
I have to go through this depth because people don't think this film through. Our audiences are afraid of reality and want to live in a dream. Inception takes us out of that dream. Inception is a film that doesn't just tell us to, but engages us to think through layers and layers of meticulously intertwined, intelligently exciting ideas.
The Dreams are metaphors. These metaphors are beautifully represented by the action. In our dreams our minds try to work out our problems. The james bond style of this film isn't so much gimmicky, as our subconciousness is best at fighting through our subconcious struggles when it has the confidence and desire to do so. It is not surprising that Nolan learned through sleep research that U.S. Soldiers go through REM testing to make themselves prepared for combat. The action scenes and settings represent ideas. Slumdog is the exact opposite. In Slumdog, the ideas are the action, the smiles, the yelling, the superficial. Slumdog is not aware that it is a senseless dream. Inception does what it can to make us think about what does and does not make sense.
I am especially moved by Cillian Murphy's final scene, and am perplexed by how one idea buried in the subconciousness has such a great effect on reality. Why someone as talented as Cillian Murphy is a Danny Boyle regular, I cannot figure out. The fantasy versus reality theme in Inception seems like a cliche, but it's execution along with everything else is excellent and original. There is more of a Bond reference with the love story considering how the music is played and it distracts from the mission, the way Daniel Craig's love distracted him in Casino Royale. Combining romantic ideas that can turn gimmicky, and blending them in a meaningful way in a cerebral story is a truly original masterstroke.
Upon thinking about the creativety and brilliance necessary to concoct such a film, I am shocked to see people think higher of another film that has about 1/1000th of the originality of Inception. Slumdog Millionare receives a nearly flawless rating on internet review sites, and I can't help but think people are objectively wrong and have lost trust in them(not completely).
I highly respect your opinions and how well you justify them. I just don't know how a critic as well read and well written as yourself can drink the kool aid. I need to understand what I am missing, and telling me that I just don't get hope doesn't get me anywhere, just like telling someone who critized the patriot act is unpatriotic.
Aren't expectations a primal thing?
So.. when that necessity to share "the experience" becomes a task, and things take an unrequited turn, early, so to speak- does the film critic wipe the board clean of what he/she hopes for in the film?
Because the job depends on putting out opinion, where it /can/ no longer seem personal, and vexatiously scrutinized- there must be some diminutive leap(hehe) to the articulation of rehashed, edited remorse (i.e., and exempted: your Kick-Ass review--you in general;) from what seems to me to be the missing link in these "opinion" chains.
The exercise that you've exhibited with in this entry doesn't seem like one does it?
OR DOES IT?
For the sake of thought, and for the stake of sauce (positions on "art"; hehe), writing about it when you have to and writing about the ism of it when it strikes you doesn't even get to become a conflict of interest --I know this because I'm not a critic (I'm a writer)--; it's just one of TIME.
When you're thought-sharing it's not-, shouldn't be this misunderstood a coincidence, dare I say? But when your flipping everybody's steak to see if you like what they've said about what was served, then things just get (retroactively) overwrought.
When it comes to these kind of Hollywood drogues, Critic smiteF with words that are bone-dry, seemingly. Nothing.. nothing about the equivocation of their emotions; all in the medulla oblong-yo mama region of their privileged disposition. All about the emotion that they didn't see up there on that uninhibited canvas. I guess, they're just trying to be funny about it, thorough as the french pronunciation of Henry.
As for you, writer that I think I really admire, at what point, when you watch a movie, do you start thinking about the review?
Wait.. don't answer that.
I saw the movie for the first time today, and I walked out of the theater wondering furiously how anyone could dislike this movie. I'm glad I noticed this article. After reading it, I went onto rotten tomatoes (and I must confess I occasionaly do take the tomatometer too seriously) and I found myself extremely annoyed by the sheer amount of people who posted angry comments to well written negative reviews.
The truth is, people are arrogant (myself included) and tend to assume everyone else should view things the same way, especially when they get swept away by the emotions surrounding a movie they enjoy (or hate). I think it would both reviewers and readers good to remember that in the final judgement of a movie, and indeed of art, different people have different priorities about what aspects of a film matter the most. Quality CGI and a horrible script can mean a good movie to one person and a bad one to another person. Similarly, a critic may praise a movie based on its quality script, and his reader can pan it because of a lack of originality. Neither are necesarily wrong, they just disagree on which element is more important to the enjoyment and/or basic quality of the film.
I get so baffled when I hear negative reviews of films that I love. Many movies that I love have suffered from what seem to me to be blasphemous critiques. Something I've noticed is that when a person didn't like a movie, or didn't get a movie, they often decide they HATE a movie, because it makes them feel justified. I've even found myself thinking during a film that it wasn't a favorite of mine, and later on hearing myself tell people I hated it. Why? I dunno, but people do it. When I read a review that describes why they didn't like it, with real examples and reasons, I am much more okay with it, than, as you pointed out above, those who just simply state an opinion on an aspect of a film, without explaining themselves. I also do not respect many of the reviewers for Inception who said they didn't like it because it was "incomprehensible" or even the good reviews that have warned people it is difficult to understand. Inception is not incomprehensible, it is complicated. It makes sense, and it very well thought out. Those people are the same ones who thought Vanilla sky or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind were too difficult to understand, or who couldn't understand why Vincent Vega was alive at the diner at the end of Pulp Fiction, when he had been shot only a few scenes earlier...these are very linear thinkers who have difficulty grasping complicated timelines or deeply layered plots. My opinion is that the fact that these things are difficult to grasp for them is their problem, and should not be used as a reason to discourage others from liking a film for camaraderie's sake. Something I loved about Inception was the fact that, unlike many other films, there was no big reveal which unveiled what was happening in the film. Nolan respects his audience, and he expects a lot from his audience, and thus he believes that his audience is perfectly capable of grasping complexity and subtlety. It is not, as many reviews have said, necessary to see it more than once to understand what happened. You just have to be able to keep up, and I am so glad for once, that a director has made a film that didn't try to trick us at any point, but rather wanted to tell a beautiful story in a beautiful way, while making you feel as though you were in a dream the entire time. Watching Inception was the most fun I've had at a movie in a long time.
Re: Armond White...I've read two or three of his reviews, and learned not to read others. He's an arrogant boob who spouts his opinions as if they are so self-evident that they require neither explanation nor justification. If that were so, why bother writing the review?
I'm sorry to say that I won't be seeing Inception, so I can't comment on the reviews pro and con. Nothing I've seen in the trailers, nothing I've read on the internet, and nothing I've heard the commentaries of A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips on At the Movies have done anything to encourage me to see it. So I'll save my money.
But with regards to the larger issue of negative reviews coming under fire by fans (or positive reviews coming under fire from anti-fans? Non-fans? Those who hate that particular film?)...I think you're right, people are looking for validation. I think it's a microcosm of how polarized our whole society is becoming. Pro-life versus pro-choice. Left vs. Right. Republic vs. Democrat in the US, Conservative vs. Liberal in Canada (which is NOT the same as left vs. right). Dualism and dichotomies, thrown up on the wall in stark black and white for people to choose from.
It would be interesting to see if there is a similar phenomenon in Europe. I wonder how much of this dualistic damning of the opposition is based on religious fervor.
My problem with Inception was, much as in Shutter Island, I couldn't muster enough sympathy for the protagonists to be too affected by the outcome of the story.
****SPOILER**** Cobb and Mal abandon their children to slip into a dream world for a perceived 50 years. I resent this behaviour. When they finally reach the lowest levels of infinite, unfettered subconscious, a universe they create from their own imaginings, all they can come up with is infinite rows of identically boring skyscrapers. What boring people they must be. To be honest, part of me wondered if their children weren't better off in the care of the avuncular Michael Caine and his wife.
I smiled in Inception at the scene when Ellen Page's character brings two mirrors together to create the illusion of an infinite tunnel.
Usually when I look straight in a mirror I see myself. Here, I didn't even see the camera! So I was smiling at how the film was made, rather than the film itself.
Ebert: I've noticed that the phrase "barbershop mirrors" is now rarely used.
"The only movie I can't think of that everyone seems to like is Casablanca. At least I don't recall ever meeting someone that didn't like it.
Ebert: You may in fact be right."
I felt compelled to reply after I saw this, as I am the rare postulated individual in this conversation. I don't mean to say that I think Casablanca is a bad film. On the contrary, it's quite good. However, I would never rank it anywhere near one of the best films of all time. I actually formed this opinion the first time I saw it when I was 8 or so. Now, after hearing my age you might think it bored me, but I was never a child whom great films bored, an example being my thorough enjoyment of 2001 at the age of 6.
Rather, my problem with Casablanca was and is the ending. I simply couldn't buy both then and now Rick and Ilsa's leaving each other. To me, the reasons Rick gave about why Ilsa had to stay with Laszlo were totally bogus to me. I found the implication that without a woman by his side for moral support, Laszlo would be unable to function in his role of fighting the Nazis not only spoke very poorly of Laszlo's commitment to his cause but struck me as very sexist as well. However, the most damning part of all to me was simply the idea that the problems of two people don't matter a hill of beans compared to the problems of the world. I realize that the line is actually somewhat ironic and you're supposed to feel that the problems of two people do matter, but it didn't change the fact that it came off reading to me like the ends justify the means. I still might have bought it if it truly read like they both had agreed to make a sacrifice that would actually have an effect on saving the world. However, if Laszlo can't save us without Ilsa, I feel we're going to need some much larger sacrifices than Rick and Ilsa's separation if we're to stand a chance. I'm all for self-sacrifice. Pointless self-sacrifice that won't effect the outcome in any way, not so much.
OK, first of all, I haven't yet seen Inception. But my question upon reading discussion of it and viewing the trailers is this:
Instead of dreams, why did Nolan not call it the subconscious?
I think people's ideas, thoughts, etc. are far clearer in the depths of their minds than they are in dreams. In dreams, everything's jumbled, and you would have to sort through all the trash that the mind vomits up to get to the one idea or thought that you wanted to steal. (OTOH, it would be far easier to implant something in a dream context.)
I would be far more comfortable with the concept of the film if Cobb's "dream team" stole ideas from people's subconscious minds. Don't call them dreams, though, because they AREN'T. They're far too logical and structured. That's where the premise collapses for me.
@Randall Yelverton
Bruce Wayne (The Dark Knight)--Bruce must make complicated moral choices throughout most pointedly in the climax where he has to choose between utilizing police state technology to locate The Joker--violating individual freedom--in order to save the city. The Dark Knight is a giant morality play possibly to a fault.
What you're forgetting is that the choices Batman makes are immoral ones. To spy on all of Gotham City? To assault the Joker in the lockup? To threaten crooks on the street with death unless they talk? How does this make him any better than the criminals he's trying to catch?
I found TDK to be an extremely immoral film. The Batman I grew up with was a hero, damn it.
I find Rotten Tomatoes a place to see what other critics thought - as I find most critics to be quite myopic. Ebert, you are my favourite film critic (Xgau for music) because you THINK about the film you saw. How many times have I heard non-sensical babblings from some (typically younger/artsier) critic who doesn't even know his own opinion. I think that's a harsher way of saying what you have just said - most people don't even know their own opinion. Age can define that. Intelligence can help to. I guess it's just luck of the draw really...
I gues I should have left an example (although, really, that's a stupid idea). Critics who like the band Radiohead can only give the reason - they're "deep" - which in fact means pretentious, childish, bullcrap. DEEP is Exile on Main Street, Marquee Moon or the guitar riffs of Layla AOALS. Radiohead are a BAD band - but hell if I was to get anyone to agree with me. This is what annoys me more than most - critics are meant to be able to THINK. I can understand PEOPLE.
Randall Yelverton,
"Ignores morality? Nolan establishes a complicated moral hierarchy unique to the individual character and doesn't underline the right choices for the audience. We have to suss it out for ourselves."
I think Armond White probably means moral fiber. He's kind of his own worst enemy though. He said in his Dark Knight review about the main characters sharing the sentiment of "your only as good as the world allows you to be", that that was a bad message for kids, although I could go on and on about messages in movies that wouldn't be good for anyone: and I'd look at that as bad writing, not bad movie parenting. And besides that, isn't it true? Who can say whose world view is the right one? Are his Christian beliefs more "right" than an Islamist? My guess is he would unequivocally say yes. And the joke is on him.
Randall Yelverton,
Adding onto that last comment: Don't the words "Your only as good as the world allows you to be" sound like wisdom rather a message. Why can't Armond White see the profoundness in that? This is why I read Roger only.
Adding onto my first comment, I liked the movie because I think it gets at the core of action movies and you do care about them, regardless of how I loathe the idea of idea-stealing or the exactness with which they go into the mysteries of the human mind (it is a mystery, remember).
I can understand what not liking a popular movie feels like. It happened to me with the 2nd and 3rd lord of the rings movie. I fell asleep during the second movie and i watched the 3rd movie with all the oscar hype going on. I absolutely did not understand what was great with the film but my friends seem to have understood. Till date i am known as the lotr hater which really is unfair because i did not hate it, i just couldnt understand
As maddening as it is to have people disagree with films that you value and addore its not as bad as when people stop caring and are not even interested anymore in defending their opinion or final stage: bother to have one...
Yet still I cant believe that there is not at least one movie out there that everyone would love? Anyone know someone who saw "Totoro" and did not like it?
I don't like when movies tell me how to behave; Armond White wants that in a movie.
He wants a movie to kind of creepily tell you how to live your life.
Creepy morality is key in Cinema au Armond White.
I have no problem with reviews that don't line up with my own viewpoint as long as the reasons for the critic's reactions to the film are made clear. I've read too many reviews where not only do I not agree with the reaction, but I'm left thinking "Did they actually see the same movie I did?" One thing I've always enjoyed about your own reviews is that your reasons for liking or not liking a movie are almost always made clear, and I'm never left feeling that we saw different movies, even if our reactions clash.
Armond White...well, he's another story. He seems to be a professional contrarian who drapes his screeds with a lot of $5 words and terms taken from the index of a film theory book and applied haphazardly to whatever he's pontificating about, whether that be Transformers 2 or The Hurt Locker. But even when I agree with his overall viewpoint of a film in terms of finding it good or bad, I find myself thinking "What the FUCK is this guy talking about?"
Ebert: Yeah. Sometimes you just want to tell someone, "You know what you are? Dumb as a box of rocks."
I think some just don't know when to shut up. I don't think it has anything to do with the movie or book or whatever. It's clearly just all about them.
I think what is bothering me most here is many of the negative reviews are holding up what they perceive to be peer group films as rationale for their distaste for "Inception". For instance, The Matrix seems to be the "go to" movie when a critic is explaining what "Inception" lacks. However, this comparison is a non-starter from my perspective.
If I was looking for the Wachowski Brothers point-of-view, I would seek out one of their films. However, I am not seeking that. I chose to see "Inception", a film from Nolan's mind and his artistic viewpoint. Therefore, I should judge the film on those merits.
If I am going to assign each film that I see to a pre-determined categorization of other peer films, then I am already choosing to taint my viewing experience. One needs to absorb the film, react to it, and form an opinion based on said reaction. If I am starting with the question, "How does this aspect of the film compare to "Film X's" interpretation," I lose the credibility of my opinion.
Mr. Ebert,
In a society where many seek out news that matches their pre-conceived notions, it's not surprising that some don't understand that there can be valid opinions that are not identical to their own.
It's also clear that many don't understand the role of a movie critic. I always believed that a single movie review didn't exist in a vacuum. You have to read a number of reviews by the same reviewer, compare them to your experience, and use that comparison to guide your viewing decisions.
For example, at this point, it's clear that Arnaud White is a bit of a contrarian. So if White hates a movie, I'd be more interested in seeing it. On the other hand, if you give a movie a positive review, I'd be more likely to watch.
Finally, you have to wonder how many budding movie critics are being turned off by the braying mobs crying for the heads of anyone who criticizes a movie they like... or worse, how many current critics may decide to write a less-than-honest review in order to avoid the mobs. Either would be a net loss, even if the self-validation faction doesn't understand that.
This is a great cinematic feast for me and, oh, Citizen Kane ... Now the fire inside of me raging with anger cuz I still can't see this movie.
I didn't see Inception yet, but I had this feeling I get every time I wait for a great film.
Synecdoche, New York is at the top of my list too.
I used to watch a lot of movies with a friend of mine. He and I have very different tastes. It took me an unreasonably long time to work that out. A sample post-movie conversation ("Lost in Translation", I think):
Him: "I did not like that film."
Me: "Sure you did."
Him: "No, I hated it. It was boring. Nothing happened."
Me: [insert 45 minute defense of the film, beautifully structured and argued, IMHO]
Him: "You're not going to convince me that I enjoyed that film, Andy."
Me: [appropriate textual description of rage/frustration]
Art and enjoyment are subjective. Imagine that you read a Jackie Collins novel one day and the precise nature of the plot (or description of a "throbbing member") was such as to spark a new and profound line of thought for you. You've been fortunate to have a wonderful human experience. If you are of a particular mindset, you may even enjoy that line of thought and pursue it for a long time after putting the book down. The line of thought may be interesting to others or it may not. However, it is unlikely that everyone (in some cases, I'm sure, anyone) would get there from your starting point in the Jackie Collins novel. It is probably true to say that such experiences are more likely to come from more deliberately artistic endeavours, like Inception. Nonetheless, even where starting that line of thought was intentional (e.g. "Hurt Locker", why men go to war), not everyone will be inspired or like what they see.
A moment for Chris Nolan's morality: In the Dark Knight there are things that Batman does that enraged me, including torturing the Joker. There are no audiovisual cues as to the right thing to do, which is rare in a Holywood movie. Moreover, after the fact neither the positive nor the negative results of the torture are particularly emphasised. You're left with a question: You think a man knows information which could save lives but he is refusing to tell you. What do you do? I know my answer but I can't, for the life of me, give you a good argument as to why it's the right thing to do.
So, is Chris Nolan ignoring morality? Or is he deliberately posing tough moral questions (in every film he has made) and challenging the audience to answer the questions for themselves?
I'm sorry, but there are people who don't like Casablanca.My husband assumed that since I didn't like it I must not like old movies, while I love The Third Man and Gaslight and many others. I did not like the character of Elsa,she wasn't real, no idea what she was under the sacrificing "Good Woman". maybe it's men who all love Casablanca, a semi romantic movie that still has tough guys in it?
This may be a movie about dreams, but there’s nothing dreamlike or evocative about it: Nolan doesn’t build or sustain a mood; all he does is twist the plot, under, over, and back upon itself, relying on Hans Zimmer’s sonic boom of a score to remind us when we should be excited or anxious or moved. It’s less directing than directing traffic.
Inception is nice enough to look at; the DP is Wally Pfister, who frequently collaborates with Nolan, and he makes those Parisian streets, in particular, look very pretty and bright. But the deeper you get into the movie, the more its polished visual surface feels like a deception. Nearly every moment in Inception is so big, so fattened-up, that nothing has any weight; because every little thing is of the gravest importance, there’s nothing at stake. Nolan keeps the story whirring, all right — he’s the man behind the curtain, feverishly pushing levers and operating dials. He uses his figurative bullhorn to ask allegedly deep questions, like “What’s real, and what’s illusion?” (He’s the Doug Henning of filmmakers.) But although Inception gives the appearance of being a work of intelligence and complexity, it’s really just an ungodly tangle. There’s no elegance in Nolan’s vision, only sweat. He’s the dream architect who thinks he’s doing us a favor by giving us a shag rug.
When we saw Titanic in the movie theater, the whole thing was shown slightly out of focus. To compensate, the manager of the theater gave us free passes for another showing. We ended up using those passes to see a movie we'd never heard of: Dark City.
Wow. The experience of seeing that movie - having no idea really what it was about, with almost no one in the theater watching it (they were all next door watching TItanic) was amazing. I couldn't believe it wasn't a blockbuster hit.
When you named it your pick of the year, I felt that - finally! - it was getting the recognition it deserved, and I have always felt strangely grateful to you for that.
Responding to a question about someone asking you what makes Citizen Kane a great movie. Well, I suppose if you're going to watch the movie for the first time without knowing much about it....after almost 70 years of movies made afterwards....it may seem like a somewhat pedestrian movie now. But one has to remember that it was such a ground-breaking movie in terms of cinematography and perspective and narrative. I can see without that knowledge, and since so many other films in the past 70 years have stood upon its shoulders, one may not be impressed.
But then again, it's like someone seeing Metropolis and complaining it wasn't that good because it was in black&white and there wasn't any sound and the special effects looked goofy.
Ebert: Kane still plays fresh for me.
Hi Roger,
A friend of mine made a rather interesting critique of Inception: "I'm not sure how it could possibly be improved by being a novel instead of a film." And he loves reading the classics almost as much as you do!
I have to agree, it is quite possibly one of these rare stories that only film can tell. I'm not sure how you could handle the visual illusions used to trick the audience, the Fred Astaire fight scenes, and the slowing of time to provide suspense, to name a few, in a novel. A lot of what happens seems to defy written explanation.
Maybe you and your readers can think of more examples or counterexamples.
Can I throw out "It's a Wonderful Life" as a film everyone likes? How about Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" or Pixar's "Toy Story."
What I find irritating about the tomatometer is that not only does it lump the critical response into an indistinguishable mass, it also does a poor job portraying when response to a film is polarizing. A reasonably well done, so-okay-its-average film might win enough respect to get a 'fresh', while a film that some people absolutely adore while others despise with a passion may end up 'rotten'.
I'd honestly rather see more films that some people absolutely love and others absolutely hate than more films that are passable enough that everyone kinda-sorta likes it.
And I remember the first negative review that derailed the perfect 100% for 'Spirited Away', dropping it from one of the only perfect scores on the site to the mildly less prestigious 99%. Good times.
First off, "Inception" is not the third best film ever. I liked it and thought it was good, but then again, I was not at all into the "emotional" aspects of it as the film seemed to stumble a little bit in them. Also, the necessary "expository dialogue" was done better in Nolan's "The Prestige" than here, where it, to me, like many others, seemed very obvious in its purpose, whereas it was more natural in the other film. Also, I thought the "snow" level of the dream, which Nolan apparently intended as a reference to "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," got extremely dull.
As a question, Ebert, do you prefer "Avatar" to this film or are you neutral? I know you gave both of them 4 star reviews, but I was wondering if you liked one a little better anyways. I thought "Avatar" was ultimately the better film (mostly because it didn't shadow itself into emotional territory that it couldn't quite support and because of the more powerful effect of the entire film, though it's a coin flip which film is more enjoyable), though I'll be beaten up by Nolan fanboys and other people who forgot it used to be "cool" to have seen and enjoyed "Avatar" and who are now browbeating people and saying they have "bad taste" if they like or prefer "Avatar" to "Inception."
As for a film that I believe is perfect or near perfect or great, how about either "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," your suggestion of "The Third Man," or "Touch of Evil"?
"In my case, I didn't crack a smile while watching the film because Nolan didn't call for one..."
Really? I caught myself giggling at more than a few times at the sheer spectacle. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's fight scene in the hallway had me giggling out loud and grinning through the entire thing as it was a kid in a candy store moment for a movie goer.
I also grinned every time we were shown the van in free fall to remind us of the level of the time scales we were involved in (and also to remind us why there was no gravity in level 2) and I laughed aloud when everyone in the hotel room was being wound up into the pile and moved to the elevator.
Despite the "somber" tone of most of the movie, it was beautiful and bright and had more than a few grin-worthy moments that I absolutely thing were intentional.
Ebert: I guess I was kinda grinning with incredulity that the first chase scene was actually working for me.
Positive or negative, the good reviews are useful. By checking reviews on both sides, I used to get the ideas about what I would get from a certain movie, or compare my thought with others'. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes score are for the curiosity; opinions below them are more important to me. You think different from me? I'd like to know why, and maybe...
I've accepted that my opinion is sometimes different from others'. I know some people who did not like "No Country for Old Men" from my personal experience. And I don't think some of your great movies are as great as you said. But the opinion can be changed, or I can learn about how others think about and what they want from a movie. Edelstein has his reasons, and maybe I won't agree with him about the movie. I'm OK with that.
“Inception" will be released in South Korea in this week. I've got some idea about "Inception" from your review and others'. I have expectations while trying to having my mind opened as usual. I'll drag my lab members to the theater for the group experience on this Wednesday. They may have different opinions when the end credit rolls. We probably may share opinions at least for a minute.
P.S.
One of my favorite reviews of yours is "Blue Velvet". You have several good points and the movie has flaws. But I admire it anyway - but we can agree that "Mulholland Dr." is Lynch's Best.
Hi Roger,
Before I disagree with the two criticisms that I've seen here of Inception (lacks emotion, lacks morality), let me just marvel again at the complexity of the layers of this film.
This is a film that perhaps only makes total sense if you've been seeing story boards on the set for months that explain it all. I wonder how many times Nolan had to explain it all to the actors.
For example, why does a train rocket out of Cobb's subconscious in the first dream level? (Sub-conscious, he can't control it...)Because the train is significant, later. I get that.
In my 2nd viewing, I had much more appreciation for the two repeated phrases that tie the layers together.
First: "You are waiting for a train..."
Second: "I am an old main, full of regrets, waiting to die".
Pay attention to those phrases.
I disagree that the film lacks emotion. I thought it was chock full of emotion. Ariadne's wonder at "pure creation" for example. Fear and shock, in discovering unanticipated risks. Certainly Cobb & Mal's love was palpable. Mostly it's full of emotional pain. Guilt is an emotion. Separation. Disappointment. It's all there.
I also disagree that the film lacks a moral center. Once you accept that their mission is "not, strictly speaking, legal" then Cobb's mission - which we all would respect - is central. Ariadne also provides the moral center for the team, as Cobb's conscious. "You have to tell them".
Now that I think about it, I do think that there is a hole in the story. I'll email it to you so I don't provide a spoiler.
Last, being a guy, can I just say that Ellen Page and Marion Cottillard were lovely in the film? Yes.
Ebert: That you stayed right there and aw the movie a second time speaks well of your regard for film.
I have just spent an hour looking at some of Armond White's reviews. While initially aghast at his likes and dislikes, esp. Transformers and There Will Be Blood, I've actually found that he places his finger on near-exactly the thing I might not like about a film. And his critiques are always interesting, at the very least.
I also read a long article critizing you, among others, for not giving sufficient props to the film Shotgun Stories; I almost went along with him until I saw it was in your best movies of that year. He also said that Zhang Yimou and Stephen Chow are underrepresented when I am sure I saw their films' based on critical fervor.
Thank you for this post. I try never to get too worked up about opening weekend reaction to a film I love because I know that this isn't the end of the conversation, but just the beginning. The truth about Inception will out, years from now, long after the hype has faded. I don't always succeed, of course, but I try.
I also want to say thank you for this bit: "It's true that Nolan is literal-minded and logistical, but I believe the film depends on the conceit that you can think your way into someone else's dream with your own intelligence. The last thing he wanted was an untethered dream movie." The only thing that I still let under my skin is when I feel like negative reviews miss key information that the movie presented clearly, and that's happening a lot with Inception. Many of the film's critics, including Jim Emerson, seem to have missed this exact point you mention. Why do the dreams hold together so well? That was the point of hiring an architect. Why does a character have such a structured subconscious? Because he built it, stone by stone, using skills that a normal person doesn't have.
Actually, Matt Zoller Seitz didn't like the film very much at all. Other than that, fantastic blog entry. I think that you may be right about "Casablanca" being near universally loved, but you never know...
Ebert,
Thanks for a great entry. I saw 'Inception' last night, with my mind as open as Ellen Page's, and I found the film to be enjoyable/trite. It's a stylish heist film chock full of typical heist characters: but unlike your average heist film, there wasn't much at stake for anyone, except Ken Watanabe's character. Even Leo's "getting to go home" was nice, but is ultimately a selfish need that, until later, we didn't know from whence it derived. In fact, the character's motivations ceaselessly annoyed me. Why was the brilliant Ariadne agreeing to sacrifice her bright career to work with criminals? The creativity? But she could do that without committing corporate espionage, right? Also, her continual habit of being cast as such a bright young thing only served to sit around and explain the obvious, which the rest of the cast seemed to miss out on. (Moll ruins a job, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt thinks its strange, but doesn't stop him from working with Cobb on more dangerous jobs down the line...)
Lastly, my biggest issue is that, for a movie about dreams, there was nothing very "dreamlike" about it. Tangible, rational and linear are three words rarely describing ANY dream I've ever had -- maybe I'm a minority.
My final gripe is this: the ending (SPOILER) was so obvious that I joked about it before we sat down. What if the whole MOVIE was a DREAM! HAHAH! Wouldn't we feel like chumps? But it was too tempting of a cheap trick for Nolan to have to pull off. How much more satisfying would it have been to see the top topple? To, in a world filled with finalities and clear cut delineations (awake/sleeping, real/fake), to end the dreaming?
My question is: If a heist movie is couched in high-concept, does it make it an incredible, mind-bending film (like, say, 'The Fountain' or 'Waking Life'), or just a smart heist movie?
Recently, I've learned there is a good amount of power and responsibility in movie reviews. I try hard to avoid all opinions until I've finished my own review (especially yours, Mr. Ebert you are much too influential on me). When I'm in the minority of opinions, I don't feel like I've missed something, I realize that I may be one of the few that has formed a genuinely unbiased opinion.
When I accidentally sneak a peak and see that you've given something x amount of stars, there's no going back. You've suddenly planted an idea and no matter how I try to ignore it, it starts to shape my view. And you don't even need to get into one's dreams to form that kind of inception.
As much as I enjoyed "Inception," I'm not going to hold it against someone for pointing out some of its flaws. Beyond Cobb, and to a lesser extend Fischer, it didn't have much in the way of character development. Also, the idea of nested dreams like that nags at me - I just don't think that's the way the human mind works. Still, it has many strengths and, given time, I think it could become a great film.
On a side note, although I like "The Godfather," I don't think it was even the best film released in 1972 - I much prefer "Cabaret." That is, of course, my opinion.
Another positive aspect about "Inception" comes to mind: it's nice to see a film like this not done in 3-D.
Can you explain the endings of the following films?
1. Total Recall
2. Spanish Prisoner
3. Inception
Or perhaps add a few more movies with the quality "sure to inspire truly endless analysis".
I often have debates with others trying to figure out if there is a movie that is universally enjoyed. Understandably, this might be different than trying to find that "great" movie. Frequent contenders are Apollo 13, Toy Story, and A Few Good Men.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
Thank you for your enlightening blog. I really wish you would be with us like forever. I know it is asking too much from God, but we need a lot more level-headed critics. What makes a movie critic a movie critic anyway? I am truly curious how rottentomatoes or any other "critic" website chooses those they prefer to feature as a critic of cinema.
I loved Inception. It is the best movie I've seen all year and it will take a great movie to knock it from it's perch.
A lot of people know how I love movies, so I often get into debates with them. I always try to remember the two scnes from Amadeus The "too many notes" scene and when the Emperor yawns at Don Giovanni. What I(and perhaps many others) see as a masterpiece is boring and has arbitrarily too many notes to others. I just remember that I dislike some movies that are considered classics.
As for the morality, these people are thieves. Are we not supposed to watch things about criminals? Are we not allowed to watch and enjoy the Godfather movies, Pulp Fiction, Breathless, TV's the Wire, any caper movie, or anything where the protagonist is likable and a criminal? Is the movie itself immoral? Does liking one of those movies make me immoral?
I saw the opening midnight show of Inception 12:01am on Friday (not Saturday) morning. I was excited about this movie but my love for Nolan is not that deep. As much as I enjoyed Dark Knight (saw it twice), I feel Burton's 1989 Batman's still the best Batman and Dark Knight had a lot of problems. It was still insanely fun though and I watch it often.
Inception was an awesome concept. As far as concepts go.. it's hard to rank.. but this is up there. To take all the things we ALL know ourselves through experience regarding dreams and make something out of it.. that's incredible.
I'm not happy with the execution though. The only thing I can pinpoint solidly is the action sequences. Everything that happened outdoors in that snow fortress was just a jumbled mess. And other than the fight in the twisting hallway and the train on the road, nothing stands out. The other reasons why the movie was a little lost on me I am not even sure. I just know it was.
We all left Inception talking about it and spending days talking about it. But it was the concept, not really the events we saw. And because of that, this movie is a definite recommend for me.
However, this year it was Kick-Ass that I saw twice in theaters and Knight and Day is the other movie I want to see again. As far as movie concepts go, theirs don't hold a candle to Inception, but other areas of those movies left a much stronger impression of me. I think some people would probably be shocked of my grouping these three movies together in a paragraph but these are my three favorite movies this year (fwiw, I haven't see Toy Story 3 yet).
Another way to say what I said earlier:
Inception is deceptive, a sleight-of-hand, not just in it's obvious plot elements.
Possible spoiler ****
While it seems that Inception is about the heist caper, the emotional driver for the film is Cobb's first inception. "He knows it can be done because he's done it before"....Emotional pain, and it's resolution, is the driver of the film.
I showed my wife "Local Hero" with Burt Lancaster and Peter Reigert. It's on my list of top five films. She thought it was charming but not much else. Which I could see. When I saw it, I was in an emotional place where it probably affected me with more resonance than it would have if I'd seen it at a different time.
Interestingly, she along with many, many other people find my opinion on The Shawshank Redemption unfathomable. I saw it with her a couple of years ago. I thought it was entertaining and well made but by no means a great film.
Apparently, these days, not ranking SR a classic is unfathomable.
On the plus side, we both saw Get Shorty for the first time last week and thought it one of the funniest movies we've seen in a long, long while.
Trying to tackle Armond White on his own turf is the film-crit version of greased pig wrestling. His line about "best canted angles" reminded me of an equally sarcastic review of "Lethal Weapon 3" in the "Village Voice", where the author called it the best movie of its kind since "Return of the Living Dead Pt. 2".
It's annoying, because when White has something to say about a genuinely good film, as he ostensibly did for "Revanche" (http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1372-revanche-revival-of-the-fittest), it's hard to take anything he says seriously. No, he's not boring, but he commits another fatal flaw: he doesn't tell me anything remotely useful about what watching the movie is like.
"Like 'Grand Theft Auto's' quasi-cinematic extension of noir and action-flick plots, 'Inception' manipulates the digital audience's delectation for relentless subterfuge." I've read that sentence four times now and I'm still not sure what, if anything, White meant by it. Personally, I don't think he cared if it meant anything or not. His POV seems to be that he has automatic contempt for 99% of the movies made, and so they're fair game to be snickered at via his Frankenstein-monster approach to language.
Actually, come to think of it, he is boring.
Good morning, Mr. Ebert:
This latest blog steers the "What is Art?" conundrum into the movie realm. This time, however, it appears to address the broader role of peer pressure and public opinion in shaping our tastes. Knowing full well blog responders will bludgeon this quote into a cliche, I will cite it anyway: "There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures. The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves. They're looking for support and vindication." I agree if the disagreement with our preferences is respectful. However, if the disagreement contains any implication that only insipid boors like "that stuff", of course you are going to resent it, regardless of your maturity. Your excoriation of "Transformers II" lovers is a prime example.
As your blog states, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion, about movies or anything else. However, it seems to contain the caveat that an informed, coherent opinion is the best kind. Generally, I agree, but occasionally one's opinion can be visceral and ineffable. I don't think that necessarily makes your opinion less worthy, if your opinion is genuinely your own. A truly unworthy opinion is one you passively accept from purported experts because, again, it's the popular thing to do, or because the experts know what's good for you.
Arguably, neophytes in any endeavor follow the herd in forming their tastes ("If Roger Ebert likes this movie, it must be good!"). As they become more seasoned, they trust their own preferences more and don't feel inclined to defend them from detractors. In fact, they may get a "perverse" satisfaction in liking something that others loathe (sort of an Addams Family syndrome). For example, I remember your mentioning your admiration of the original "The Last House on the Left" even in the face of "universal repugnance". It seems when you like something, Mr. Ebert, you are usually unapologetic about it. That's good!
Of course, we all consult public opinion about something before trying it. The key is ensuring that the decision whether to try it or not comes from within, and not thrust upon us from without.
Any Hitchcock fan who doesn't like "Vertigo" needs to hand in their Hitchcock Card.
People react to criticism because it threatens to invalidate their connection to a film; as you said: "... film criticism is a matter of subjective opinion. Only rarely does it stray into objective fact." That threat of objective fact scares people: they don't want their private experience with a movie to be objectively dissected and dismantled. Even if a film can't objectively be proved to be bad, that very possibility is threatening.
When you love a film [or a book, etc.], you develop a connection with that art based on an experience that never be repeated; if that experience [and subsequently, that connection] is invalidated, you can't find a replacement: you could experience something similar, but you could never experience that specific thing the same way--it's forever lost.
Dreams are like this; the waking is the criticism: even if you were able to experience something similar to what you felt in the dream, you'd never be able to replicate that experience. It's been said that the artist strives to create a dream: that art is successful if it can hold the viewer in the dream; criticism threatens to wake the viewer from the dream.
Most aren't opposing the criticism--they're opposing its intimations; they want the dream. If the criticism ultimately validates their experience, then why did they need to hear it? And if it invalidates their experience... well, maybe Oz wasn't such a bad place after all.
This post comes very close to a theme that rang constantly throughout my art school tenure, but which I've rarely seen echoed until here. That is, despite that all criticism is at essence, opinion, we can nevertheless identify objectively invalid, or useless, criticism.
Much of criticism is merely projection--a statement of preferences. But simply stating your preference for apples over oranges is invalid inasmuch as it fails to describe why the orange was bad. Good criticism attempts to empathize with the intent of the creator and tries to place the work in context. Preferences have their place, but only when disclaimed as such.
While I agree that reviews should be honest and useful, and cannot be faulted for not conforming to the majority opinion, in the case of "Inception," I do believe it is fundamentally wrong to write a flat-out negative review of Inception.
I've lost count of the number of times I've read or heard film-goers lament the lack of originality in Hollywood films. They wish all these sequels, prequels, remakes and adaptations would just take a rest so we could see some fresh ideas get the attention (read: money) that they rarely get. This isn't really fair, because Hollywood studios simply make the kinds of movies people pay to see. If smart, original movies attracted a bigger audience than "Transformers," you can bet Hollywood would crank out the bigger moneymakers. But they don't, so Hollywood doesn't.
Nevertheless, we now have "Inception." Not only is the screenplay completely original and cliché-free; it introduces entirely new concepts and explores them to a logical end. And it was made with A-list stars and a Batman-sized budget. For once, Hollywood has shown faith in the ability of a filmmaker and his team to make something people want to see for no reason other than the movie itself.
But then, the same people who wanted movies like "Inception" to be made write that the movie is poor and suggest that people won't enjoy it and shouldn't see it. Here, we hit a snag: if a reviewer honestly and innocently did not enjoy the film and believes many others won't either, doesn't that person have a responsibility to say so? Yes, absolutely. It's not wrong to explain one's experience to people who want to know. Nor is it wrong to dislike a film, no matter how highly regarded it is.
But what if the majority of film-goers last weekend had chosen to identify with David Edelstein and A.O. Scott and gone to see a different movie or just stayed home? "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" would have outgrossed "Inception," and there would be consequences not only for Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros., but for filmmakers and film-goers everywhere. Hollywood studios would have been vindicated in their beliefs that franchises always make the most money and should get the most attention. Original filmmakers would be sidelined, and film-goers would be denied the chance to see more wonderful, original material from great rising filmmakers like Nolan once was. Instead, "Inception" is doing great business, and we're headed for a future in which movies can be marketed to a mass audience based solely on their individual greatness. What a great day that would be.
So what's a critic to do when caught between a responsibility to inform the masses and a responsibility to avoid sabotaging the future of original filmmaking? Clearly, the fate of mainstream cinema is more important than an accurate rating of a single film. So I propose the following: if a critic's reaction to "Inception" is negative, the proper thing to do is to explain to his/her readers why, but to be sure to acknowledge the accomplishments of this film and the value of it. A critic should never pretend to like or dislike a film, but especially in the case of "Inception," a critic must not discourage people from supporting it by watching it anyway and making up their own minds. Too much depends on it.
(Some will say I exaggerate the impact of "Inception" and its box office performance, but in this economy where fewer studio films are being financed and mainstream cinema is becoming even more elitist, I don't believe that I am.)
I saw "Inception" Saturday night at the drive-in with my family. My wife suggested beforehand it might not be a great drive-in movie and she was right. Nonetheless, I think "Inception" would have been overlong and repetitive in a hushed theater where no one had put their soda cup on the cab of their pickup right in my sightline. The fights in the ice world, especially, dragged, and were goofily predictable, like a compilation of clips from James Bond flicks. Was that meant as an in-joke? If so, it should never have dragged on so long. And the hotel room/hallway scene, tying the bodies together, fighting in the revolving hallway, blowing the elevator -- it all took so long. I couldn't wait to wake up.
Roger,
I have never before been moved to write on this comment site, but your article today did this. I am not a student of film, I watch film because I enjoy them, sometimes because they make me think, sometimes because I want escape, sometimes because of visual images etc. My time and money are quite valuable, so I read your reviews because most of the time I agree with you and decide which movies to see partly based on your review (to me, that is the most important reason for reading reviews, whether it be Consumer Reports or Roger Ebert!).
Saying this really isn't the reason for my review. I have probably watched 100 movies in the last year (most on DVD and cable TV), and the only one that I turned off because I couldn't stand it anymore was "Synecdoche NY". Your article made me stop and think why; and I think it has to do with the same reason that the worst book I ever read, in my opinion, was "Crime and Punishment" (this was for a high school assignment or I never, ever would have finished it). In both cases, you have main characters who I felt like screaming at "Get off your butts and do something!" Your article made me think a bit about what we like and don't like, and how that factors into what we think is a "great" movie, a "good" movie etc.
While I enjoyed Inception greatly, I had one nagging question after I finished watching it, which is "What do the shared dreamers do if they want to, um, relieve themselves?" I mean, I guess it could be explained by the (spoiler) sedative, but if I'm on a 10 hour flight, I'm going to need to use the bathroom during that time.
But, yeah, overall, I thought it was a brilliant, thought provoking film that dared to engage the minds of its audience, unlike the majority of films that Hollywood has been cranking out this year.
Ebert: Characters in movies never enjoy an ordinary pee. Toilets are for the purposes of stashing guns, killing people, overhearing conversations, Meet Cutes, escaping from the party, taking drugs, or fleeing through the window.
Thanks, Roger, for helping me organize my thoughts on the backlash-to-critical-backlash issue. While I admit I do enjoy reading critical opinions that agree with my own, there are some film critics who's opinions, good or bad, I always look forward to because they write so well about film in general and so clearly about their own thoughts and reactions. David Edelstein and A. O. Scott are two of these. As always, I was a little disappointed that they didn't seem to experience Inception the same way I did (or even, I thought, the way the audience I saw it with did . . . except for the one laugh with Page and Gordon-Levitt, the audience sat stone still in silence until, with the last shot, they all gasped in unison). But I found David's criticisms understandable and as always, clearly and concisely stated: something to think about. With Mr. Scott, I found his criticisms strangely elliptical and hard to pin down, as if we had literally been watching different movies. He wrote: "though there is a lot to see in “Inception,” there is nothing that counts as genuine vision. Mr. Nolan’s idea of the mind is too literal, too logical, too rule-bound to allow the full measure of madness — the risk of real confusion, of delirium, of ineffable ambiguity — that this subject requires." He says that the notion that Nolan is a "visionary" is an "illusion." It seemed uncharacteristic of Mr. Scott to imply so strongly that his understanding of the subject was so much clearer that the filmmaker's, and that the filmmaker, however technically competent, had failed to grasp that subject.
I will, of course, be reading both reviewers' future pieces. David Edelstein to date has still penned the most apt film-critical simile I have ever read, when he described Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring as "the blood wedding of Kurosawa and Harryhusen: The Seven Samurai of Sinbad."
I feel a kind of hilarious parenthetical need to represent those of us who smiled during "Inception." I actually grinned a lot, because I had so much fun watching it. After it ended, I was still grinning and probably looking idiotic.
Thank you for a very interesting look inside Reviewer World.
Citizen Kane is a mystery to me. Although I can see greatness in it and know all the back-story about Welles and also how new techniques were used, I can not seem to be able to sit down and the movie in one sitting. Trust me I've really tried.
I know I've seen all of it through various viewings but as a whole it just doesn't seem to grab me.
Alas, I'll just stick with Casablanca as one of my top "Great" movies.
I also defy anyone to name their number one, top great, film. I know I can't place one as the Alpha.
I hope reviewers disregard the angry mob type of comments or at least take them with a grain of salt. I hope they are not swayed by them into writing more neutral or positive reviews, but I fear in some cases they are. I prefer newspapers and magazines who don't have comments enabled, or at least placed on a different page, and hope more will consider this.
What we are seeing is not, I believe, representational of viewers as a whole, nor even online viewers. A recent study of social media showed a particularly vocal group of online fanatics for a television show were actually part of the minority. The study showed that more viewers had negative things to say about the finale, but you wouldn't know it from reading the comments on some reviews.
Sometimes the mob seems orchestrated and that's because it often is. Typically a fan site will direct participants to target a particular article or review (and this includes skewing Wikipedia articles to characterize critical reception as mostly positive when it was mostly negative). And let's not overlook that entertainment is a business, and as such has an interest in shaping the online discourse.
As for Inception, I hadn't seen the review by Steven Boone, so thank you for referencing it here. I enjoyed his review more than the movie.
Greetings Roger and fellow readers!
This is a terrific blog because it examines the very nature of film criticism and film viewing itself.
Personally speaking, I really don’t care what others think of a film before I’ve had a chance to see it for myself. The logic here is that I don’t want to be coloured by somebody else’s opinion, however nuanced, before I have the opportunity to survey the film. There are exceptions: I tend to read your reviews of four star films and great movies the moment they are published.
I am moved to suspend contrasting my own perceptions with others’ namely because I want to avoid the metaphorical baggage and simply appreciate the film in question on its own terms. It is at that point that I determine whether the film had merit and actively look to participate in debate (if any) surrounding the film.
Incidentally, I recently became a subscriber to Film Movement Canada, which I highly recommend to my fellow Canadians!
Chris Alders
Ottawa, Canada
Ebert: Lots of Canadians here are so pleased Film Movement has come to
Canada.
I feel this frustration every day of my life, as my wife is (nearly) always the reverse of Rotten Tomatoes. She readily enjoys the Epic Movies and Zohans of the movie-verse, while patently hating Pixar films, which are as close to a sure thing when I go to see them as it gets. She thinks that all of the Tyler Perry movies were superb in every way to most films of the past decade (including, again, Pixar films). It is frustrating, but I just tell myself she is one of those people who can't allow themselves to be drawn into a movie and feel the emotion.
Hi there Mr. Ebert
I have followed you for years, I have written reviews myself for Caribbean papers but I have to say I was truly suprised that you enjoyed this film. Rarely do I go to see a film without first knowing something about it. This time I didn't I went soley on the trailer and avoided all reviews and featurettes etc.
This film like a handful of others in the last 20 years has conned people.
In its purest form: 1. Inception is a bunch of people sleeping on a plane. We are fooled into believing the stakes are incredibly high, but they are not.
This film is wall to wall exposition. People constantly talking about the plot and we discover key elements changing the rules of the universe. people die and they wake up. ok. suddenly there is limbo? ok.a kick? ok. there is a second floor and third floor and yawnnn a limbo floor? ok
so much is spoken about the mindbendingness of the dream world. did you see it? it just looked like a regular action film about some unlikeable characters...dreaming...and wanting to ..yawn..put a thought into some guys head....really? I love Nolan but come on.
If we speak of Matrix at least we recognize the fate of the humankind is at stake. Can anyone tell what is truly at stake in Inception.
It even sounds absurd as I type it. His memory of his dead wife is out to kill imaginary nonflesh and blood people in dreams.
I am repulsed by films about dreams, because ultimately there is nothing at stake that a cold bucket of water won't fix.
the level in the snow and the fighting was tedious. completely tedious and I have enjoyed some film with those scenes but it's suddenly a weak Bond film or Ice Station Zebra. The thing is we don't really care, not one bit what they are after.
The constast Hans Zimmer music through every bit of random chat was false drama and false tension. There are films where you turn off the music and the suspense and tension is still incredible, I am willing to bet this is not one of them. I think 3 years from now you will objectively revist this film
Thank you for you time sir and for the years you have given me.
Pow Dew (Shaka)
I started reading this post (and intend to finish reading it later), but had to stop when I read this line:
"Nolan successfully made the film he had in mind, and shouldn't be faulted for failing to make someone else's film."
I have noticed that every once in a while you do exactly that. It's rare, but it happens. The most recent example I can point to is your review of "Quantum of Solace", where you bookended your review with laments about how this James Bond is not the James Bond you feel he should be. While the movie is certainly mediocre at best, it wasn't because this interpretation of Bond didn't meet Roger Ebert's expectations. There are myriad reasons it wasn't good. That is not one. Yet that lament seemed to color the entire review. A handful of better films have suffered the same critical fate. Sadly I can't recall which ones.
Regardless, I still treasure your writings. Even those things with which I disagree still have a way of teaching me something.
I don't really trust the tomatometer because of the fact that it doesn't say much about the score the reviewers gave it, just that __% of critics gave it over 50%. By that logic, all directors could give it a 51% and it would get 100% on the Tomatometer. I prefer Metacritic, because it gives an average of review scores, which is a little more telling.
I actually choose not to read reviews until after I've seen a movie, because I know that it can sometimes change how I react to it. However, I really enjoy reading reviews after I've had a chance to collect my own feelings and thoughts about a movie. I like reading contradicting opinions that bring up points I never would have seen otherwise. It's the great conversation of movie-talk that excites me, not the fact that someone agrees or disagrees with my opinion. For me, it's a desire to learn about the way movies work, directors think, and audiences react. That's the value of great critics in my mind, not a need to know if I should see a movie or not.
@Rich, I'm don't particularly like "Pulp Fiction." I think waxing eloquently about McDonald's burgers and foot massages while saying "fuck" doesn't constitute the praiseworthy dialogue everyone raves about. I've heard similar phrasing overhearing the conversations of junior highers at the mall. I'm willing to bet I'm in the minority on this one. :)
But I do love "Casablanca."
Agreed 100% on the differences between opinions and your support of opinions. However I did find it amusing that anyone I knew who *liked* the Transformers sequel were the type to dismiss any sort of film remotely regarded as intellectual or intelligent. That's not say I don't enjoy ridiculous movies with action and big explosions (Tony Jaa anyone?) but I think it does say something in some respect.
I agree, Roger, but I think sometimes the negative reaction to a pan can be due to its hyperbolic nature. For example, even that Boone review, despite being very insightful in it's actual content sported a deliberately overblown headline claiming that Inception had as much depth as an 'Usher Concert'. Really? Are we expected to believe that was the reviewer's actual opinion? Is that statement supported by the rest of the review? No, I don't think it is. I think that's part of the problem. Sometimes reviewer's are fishing for hits, or simply stretching their critical wings by panning a film in the most poetically damning way possible simply to prove that they can, rather than being fully honest (that goes for the most positive reviews of a given film too). I'm glad you never seem to get sucked into this stuff and stay sensibly above it, confident in your abilities and opinion.
I have always said that what I like about your reviews in particular is that even if I love a film you disliked, or don't like a film that you loved, I will still gain some insight from reading your review. You point out things about the film that I may not have thought of, which allows me to see it in a new light. Sometimes it helps me articulate why I felt something about the film didn't quite work, or why a certain performance was especially effective. When I experience a film there is a gut-level reaction that is probably totally individual to me; afterwards, there is a stage of intellectualization that is partly trying to continue to engage with the film and partly trying to explain what's behind that gut reaction. A gut reaction cannot be "wrong". But I think a person can go astray with their rationalization afterward.
I kind of feel like that's what's wrong with Armond White as a reviewer -- that, and that he's gotten too attached to being the enfant terrible of film criticism. But I'm sort of, I dunno, fond of him. He does have some tremendous insights. There's a great interview with him at Big Media Vandalism that explains a lot about his view on film: http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2007/12/in-world-that-has-darjeeling-limited.html
Matt Zoller Seitz is my favorite film reviewer that isn't named Roger Ebert. His video essays are really wonderful.
(I cannot speak to Inception just yet. I haven't seen it, have been eagerly awaiting it, and refuse to form an opinion or even read too much about it until I get to the theater.)
A fantastic article Roger, thank you. I just wanted to say I'm in the very small minority of people like Randy Masters who saw the film twice back to back, and can concur with his sentiment.
I'm not entirely sure how many times reviewers are required to watch a film to give it a review, but I believe that Inception in particular is a film to watch for the first time and immediately watch it again to really appreciate how much effort has gone into tying up a complex (yet surprisingly linear plot), with little ambiguity. For me, watching this film the second time immediately after watching it the first time (out of pure enjoyment) felt brilliant as a wave of complete understanding washed over me in the cinema.
I saw Inception in a really crowded theater. Over the course of the movie I forgot there was anyone else in the room, and I think we all did. There was a lot to follow, a lot of magical realist explication in the first half and a lot of stacked realities in the second half.
In the final shot I became aware of the other watchers. I realized the genius on display. Millions of dollars spent to invest a child's toy with the original fascination it once held for every adult in the room. When the screen blackened we laughed, we sighed, we moaned. We emerged from a dream together.
So, I guess what I'm saying is I agree that Inception is a metaphor for itself.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/usercomments?filter=hate
I love Casablanca, but it shows everything has its detractors.
I agree with the observation that Nolan is a literal minded director, a trait that i feel is ill-suited to a film that wants to evoke a dream state & the subconscious. I enjoyed the film but found myself underwhelmed by its visual approach. I'll wager that when most people randomly consider the terms 'dream' and 'subconscious', they think of surreal & vivid imagery rather than something as precise as real world architecture.
In Nolan's defense, it may be(or perhaps has been)questioned whether a film can exhibit the visual ambition required to depict the subconscious and still not be distracting enough to work as a solid thriller? Well, how about Tarsem Singh's brilliant thriller 'The Cell'? Consider the extraordinary projections of the subconscious in than film to the ones in 'Inception'. There is also a parallel in the way Jennifer Lopez's character acts as an 'extractor', much like Leonardo DiCaprio's Cobb. In both films, the stakes are high and the characters are running against time. But in 'The Cell' the subconscious 'felt' like a zone of latent desires, perversions, hurts, guilts and motives. In Nolan's film, sadly, there is no room for such vision. For example, consider the forms taken by the projections of Fischer as he's brought into the dreamscape of Cobb & his gang. They're mortal gun toting goons! Why? You'd think that a man of Fischer's intelligence (and who's been trained against extraction) would conceive of something more, I dunno, infallible. Like Terminators ;-). Things like that led me to think that while the Nolan brothers had weaved a labyrinthine story around the concept of dream invasion, they miscalculated in executing it as a heist movie.
But Nolan gets away with it because of the sheer intelligence of the screenplay. Also, because his protagonists are often tormented, cynical, Noir archetypes, they are extremely absorbing. Such protagonists seem more at home relying on their ingenuity rather than the force of their personality, something that complements Nolan's cerebral approach. I believe Nolan is a film-maker just right for these times when audiences would sooner warm up to a Rick Deckard than an Indiana Jones. Like Michael Mann he has this ability to create & handle a dense, intricate storyline and, like James Cameron or Steven Spielberg, supply it with a stable emotional core. But he has yet to show himself capable of the visual flair of either.
Having watched 'Inception', I wished that it would have been collaborated upon and directed by someone like Guillermo Del Toro or Tarsem Singh. The film is good as it is but it could have been even more rewarding.
I agree that it is our natural tendency to resent whoever disagrees with us. There is also another, less talked about human tendency where when we've been wowed by the director's previous film, we're exponentially less objective about his next one!!
I was once involved in a film club that eventually disbanded because of a similar phenomenon. Members didn't always agree in their opinions of the films but enjoyed the thoughtful discussions regardless.
But members of the group were also rating the films on filmaffinity.com, and members were inevitably enraged when a film they loved was given a 4 out of 10.
Reducing our opinions to numerical ratings eliminated all understanding and nuance from the exercise and ultimately led us to give it up.
I think Nolan has unexpectedly lit a tinder box of critical kick back because he has such a strong fan base from an instant message/twitter generation who by their nature want to canonize this film as a 10/10 classic two days after release.
"Synecdoche, NY" a once in a career film in every sense is where we should go if we are looking for the deeper study on film, consciousness and narrative. Then again Kaufman wasn't trying to make a tent pole summer Bond movie. It would get a pretty crap review seen in that light!
Nolan by his own admission was indeed trying to do just that. Make his own Bond from within a maze of ideas that interested him.
I think Nolan has inadvertently stumbled into the cross fire of critical kick back between established film critics who feel they are protecting a broader heritage of what film values are and a generation celebrating the most original big commercial director of their time.
I can only applaud Nolan for taking 180 Million off a major studio and dropping a film like this in the middle of summer instead of a video game, comic book franchise or old classic remake.
Inception should be seen as the Die Hard of the 2010 generation and not the Casablanca!
Roger,
I'm just curious, which version of Dark City do you like better? I've been a big fan of the theatrical cut for a long time and just saw the Director's Cut a few months ago. I wasn't sure what to think because the two versions feel quite different to me. I'd love to hear your perspective on this, and also on the increasing move towards Directors' Cuts in general.
Thanks, Alex
Ebert: The Director's Cut isn't just a ploy to sell DVDs, but actually reflects Proyas's original intention.
@ Ben A: I think inception proves that there are audiences willing to watch more intelligent, thoughtful films. There will always be low brow popcorn films. This doesn't have to take away from better films.
That's awesome you think Dark City is such a great movie. I thought that movie was so overlooked when it came out.
I've read a couple of White's reviews and so far I don't really understand why the hype/hate towards him exist. I mean his reviews are more about him writing to himself than reviewing movies.
I saw Inception yesterday and I believed it to be "a beautiful mess". Much like "Final Fantasy" both films attempted something new, succeeded at it but kinda fumbled while reaching the finish line.
I completely lost interest in ratings sites such as RT when these things happen:
1: Founding out the most critics are mostly improvised one. I mean Mr. X from the Flagstaff (AZ)Herald....or Miss X from KarmaandMovies.com
2: Saw the documentary "Heckler"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903849/
3: The RT rating for Casino Royale is still strong at 94% ???
Barman: "Shaken or stirred"
James Bond: "Does it look like I care"
My childhood hero is:
-Cultured
-Speaks all languages
-Can operate any type of vehicule
-Can pick up any woman
-Can have a serious, challenging conversation with any type of specialist about any subject
Most of all he has a ton a class, looks awesome in a suit and has utterly refined taste.
This reply simply tells me that it is not James Bond but merely an easily replaceable grunt that can't hold my interest for more than 5 minutes. Now, 94% of critics believe that this is a good thing....I'm sorry but they lost me.
***
As for Hitchcock, I see the genius in his directing but he is such a misogynistic SOB that the best I can do is have a love/hate relationship towards him and his works.
Phil
I just have to add my two cents here to say that I thought Synechdoche, NY was one of the most masturbatory, pretentious piles of crap I've ever seen. If that is the best film of its decade, I am sad for that decade.
taste in movies is like taste in ice cream... everyone's is different...
"It is a melancholy fact that for some, ideas have been replaced by the *Meter reading itself.*"
Apropos of little, this reminded me of a favorite Matt Johnson (The The) lyric. "They've forgotten the *lesson*, and worship the creed."
Scott B - I think the fact that Nolan has made an explosion filled, tent-pole blockbuster that can be mentioned in the same sentence a Synecdoche New York is an achievement unto itself even if, by necessity, it lacks the full breadth of that film.
Mr. Ebert,
Since the very essence of your job is to review films and some portion of your opinion must inevitably shine through, I wonder if you do feel affected by what others think of your opinion? Obviously, you read other reviews for different perspectives and ideas, which seems like the intelligent and prudent thing to do in your line of work.
I only ask because since I do not have to review movies for other people, I have finally reached a sort of film nirvana: I no longer care what other people think about certain movies nor do I spend any time trying to convince them why I like the movies that I like. When I was younger, I used to argue movies with people all the time and of course, I was convinced that I knew best. The older I get, the more I realize that you are correct: opinion is subjective and there's nothing anyone can do about it. You can try to change opinions but really, what's the point? Is the world a better place if one less person likes Transformers 2? (Perhaps so!)
I may recommend to other people certain movies to watch but it doesn't bother me if they don't watch them or don't even like them. I'll simply say "Well, this is a movie I like. I could explain why I like it but that might not have any effect on you at all. Watch it, make up your own mind."
Perhaps this state is the inevitable result of really enjoying a lot of David Lynch movies: one eventually gives up trying to explain to other people why one really enjoys David Lynch movies.
So, are there any movies where your review (even with a smattering of opinion) is actually different from your subjective appreciation? That is, do you ever find yourself drawn to a movie that you may have given a less-than-glowing review? Where your subjective opinion and your objective opinion are two different things?
Ebert: I suppose that's known as a Guilty Pleasure. Usually, I'll just go ahead and praise it for those subjective reasons, and inspire incredulity.
Mr. Ebert,
Perhaps a film can be neither great nor terrible without question. Towards the end of "Inception," one of the young men sitting next to me couldn't contain his disappointment and said aloud, "Oh, come on!"
Several years ago, I showed "Citizen Kane" to an advanced EFL class in Berkeley, California. As the film reached its conclusion, I could see this deer-in-the-headlights look on many of the students' faces. They simple didn't know what to make of it, and in the following class, they did not have much to say about the film. One student did rather bravely ask me why people thought the movie was a classic. We discussed it for a bit, using some of your observations on the film as talking points, and then we switched topics. The class was made up of students from Tibet, Hong Kong, Japan, and Brazil, and they later explained that they hadn't been able to relate to the film in any way. To my surprise, a few weeks later, these same students applauded excitedly at the conclusion of Herbert Brenon's 1924 version of "Peter Pan," illustrating that what people like can often be rather unpredictable.
About a year ago, I asked some of my students what their favorite movie of all time was. Several of them answered, "Transformers 2." When asked why, they replied, "Because I liked it." Fair enough, I suppose. The film worked for them - It was loud, replete with special effects, and full of purely escapist fun, which many of them say is the reason they go to see movies in the first place.
More recently, though, I showed a series of classic films to a group of students who asked me to introduce what I thought were high-quality films to them. After a rather lukewarm reaction to "Dinner at Eight," I showed them "The Lady Vanishes," which they greatly admired. That films was followed by "Stagecoach," "Double Indemnity," "Monsiour Verdoux," and "Singing in the Rain," each of which they liked a great deal. One of them liked "Singing in the Rain" so much that he now uses the title song as his ring tone.
Hi Mr. Ebert,
I think that the internet has helped people get a medium where everybody can give their opinions no matter the subject. With Inception as with the art video game debate, the public seems more than entitled to their opinions; Before opinions were looked for, now opinions are forced upon you. This happens so much that sometimes it is very easy to forget where your objectivity ends and another person's opinions begin. For example: I haven't seen "The Last Airbender" but I already figure it is terrible. Now I can't say it isn't terrible either, but don't I need to see it first? That doesn't stop people from giving their opinions on it.
Opinions are given to us whether we want them or not. When looking for a movie theater and checking movie times on the net under the movie you see a "grade" When shopping online a rating for the product I want to buy is displayed. This happens with everything now, Consumer Reports Best Buy, Thumbs up Reviews, Game Reviews, Restaurant Reviews, etc.
I completely support anybody that says "the last airbender" and "Inception" for that matter are bad but I dont have to agree with them. I just wanted to express that a really clean objective experience is not a common thing anymore. When I want your opinion I just want to have the opportunity to ask for it. BTW I read your reviews. I go to your website and read it. I disagree with you from time to time, but hey, I asked for your opinion.
I have a couple of questions
How do you keep your mind clear of hype, and external opinions? How is your opinion not a result of other opinions? Is it? Do you know if it is or not?
In some topics I know on other I can't really tell.
Stay Healthy
It's the same thing that happened with Dark Knight. It was praised and made so much money and everyone loved it, but it wasn't good enough. It didn't beat Avatar. Someone didn't like the Dark Knight and they're the worst person.
Maybe this is a Christopher Nolan thing. Maybe this is what he's going to be doing from now on. He'll make amazing summer blockbusters with content that leaves a good taste in your mouth right up until Oscar season.
I loved Inception, and like the Dark Knight, its audience feels the need to defend it. They need to preserve something, or convince the world. Like Twilight fans. And I don't know how I feel about that. When someone says Inception didn't make sense, I say they're probably wrong about something.
"Why are the dreams so organized?"
"That's why they have a fucking architect. The entire beginning of the movie was about this. Why do you think Ellen Page is there?"
I just read an entire blog entry about how Jim Emerson doesn't get it. His blog has tired, bitter commenters just like yours has old, calm commenters (By Tom Dark: "Well foo, just foo.")
It's hard to define the line between subjective and objective opinion, but it certainly does exist. If not, to quote John Searle, "there would be no difference between Bugs Bunny and Shakespeare." Nor any difference between "Taxi Driver" and "Taxi" with Jimmy Fallon. Something just doesn't seem right to say otherwise. Greatness is not determines just by someone's opinion, no matter what anyone may think.
Being aware of that difference is crucial to understanding ourselves and our relationship with art as well. I can acknowledge that a film like "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is a pretty damn good movie, but I didn't like it. Its bleekness depressed hell out of me and I would never want to watch it again. I would prefer watching something like "Life Aquatic," not a necessarily great movie, but one which I thoroughly enjoy.
Good article, i agree that it is a thin live between objectivity and truth. Personally i can't stand The Godfather, and Requiem for a Dream, but that doesn't mean i don't recognize the talent and skill involved in crafting them, or the perfect pacing and structure. Sometimes you just 'don't get the magic'.
As for the complaint against the bad guys in Inception being anonymous, i think that can also be described as a logical approach to portraying them. They are literally no-one, and yet at the same time they are all the dreamer. Technically, they probably should all be Cillian Murphy (for example), but Nolan recognized how hokey that could seem, and instead kept them as terminator-esque strangers.
Anyhow, I can at least read Armond White's review, in which his jazz-prose strikes some sour notes about "Inception." His writing seems less jazz-toned than usual here. It's got the strident rhythm of "Konigstrasse Marsch." He's truly pissed about something for sure and he's goose-stepping angry.
See... I'm too far from a theater that doesn't smell like drunks and vomit to see it 'til DVD time, but especially interested 'cuz I've been studying the subject whole-hog since 1978 or so. (After hanging up studying Freud and Jung and those dudes since teenhood, that is. Highly articulate chauvinists, only lately revealed for their secret superstitions. Freud performed ceremonies with little idols he owned.)
The field IS packed to standing-room-only capacity with ambitious, greedy, clever, self-aggrandizing charlatans hiding deep feelings of inferiority. They're in both institutions (have interviewed 'em) and at roadside stands of boofy-haired "psychics." They'll gladly take hundreds or thousands of bucks from the undeservedly gullible in return for a "workshop" or a "reading" on what your dead dog is doing in the afterlife (true story).
True quote? An ill-eyed creep from Britain named Peter: "You can talk to me about anything you like as long as you pay me my hourly rate."
Y'think politics is fulla shysters, wait'll you wander into those arenas. PS I've never paid these clowns a penny. Don't you ever, either.
Even not seeing the movie, I couldn't huff about a negative review from White for that reason. He's categorically right already. He is doubtlessly connecting the fact that movies can popularize whole droves of con-people. White usually broods over the social effects of a movie. "Hollywood" is traditionally rife with "spiritual" types embalming themselves with the latest sacred fetishes. It comes with the high insecurity of the territory.
I wince when a movie overfictionalizes a thing I know about, historical or whatever, so that'll be categorical in whether I enjoy "Inception," as much as I admire Leonardo DiCaprio's rise from teen-fantasy object to goddam good actor.
The plot does sound a little hokey, as conflict dramas in dreams are most often the "quiet desperation" kind (if you're in deep shit with your mate, for instance, watch for dreams about world war), and nobody's going to hook wires or whatever up to "enter somebody's unconscious." There certainly is such a thing as communicating with others in dream states, it's actually very common. Nevertheless, those devices might work for the story anyhow.
Still, the trouble is, spectacular things can and do happen with plain old ordinary dreams. You're just not going to know that until you do it yourself, however. In the meantime, there's all sorts of phantasmagorical crud to plow through, presented as come-ons to get a couple hundred bucks an hour out of you from a specializing shrink or a psychic fair carny. Even worse, well-defrauded customers come away swearing all the "good" that's been done for them, and you can hang them on a cross and they'll STILL scream that their money was well-spent -- but never notice that little was exchanged but money in return for a stubborn gullibility.
So. Whenever the DVD comes out, I've got Rodge's recommendation (with his .995 batting average where I'm concerned) and a couple of Armond White's calmer objections, as follows:
Inception’s gee-whiz tricks permit disbelief in reality.
Gee whiz, ain't nuthin' wrong with gee-whiz tricks in a film. While Armond's also cited a wise moviemmaker rule against this one, he's forgotten the overriding rule of any fiction: convince the audience to "suspend its disbelief." It's covered a multitude of continuity sins (esp. in a series of Gun Opera movies I've caught up on the last few days)
Armond calls this "gibberish": “in dreams we create and perceive our world simultaneously,”
---Well, that's not gibberish unless Armond's got no imagination at all. Which I doubt. You sort out what you're gonna do in reality during your nightly dreams. Therein are spectacular goodies you'd just never think of while awake and roped too tight to various narrowing habits of glum thinking.
---The "world" you're "simultaneously perceiving" isn't the one you can snap with a camera while awake, but it's your own by-feel interpretation of the world you'll be dealing with when you get out of bed.
---Nevertheless, Mssr. White, that's what I'll be looking for: that statement sounds like a great theme for a story and I wanna see how well Christopher Nolan handles it in "Inception." If I like it, I'll wanna meet 'im. Stuff like that happens.
(MINOR SPOILERS WITHIN)
To me, no other film has captured the experience of a dream more than Wells' THE TRIAL. The film oozes emotion, sans logic. Isn't this exactly what a dream is like; emotional jolts of the subconscious not limited by chains of logic and reasoning?
I didn't dislike INCEPTION enough to not recommend it to my friends, but I did dislike enough not to want to see it again with them. My problem with it stems from my same problem I have with the Harry Potter films. These movies ask me to be emotionally attached to a character and to situations completely unfamiliar with my experience.
In the Harry Potter franchise, magical elements bind him to problems and magical elements ultimately get him out of his problems. I cannot relate, and therefor feel like I'm standing by idly waiting for the story to unfold; a story in which I don't care how it ends.
INCEPTION is similarly inflicted. The characters spend most of their time in the dreamworld. In it, they get themselves into dreamworld problems that only have dreamworld solutions. How am I supposed to relate to that? I don't.
My other big beef with the film is with the group's mission. There's no real deeper issue at hand with wanting a corporation to have their competitor split up their company. In a way, it's just a job; something to get the movie going. I can't help but see that this was a lost opportunity. What if his mission was to get a powerful couple to get a divorce? What if it was to get a company's competitor to commit a crime and go to jail? What if it was to get someone to abandon their kids? No there's a dilemma!
Anyway, INCEPTION works in the same way science fiction is supposed to work; it uses a story based on a non-existent technology to tell us something about ourselves. This is why it should be entertained. But, the depth of it's message and it's effectiveness, is hindered by my aforementioned points.
Hey Mr. Ebert... in my own opinion I'd have to say hands down that Inception was technicallly brilliant... Nolan delivers a rewarding movie experience blindfolded. Upon leaving the midnight showing of the film I left not quite disappointed but indeed unsettled... after reading this blog post of yours, especially the part in reference to David Edelstein's review, I thought of a very good animated film that might serve as a good comparison, if someone hasn't already mentioned it: Paprika by Satoshi Kon. Not long before the release of Inception I began to get the feeling that, although I knew the visuals would be dazzling, it wouldn't feature the same kind of surreal, hallucinogenic qualities of a film like Paprika or even my own dreams, which is something that I was initially looking forward to when I first heard news on this film a year ago. Is that the 'untethered' experience some critics might complain the film lacks? Though I would have rathered see Nolan tackle dream imagery in that kind of manic intensity, I ultimately respect what Nolan has done with his film simply because I could still believe in it. I'm no critic, but there's gotta be that feeling in your gut when you know that this is real, that the filmmakers meant to say this to me. I believe Nolan has delivered every film up to this point with that kind of authenticity, and Inception fits in perfectly with his resume, particularly, I think to Memento and The Dark Night.
And as for the Tomatometer, I'm 19 and can affirm from my vantage point in NC amongst a few college kids I know, it seems that the younger generation doesn't like to think much. Film reviews themselves have been making that even harder for kids because although some of the not-so-well-written ones will summarize the film in a paragraph or two complete with an opinion and star rating for people to spout off, there may be too many words to penetrate the reader's attention span. The numbers are much easier. But then again, I also think the critics hardly matter on those grounds to some readers... they'll look up the number reviews, but if they like the film the bad reviews are wrong, if they don't like it the good reviews are wrong... so on and so forth, or maybe I'm just too cynical...
Regarding immunity, I'm surprised to not see The Wizard of Oz mentioned yet. Even the author of "I hate 'The Wizard of Oz'" gave credit where credit was due.
Rana; Ebert : Your comment led me to Mr. Ebert's review of Shoah. I haven't seen the movie. However the review itself nearly moved me to tears. The pain, the sadness is overwhelming. I don't think I'll be able to bring myself to watch the movie.
It reminded me of a time during my school days when I was guilty of being insensitive towards the horrendous reality that was the holocaust. While writing an essay for an English paper wherein I describe an experience of being stuck in an elevator with some strangers for a period of time that seemed to extend to infinity, I wrote that the feeling of claustrophobia and stuffiness that I went through at the time, while my nose was buried in the armpits of various people, made me feel like a jew stuck in a gas chamber. And how does my teacher react on reading this? --- she praises my "good use of metaphor".
I never did forget my mistake and am reminded of it almost everytime the mention of the holocaust comes up. It, amongst many other examples, makes me lament that kids can be extremely cruel at times. A bunch of kids picking on a kid during lunch break for being slower than the rest (may be dyslexic, may be having some physical deformity) might not realize the mental scars that they inflict upon the child at the time that may last him/her for life. This resentment of people, cultures or opinions different from those of ours begins right from childhood, and only gets worse at adulthood.
We may say that when we're kids, we can be excused for being a tad insensitive or intolerant because we are at that point of time after all, you know, just kids. However it is kids who turn into adults and who carry their dislike for people/opinions that don't match with their thoughts and perceptions right into adulthood. How does one catch them young! How does one save them from themselves!
Roger,
The problem with the Tomatometer is that it eliminates rational thought to get to those scores. The best reviews I've read and seen tend to have well-reasoned opinions, above all else. The best example that comes to mind is how you gave Basic Instinct II a "Thumbs Up" review because the film, while trashy and cheesy as all hell, delivered on what was expected of it, and in a well-executed fashion. I had (and still have) no intention of seeing Basic Instinct II (the original hasn't aged too well in my mind, so seeing the sequel simply isn't a priority), but I agreed with, and still agree, with the rationale behind the review-and that logic behind the review was what had value for me. Condensing such a review of all that consideration to get a score strips the thing of all meaning, really.
My favorite in this vein is the Tomatometer reading of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It stands at 98%, 59 Fresh, 1 Rotten. The rotten one is a review that appeared in time magazine in 1968. There are almost 70 comments raging that this review spoiled TGTBTU's perfection, and it seems to occur to none of the commentators that there's a very fair chance the critic who wrote it (there's no byline), has been dead for years.
I've been working the last two weekends on my first close reading of Carl Dreyer's Ordet for a blog post that will seemingly never see the light of day. Although film buffs will be likely to admire Dreyer's achievements, I have to believe I'm in the minority when I say it's one of the most profound and moving films I have ever seen. Many people who have seen it find it slow and not all that spectacular. Most don't bother to watch it at all.
It's been my experience that the more popular appeal a film has, the less likely I am to admire it. Am I elitist? Sure. I have no problem with the label. To be a contrarian like Armond White might be a worse thing.
People are entitled to their opinions over what entertains them. The difference between art and entertainment might be better left to experts though. I'm not calling myself an expert, but if someone berates me for not finding anything very profound in, say, Godfather or Vertigo (nice to meet you, Roger), then I think it's fair to demand they watch Ordet first. I'm simply comparing admittedly entertaining films to works of profound human insight. To borrow a phrase from Prince Hamlet, how can you step from this to this? It's a fair question to ask them.
I have no plans to see Inception. With a DVD case chock full of incredible filmmakers to watch, re-watch, and analyze, I don't think my life will be missing anything.
Ebert: Difficult, yes. Worth it, yes.
http://j.mp/9g0Gw4
Yes, of course, people's tastes are different and criticism is subjective... so why do people feel like they're wrong unless someone agrees with them?
Being all alone in your opinions is admittedly scary. Consider a running joke in Arrested Development involving George Michael's (the son) girlfriend. He obviously cares about Anne, but the only reaction she gets from any of his family is a dismissive, "Her?" I, for one, would not want to be in his position.
(This is just one more piece of smart comedy- turning a universal fear into a laugh- from a clever, witty show that is impossible not to like :-P)
I wonder, also, if this has something to do with the language that we use when writing criticism or talking about movies. See? Right there. We have to use the first person plural- or at least the third person "viewer" or "audience." The use of X does Y to us the viewers. Etc. Really, though, when describing someone's reaction to a film, we're talking about ourselves. Often the most academic critics are the worst at ignoring this distinction.
Using these plural terms creates the implication (for me at least) that everyone will respond to a movie the same way, which is demonstrably wrong. I'm just as guilty as the next fellow- I have multiple school papers that are littered with those phrases. But if I use that language, I can imagine the reaction of someone who disagrees with my findings: "Am I not we? Did I even see the same movie? What's wrong with me?"
And, for the record, I have met people who don't like Alfred Hitchcock, but most of them aren't film students. Vertigo never did much for me, I prefer Rear Window and North by Northwest.
As for Inception, I enjoyed it, but it's not The Godfather. The second half was great, the first had a lot of philosophical mumbojumbo I didn't care for. I'm glad it shows you don't have to be a sequel to make a lot of money. And the ending was exactly what it had to be.
I saw it on Saturday night and was glad that it lived up to the hype, and for my wife and I, actually surpassed it. That being said, I can certainly see why someone wouldn't "get" it, but I'm still recommending it to everyone since it is so original and so visually exciting. I'm glad to talk to people who don't share my views on movies, but I would like them to actually see it and be able to tell me why it didn't work for them. It's always interesting to hear different views. I just hope it gets people talking, because even though I went to a late show, the movie kept me up just thinking about what I had seen.
I also wanted to point out an article written on CHUD by Devin Faraci (one of my favourite movie writers) who has been a big promoter of Inception. It's full of spoilers, but it looks at the movie in a totally different way than I did, and I was wondering what you thought about his perspective.
http://chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html
This was a very refreshing read. Too many times in our internet-fueled society people have used the medium to voice underdeveloped opinion as fact. The success o film criticism comes from, as you point out, the quality of writing instead of the actual opinion of the reviewer. That is why I read the same critics, even if I disagree with them most of the time.
About ten years ago you turned me on to James Berardinelli. I disagree with him constantly, but the amount of depth and talent in his writing is so consistent and readable. As strictly-based web writers go he's at the top.
I believe that things like rottentomatoes and metacritic are almost invaluable websites for the modern cinephile. You are dead on, though, knowing that readers were on pins and needles waiting for the first negative review for "Toy Story 3". I know I was. So Armond White did get a lot of readers specifically visiting his review of TS3.
It's fun to see how these websites are now shaping film criticism as a whole. Entire films are given a one-sentence synopsis of how critics generally felt about them. You can just get highlights from certain reviews with a nice picture of the reviewer and a big green splat or fresh tomato sitting next to it.
By doing this, however, it as become increasingly easier to spew off opinion as fact. That is not the reviewer's job. It's the substance that counts. I may not agree with my favorite critics, but that's not the reason I read them. I read them because they give me insight into films. The make me have a second perspective for free. And that's always a great gift.
Great insight, Roger.
Roger,
I do believe that there is a small core of art that is objectively great. Moby Dick, Beethoven's Ninth, Guernica, Citizen Kane, King Lear: these are irrefutable works of sublime genius. Which isn't to say that you must appreciate them. To complain that "I wasn't moved" or "I didn't understand it" or "I was bored" by one of these masterpieces is perfectly legitimate. But to say "it sucked" -- that's over the line. The problem lies with you, not the work. For years I hated Dylan, even though I understood why he was important. Only in the last few years have I changed my mind. And I'm still left cold by War and Peace. Again, my problem.
I couldn't give you a complete list of these supreme achievements -- it can't be very long. But they do exist, and they're waiting for us to discover what treasures there are, outside our boxes of personal opinion.
"The dream architects use the music of Édith Piaf to rouse one another from their dreams. Star Marion Cotillard won an Oscar for playing Piaf. " IMDB
Don't you just love facts like this?
We saw Inception yesterday. It left me feeling perplexed, not robbed. Might need to see it again soon. At least once I sat up straighter in the seat, almost on the edge. Must have been trying to help.
Tom Dark, sorry your movie theater in vicinity is so icky. Perhaps it would be worth a trek to somewhere else. I know, animals to feed and whatnot, but sounds like an area of interest (almost said extreme but that would be redundant) for you :>) One intense dude.
Reply to: See... I'm too far from a theater that doesn't smell like drunks and vomit to see it 'til DVD time, - TD
Roger, you've written several books that collect your movie reviews. I think the (above) quote should be in the next one. Offers a whole lot of insight about the movie review process.
Christopher Nolan delayed doing publicity because he wanted to recreate his experience of seeing "Star Wars," where he walked into a theater and traveled to a world he never knew existed. James Cameron reported a similar reaction.,
Toy Story, Forrest Gump, The Sound of Music and Titanic are movies that most people place at the top of their list. Jaws. ET
Inception takes the audience "on a journey over the next hill." George Lucas created such a realm "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Maybe just the act of creating an original "movie universe" deserves a spot on the list. Or, Nolan's cinematography. For many years, you needed a soundtrack by John Williams to get a spot in the Top Ten. Zimmer? Doesn't have the same magic.
I have problems with "Inception," mostly with the choice of Leo... and, because Leo brought a lot of input into the emotional arc of the story. Was it too similar to "Shutter Island"?
(SPOILERS)
After a person dies, we can dream about them.
If you're not precise about the actual rules of dreaming, you can do a lot with that. But it's not as enjoyable as seeing the "cute meet" and trying to figure out if these two deeply flawed individuals are right for each other. If we're seeing the memory of a person distorted by the process that creates a dream, of course there's going to be chaos. That's how dreams are created. Random memories pulled from the top of the "I couldn't stop thinking about" box.
If the lead character had been easier for me to connect with, yes, I'd put Inception near the top.
I remember when the first trailer for the Star Wars prequels was released. There were reports of audiences full of people watching the trailer, chanting "Beat Titanic! Beat Titanic!"
It was important for them that the Star Wars prequel make more money than Titanic. Why? They weren't gonna see any of the money. The amount of money a movie makes doesn't say much about the quality of the movie (it's not like Titanic was the height of film quality). So who cares if it makes more money than Titanic or not?
It's because they were looking at it more as sport than as art. They were rooting for the movie in the way that I root for the Knicks. The artistic merit of the movie doesn't matter as much as "winning." And that same mentality is what we see when these people get so bent out of shape when a movie they choose to "root for" doesn't get that 100% rating.
I have heard some harsh things about White, but since I haven't read him, I won't criticize him.
Things like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes are based only on the people who vote, restraining it only to those who visit the pages (i.e., not everyone). Take me, for example; I visit IMDB, but not RT.
But you're right about it being opinions. After all, if N critics agree all the time, N-1 would be unnecesary and would end up going out of business (ugly metaphor, right?)
PD: By the way, what does "brontosaurean effects" mean?
I suspect that passions are running high over Inception simply because it is actually a movie. Not some well or poorly made expansion from other media, not an excuse to parade product placement around for 90 minutes, not a ill-fitting vanity vehicle for some faux celebrity...an actual honest to goodness movie.
I think people are so blindsided by a big commercial movie actually having some cinematic ingredients in it that the reactions can't help but run to hyperbolic.
I've seen some negative takes on the movie but they didn't really register with me as they seemed calculated against the tide, even if it has a touch of silliness to it (genius, masterpiece, etc.). I've no doubt that I'll probably not see much better for many months though. Enjoyed reading your reaction to it as well Mr. Ebert (which I saved for myself until after a viewing - I get to feel like I'm talking with you about it then after we've both seen it).
;)
I think that there is no film that is generally liked by everyone. There will always by someone who dislikes a film, there is no exception certainly not Casablanca because I personally dislike it. For me it's just full of sentiment and banalities.
Sentiment and banalities are all great and fine when pushed limit, when over it just falls flat. And that's what exactly what I think happens to Casablanca.
PS There is this alarming article about film preservation. News Review - 80% of European silent films have been lost - this figure will increase...
At least Inception has done the one thing you want the arts to do(or at least I want the arts to do). Spark up a discourse. Get people thinking, debating and talking.
If part of that is a bit of discord between a very vocal fanboy community and some dissenting reviewers, maybe some just kicking back, some talking loud to prove it's their right to do so and others just honestly giving critique then even better.
It's got people fired up with thought rather than our usually conditioned response to a summer movie; put our hand in our wallet and head down to the shopping mall to buy some connected branded merchandise.
Roger, well thought out as always. Two things struck me after reading the post and its comments:
- People are not lemmings, so we don't all have to have the same opinion
- Everyone has an opinion; informed, thought-out opinions are the kind that have value to others.
Thank you for helping me inform and think through my opinions.
Last night, I was invited to join a Rotten Tomatoes group called "Confusion," wherein you expressed bewilderment about how everyone disagree with you about a movie and you don't know why. Now, I hated Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and was relieved to find out that there's at least one person who agrees with me about it, but you know, I'd rather discuss it one-on-one or in a deeper context in my review than just get indignant in a forum full of people I don't know. I also have "friends" on that site who basically ask me to be their friend to bump their view count.
My boyfriend and a friend of mine don't like the Toy Story movies; her husband and I ended up going to see it together and loved it. Heck, he was willing to admit he cried, which made me respect him more than I had. I don't understand how the pair of them couldn't like those movies and weren't willing to see the third at all, but what annoys me more is that neither of them can explain it to me or even really bother to try. My boyfriend basically has the opinion that, if he doesn't like it, it's objectively bad. I do believe some films are objectively bad; some of them are objectively good. But that isn't true of everything, no matter what he thinks.
I do use the Tomatometer as shorthand, though I also look at the tiny little figure showing the actual average percentage, which is often more significant. As in, "Well, eighty percent or so of critics liked it, but if you look at the numbers, it's pretty clear they only just barely did." I'm much more interested in what you think, though, and mostly, I use the Tomatometer to convince my boyfriend that we don't want to see some movie I don't want to see anyway. Certainly I don't trust IMDB, which is overrun with fanboys in the first few months a film is out. I almost think they need to have a moratorium on a movie's making the Top 250 in the first year after it came out.
The problem I have with the community reviews on Rotten Tomatoes is that most of them aren't. I write five-paragraph essays as my reviews, and if I don't have five paragraphs to say, I don't review the movie. When I like or dislike a movie, I hope it's clear why. With most of the "reviews" on that site, there's nothing to be understood about them. There's a number, and sometimes the entire review is just putting that number into words. Most of them are a single sentence, or maybe two or three about how much they like or dislike an actor. I'm interested in the community reviews as an anthropological exercise, but I care more about the critics' reviews because, with a few exceptions, they're actually written in a way which explains things, and if they don't, well, I stop reading that critic.
My boyfriend has a right to dislike Toy Story just as (sorry, Roger) I have a right to dislike Bonnie and Clyde. (Also known as I Hate That Goddamned Movie.) I don't think it's objectively reasonable that he's pretty much never seen a Chevy Chase movie he didn't like, and I certainly don't think it's objectively right that he confuses "drama" and "melodrama" and says all of the former are the latter. (It sure limits what movies we watch together; I essentially lied to him about the ending of Finding Neverland to get him to take me, and he loved it.) However, for the most part, it's okay that I'm kind of meh about Pulp Fiction and love Tron and hate Woody Allen pretty much across the board. It's art and therefore subjective, right?
"Phil," I told him, "film criticism is a matter of subjective opinion. Only rarely does it stray into objective fact. When you said 'The Valachi Papers' was better than 'The Godfather,' that was an error of objective fact."
As funny as this anecdote is, I think there is a lot of truth to it.
It reminds me of a discussion I had with one of my friends over whether or not it's possible to objectively review something. Objectively, I know "The Godfather" is a good film because of what I know about film theory and because of how highly regarded it is. Subjectively, I don't quite enjoy watching it that much. It just didn't pull me in, even though objectively I know that it should have. It's quite an odd state of mind.
The most amusing aspect of all this is that, given "eXistenZ" and "The Matrix", inception clearly works.
Critical and audience reaction of Inception is beginning to become more interesting to me than the movie itself. This blog posting is thus far the finest exegesis of the conflict between Inception's intentions and its reception.
"Nolan successfully made the film he had in mind, and shouldn't be faulted for failing to make someone else's film."
This is the core issue. My initial criticism of the film was along the lines of "Not a good dream film" even when I recognized that it was a good heist film, but I still am not sure Nolan's film is quite as successful as one that, I argue, MAY have been in his mind. That is to say, with all the different things going on in Inception between characters, themes, and narrative levels, I still think he packed too much information in through rushed exposition as opposed to making hard choices and trimming the fat. He could have still successfully explored all three of the main themes (1--at what level do we accept reality; 2--it is easy to steal [ideas] but how do we reverse the effect and give them?; 3--how can we consciously alter our subconscious to come to terms with things like guilt and trauma?) and shaved off Michael Caine, Tom Hardy, and subconscious security guards less effective or dangerous than no-face henchmen in James Bond movies, and set the rules of his consciously created labyrinths of the subconscious in a little more appealing way than throwing them out at a rapid pace in the first hour with quick expository dialog. This being my opinion, there is a movie Nolan has created here within the movie we actually have that is a damn fine and VERY tightly structured movie. He just didn't want to get rid of anything, even if that aspect didn't really add (in my opinion!) to the greater whole in an already dense and layered narrative.
On the other hand, I think one of the more enjoyable aspects of watching the movie was hearing people's reactions at the end. As I said, this may be one where the movie's effect on the audience is so much more important and interesting than the movie itself actually is, at least for me.
@Jeffrey This question is easy for me to answer without any hesitation. No film for me is greater than Andrei Rublev. I am not a religious man, but watching that film, the casting of the bell and the closing scenes of art was the closest I ever came to a sense of spirituality.
If a film was ever truly perfect it would mean that all other films would be redundant. A Borges-esque story in which all anyone ever did was endless watch and discuss that one film, imagining and re-imagining it, weaving into it all our collective desires, hopes and fears until no-one was really sure where the film ended and life began any more. An amorphous mass of society would savagely turn and expel any dissenting voices, believing an attack on that film to be an attack on society and themselves.
The internet makes me shudder sometimes.
Watching that trailer of Dark City, I realised I can't remember anything from watching it, apart from that it was very good, and that male pattern baldness is a serious problem in the future. Lucky me, I can watch and enjoy it again like the first time.
"It's true that Nolan is literal-minded and logistical ... The last thing he wanted was an untethered dream movie. Nolan successfully made the film he had in mind, and shouldn't be faulted for failing to make someone else's film."
This is one of the problems with Inception: dreams ARE untethered, whether Nolan's or anyone else's. Nolan came up with a brilliant idea, then squandered it by turning what might have been a highly imaginative film into a standard car-chase-shootout bore. Yes, I said bore. It's ironic to me that what might have been so creative winds up as an unimaginative movie.
As for all the hype, it reminds me of the hoopla over Avatar, another technically outstanding movie with no heart.
Time for all of us to have another beer, and raise a toast to critics with guts like A.O. Scott.
The thing about "Citizen Kane" is that some of its greatness lies in how influential it was -- Wells came up with many film tricks we now take for granted, so modern viewers won't understand how original they once were (like the Beatles combining early rock with melodic pop). Also, I can see that film's subtle and ambiguous ending (sadly) going over some modern audiences's heads. I agree that "Casablanca" would be a film most of us could agree on -- although Pauline Kael didn't love it and said it was a "great bad movie" (or something to that effect). It seems like "Wizard Of Oz" is another we can mostly agree on being pretty good at least on first viewing. Your comments about how Rotten Tomatoes and the way it has changed peoples's view of criticism are dead on. I still haven't seen "Inception", I thought it looked like a groaner in the ads (who dreams like that?) but I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it now.
I think I have a good rationale for why a movie-goer might want to use only the review aggregator statistics when deciding on a film.
Mr. Ebert, I walked into Inception without the slightest clue of what it was about, without a single visual reference except the solitary still frame included in your review.
I was very likely the only person in the theater who was seeing the spectacular set-pieces for the first time, and I was lucky enough to be seeing them in god-damned context. For me, these weren't exposition elaborating on the smash-cuts of a trailer or television spot, but a totally organic, uninterrupted experiences of expert visual storytelling.
And I had identical experiences with Paranormal Activity, and The Hurt Locker, and Avatar - just to name a few.
The experience of watching movies in a state of deliberate ignorance is so rewarding that I've become almost obsessive about protecting myself from movie marketing. I close my eyes and listen to my iPod whenever I'm forced to take my seat in a theater before the trailers are over. I close my eyes when I fast-forward movie commercials on my DVR. I click on nothing online that might play even a few seconds of a movie clip. I want to experience every movie I see in a state of perfect virginal innocence.
The only problem is, before I climb into bed with a movie, I need some protection. Individual critics' reviews are better protection than nothing, but even they can have a high rate of failure; critics can spoil surprise scenes or endings merely by acknowledging that they exist (you yourself, Mr. Ebert, have been guilty of this practice).
This is where the aggregators come in. Lacking advertising or individual reviews, my only prophylactic against disappointment in a movie is the consensus of the critical community.
I believe, as you do, that there are some objective standards that make an objectively good movie. The critical communities on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, etc. are usually able to indicate when those objective standards are met. And I should say also that I trust you enough that I'll see a movie based on your star ranking alone, even if it's out of sync with the consensus (your four-star rating of Knowing - the single piece of information that motivated me to see it - was the best gift I was given by anybody in 2009).
I rush to say there are always outliers and I have quirks in my personal taste, but my movie-going experience has been made infinitely richer by deliberately protecting my ignorance of everything about a picture except for its title and Tomatometer number. As a professional, you can't do that, of course...but I wish you could try it.
You explain that opinions can't be wrong, but that the reasons behind the opinions can be. I don't buy this distinction. I don't like The Godfather, for example. Why? Because I find it boring. Do you consider that to be a satisfying reason? Likely not. But I do find it boring. Perhaps finding it boring is not a reason, but yet another opinion. I'm not sure. Where does opinion end and reason begin in criticism? Again, I'm not sure. But I am certain that The Godfather is a boring movie.
Here's what I do: read the reviewers I admire (with whom I sometimes disagree), after I've seen the film. I find it more interesting to formulate **MY** opinion first then see what others might think (I gave Inception a couple of days reflection before looking online). Sometimes I find real gems, other ideas I hadn't considered yet. Other times I find ideas I don't agree with, but I still give them a moment of consideration (unless I'm reading something that is clearly a rant). How is it said? "You bring everything you are into a movie?" (paraphrased) Which means a movie is about my experience, not yours, or White's or the Tomatometer's.
That said, the Tomatometer does serve a purpose for me: if I'm on the fence about a film I will check the rating. If it's hovering around 10% or lower, I will probably skip it in the theatre (although I may still add it to my Netflix queue, just to see exactly how bad bad can be; which is a whole other type of fun... well, for me at least).
Mr Ebert,
Many movies do use metaphors in interesting ways. For me the ultimate use of metaphors is in 2001: A Space Odyssey, one of the movies Inception is rightly or wrongly being compared to. I believe 2001 makes little sense without understanding or at least acknowledging the existence of those metaphors--can the same be said of Inception? 2001 has at least 5 different, simultaneous and pervasive layers or clouds of metaphors and when I discuss it with people--the Rock Hudson's of the world--they mostly seem totally unaware of such things and genuinely surprised that there are other things going on in the film other than the literal plot, etc. Far more than most movies, 2001 needs to be thought about to be really appreciated and not simply experienced--though what a great experience it is. Do other movies suffer similarly? Are the people who think Inception is on a par with Citizen Kane or 2001 seeing things that aren't there, or is everyone else missing something?
Thank you.
I made SURE I went to see it without reading a review - EW had a column that said "About that Ending" - so I hightailed it to the local Rave Theater to see it before someone spoiled it for me.
I found it amazing. The action only lagged in the snow stuff - and I cannot believe ANYONE would quibble with the elevator/hallway scenes - Eye popping is what I say. I am of two minds about the ending....but is it not grand when a slam bang movie makes you think?
I can't help but remember an old Siskel & Ebert review of Spies Like Us. You hated it. He loved it. Although Gene admitted he saw it at a midnight showing with a rowdy crowd (more than likely soused to the gills). It's interesting that nobody brings up the mood of a reviewer at the time they see the film. Were they cranky? Tired? Upset over... whatever??? I know reviewers are supposed to be impartial, but I remember seeing Midnight Run at a 2am showing, where I was tired and cranky and I hated the film... only to find (later) that it's one of my favorite films.
I saw "Inception" last night, and was disappointed. Very quickly, here's why:
1) Too many gun battles;
2) "Armageddon"-level quick-cuts;
3) Joseph Gordon-Levitt, a great young actor, was given a weak and thankless role;
4) Michael Caine was ignored entirely;
5) Leonardo Dicaprio, as much as I admire him, needs to embrace a few emotions beyond Anxiety and Guilt. I'd like to see him in a comedy before his face gets stuck that way.
And finally, I was disappointed because this has been such a weak summer for movies. I needed to love "Inception." Instead, I fell head-over-heels in like.
I knew after seeing "Inception" that the current criticism would only expand the culture of the film. This isn't the movie where you look at your buddy and smile and say ya liked it and then move on. In fact, it may be one of those movies where writing and reading criticism about it is, perhaps, just as interesting as watching the film itself.
I, too, ran straight to Rotten Tomatoes after the film, but only because I knew who I was looking for. If there is any one affirmation of the scoring websites like RT, it is their ability to lead young filmgoers from quiet little towns towards top critics and top presses from all over. I followed you almost exclusively, Roger, for about 5 years. Rotten Tomatoes led me towards Ty Burr, James Berardinelli, David Denby (which also led me to the New Yorker), Michael Phillips, and so on. Rarely does the point score matter; what matters is the often polemic, almost always interesting dialectics that are created by respected critics.
Both "Inception" and "The Dark Knight" were enriched by their assenting/dissenting reviews from critics whom I appreciate, with a special shout-out towards Jim Emerson. Your negative review of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" did not provoke rage, but, well, curiosity. It provoked me to defend my adoration and passion for the movie, which is one of the gifts of your criticism. It can't be a great movie unless you're willing to put your neck out and defend its integrity and impact upon your life. So for your negative review, Roger, you have led me to a better understanding of that particular movie. Thanks!
Anne Kelly said: "Actually, I don't like Casablanca. I don't mean to be contrarian, and I understand its significance in film history, but honestly it doesn't appeal to me much as a film noir or a love story."
You took the words right out of my mouth. My dislike of Casablanca is a secret I've kept for some time. Nice to see someone braver than I pave the trail. I feel liberated.
Everything you ever needed to know about Armond White (in case you haven't read any of his reviews) can be summed up by the opening sentence in his review of "Norbit":
"As Eddie Murphy gets carried along on the tidal wave of hype for the ghastly Dreamgirls, it’s a sanity-saving relief to have Norbit open and demonstrate what Murphy is good at."
Ghastly, indeed.
I belive one of the finest films ever made is not one that is perfect in everyway, but one that somehow manages to generate smiles everytime. Kids love it, adults cherish it, and you may laugh again and again when u see it, despite the bad effects and production design. Does anyone here think THE PRINCESS BRIDE could be a contender ;)
Roger,
Thank you for making it OK to voice a negative opinion about a movie that you and/or the general public finds wonderful. I loved "Inception." In this case I speak of a movie that you and many, many others keep insisting is one of the greatest movies of all time: "Dark City."
I don't get it. I've seen "Dark City" at least 5 times. I appreciate the dark cinematography, the dark sets, the dark costumes, the darkness of space. But I struggle to find anything more to relate to in this movie. It is not fun to watch, it is not entertaining. To me, it is a completely superficial experience for the very reasons you find so praiseworthy. It is all camera angles, all special effects, but in my opinion there is not one character worth caring about, and certainly there are no standout performances. Rufus Sewell has no charisma, and William Hurt sleepwalks through his performance. Ah, you say, but that is the design and purpose of the film. Maybe so, but I draw the line at watching the movie yet again in order to find value in it. Sure, on the surface it might remind you of "Citizen Kane," but does it have the same emotional pull as that great film? Is the Rufus Sewell character as monumental as Charles Foster Kane, or as interesting or worthy of study? I can quote lines of dialogue from "Citizen Kane." I cannot quote any dialogue from "Dark City" .... and I've probably seen "Dark City" more times than "Kane," just to try to puzzle out what all the damn fuss is about.
Why am I missing the boat on this movie? I find it terribly overrated. If given the choice between watching "Dark City" or "Inception" (or other "is it real?" movies like "Total Recall" or "Mulholland Drive" or even "The Matrix") again, well, I'm not going with "Dark City," and I don't think my taste in movies or appreciation for film suffers because of it.
Just wanted to take this opportunity to go against the grain.
What did you think of the Casablanca criticisms? I din't read them but would love to show you negative reviews for every movie you name that has supposedly universal acclaim. The problem, as I see it, is that our brains are configured differently and it would be near impossible for all those brains to agree on something. Politics, where to eat, philosophy, the merits of criticism, who has the best pizza, what happened before the beginning.
It would be interesting if we were able to gauge what about certain acclaimed films gives people pleasure and if different pathways to pleasure are experienced by different people. JIm Emerson states he loves criticism based on evidence and this new technology could examine what in the brain reflects responding to concrete phenomena and what is emotion.
Of course the problem comes of how to untangle the two, as sometimes expressed in his blog.
There are no blind alleys. Everything is related to everything.
Great entry, Roger. I loved Inception, but I too value the criticisms that some are bringing up. I, too, however, am a little confused by those who are upset that Nolan's dreams don't look like their dreams, as if that's a flaw in the movie.
Also, on the issue of movies that no one seems to dislike, I think the first two Toy Stories are strong candidates, but I know several people who really can't stand Pulp Fiction. They find it slow and boring, and not terribly funny.
While I know not everyone loves Field of Dreams, I think Bill Simmons is right that there are two kinds of people in this world: those who like Field of Dreams, and those without a heart.
That's why I love you, Roger. You were one of the only critics that actually enjoyed Land of the Lost, which was one of my favorite comedies of last year. I'll forgive you for hating Napoleon Dynamite, too - after all, it was kind of depressing.
It's interesting how, in the democratized world of internet review, such outcries exist for reviewers who don't tow the "popular opinion" line. There have been several occasions in which I have utterly disagreed with even your esteemed opinions (I may have muttered a few disconcerting words about you halfway through Peter Jackson's "Kong Kong"), but as you mentioned, "The one thing you can never be wrong about is your own opinion." That being said, I still lean a bit more towards Mr. White being a bit of a troll. Thanks for another great think-piece, Roger.
I have read Boone's review and I find it interesting that he takes exception to the interpretation of dreams and the "frustratingly uncinematic" nature of the conceptual realiztion. Perhaps he's right in his assessment of the lack of time given to build necessary weight, but, at the same time, films that do, such as Inglorius Basterds, have a tendancy to neglect action at times. Where this is all well and good for Inglorius Basterds, it would perhaps dangerously slow down a film like Inception, which, lest we forget, is an action/thriller. In a film like this it is necessary to keep the action going, and neglecting some potential moments of emotional weight is the sacrifice which must be made, but not all of them are cut short. The scene between Fischer and his father, as Boone pointed out, had the proper emotional gravity. Even so, Nolan crafts a film of emotional complexity, partially through quickly passing, but meaningful shots. I personally found the film excelent. I hope to see it again very soon.
"Phil," I told him, "film criticism is a matter of subjective opinion. Only rarely does it stray into objective fact. When you said 'The Valachi Papers' was better than 'The Godfather,' that was an error of objective fact."
--
Roger, I thought this was all settled on your Dan Schneider thread last year. If you really thought everything was subjective would there be any reason to even discuss a thing? After all, none of it would matter?
@Lynn McKenzie writes:
I found TDK to be an extremely immoral film. The Batman I grew up with was a hero, damn it.
The Batman I grew up with was Adam West.
(My favorite actor to play Batman is Kevin Conroy.)
I agree with Mr. Pardee about "Ordet."
Roger once again made me think. I don't mind critics or whatever bashing a big blockbuster action movie I happen to like. But when it comes to movies I really really care about, movies like...let's say..."Rachel Getting Married", I feel somehow personally insulted when someone calls them boring or awful. Some movies touch me deeply, I develop a personal relationship with the characters, I share their emotions and sometimes their situation reminds me of experiences I've made myself, so I think it's just a reasonable reaction to get angry when someone calls all that bullsh*t (especially without further explanation).
That leads me to the question I sometimes think about. Is it right to form an opinion about a person by one's taste in movies or music? I always thought our tastes are tightly connected with our personalities. When someone understands the emotions of the characters in "Rachel Getting Married", it is quite possible that he does also understand my personal inner feelings and that is a pretty strong connection between 2 strangers, I would say. So going to rottentomatoes and looking for praise reviews for a movie you love is probably some sort of attempt to feel a little less lonely in this cold cold world.
I remember reading an article in the Chicago Tribune that I may have mentioned here before. The article was about rental patterns in previous "best films of the year." What I remember most was the lede to the article. On Netflix, one of the best picture nominees of 2000, Traffic, was being out-rented almost 5 to 1 by Requiem for a Dream, which was nominated only for Best Actress.
Does this necessarily mean that Requiem is a better film? No (although I'd certainly say so), but it goes to show that just because a film is critically lauded does not mean that it will stand the test of time, or that the critics were necessarily right in their consensus on it. Crash was just revealed to be the all time top rented film on Netflix, and we all know the controversy that arose from that one winning Best Picture.
I think sometimes it's nice to be in the minority. A film can be an intensely personal experience, and we can find pleasure in films that others find to be terrible, or vice versa. I know I loved Blindness and Knowing and was less than impressed with Let The Right One In and District 9, but I don't let the Tomatometer tell me that I'm wrong for having that opinion. That's the joy of watching movies - sparking a debate.
(I haven't seen Inception yet so I may have more to say about that later.)
My last comment didn't get published for obvious reasons, but I'd just like to repeat some of it...
I agree with what Jim Emerson said about the exactness with which the film describes the subconscious and also about how it is turned into cliches; the villain of the movie "militarizes his subconscious" to protect it from other people from stealing his ideas. Don't all action movie villains/stars "militarize their subconscious?" Stallone, Schwarzenegger etc. in their films and the villains ALL "militarized their subconscious." And especially as they are emotionally distant; if their wives try to get a peak inside their heads, they just might militarize her to smithereens, literally, as they have "militarized their subconscious."
So, in that respect I felt the film kind of is just really about what all the cliches were really about in other Hollywood films; they're often not people but representations of meaning or a metaphor of something else. I could kind of see this film coming, and I suppose it's a little more pure because at least it is coming right out and saying what a lot of other movies were implying, which is "this isn't really a bad guy I'm shooting; I'm shooting badness itself", so the movie at least is more up front in that it TELLS YOU the person being shot is just a representation of something else (the "militarized subconscious"). It's kind of like a self-referencing movie when a character says "I'm the comic relief" or as an aside, "I don't know about this scene", although in the film, it wasn't meant to be an aside: the "militarized subconscious."
I'd like to have seen this idea on a smaller scale with ordinary people, but that's what I always want. It's hard to relate to the whole global militarized conflict. I'd rather see what regular person does to protect their subconscious, a "militarized subconscious" for the poor man. A commercial might be "If you can't afford to militarize your subconscious, just dangle you penis at the invader and see if they go away."
Ebert: Don't know what the obvious reasons were. I didn't delete it.
""There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures. The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves. They're looking for support and vindication.""
Thank you, Mr. Ebert, for summing up the entirety of the IMDb message boards.
For years, if not decades, it was next to impossible to find anyone who didn't like Errol Flynn's "The Adventures of Robin Hood", which could lay claim to being the greatest adventure movie of all time.
Now I hear occasional snarky comments from people about Flynn wearing green tights, or having a hat with a feather sticking out of it.
Some younger viewers also prefer the Kevin Costner version to the Flynn, which I find mind boggling in the extreme.
Still, a few years ago at a revival screening when The End title card came up, the applause and cheers that arose were loud and enthusiastic. The lights came on and the packed auditorium arose, showing grinning faces on every facet of humanity - young and old, black and white, couples on dates, large multi-generational families, etc. The smiles and laughter were contagious. I don't think anyone left that theater in a bad mood.
I think the Errol Flynn Robin Hood will always be remembered as one of the best-loved films in Hollywood history.
I spent most of the morning trying to figure out why I didn't like I Am Love, in spite of the fact that it's chock full of elements I'm predisposed to love. From your four-star review, I presume that you bring a different set of expectations to that movie than I do, which should be self-evident because you aren't me and I'm not you. Viva la difference. I've spent a decade trying to reconcile your opinion of Dark City with the movie that I saw. I hated it. But c'est la vie.
I haven't seen Inception yet, so I don't have an opinion.
I've never met anyone who doesn't like What's Opera Doc? I'm not sure I want to meet such a person.
I saw Inception last night in a pretty full theater of people (and even a couple with their baby behind me, unbelievably). In short, I loved the film. I didn't completely understand everything, so I am definitely going back for another viewing or two. I haven't thought about a movie this much after seeing it in years. That's what I think is so great about the film - it's getting people talking, whether they like it or not. Can't say that about many other films this summer, eh?
I also don't understand why certain articles in magazines or newspapers are saying that critics are divided about the film. To me, reviews generally look pretty favorable. I truly don't think Rex Reed even tried to enjoy the film, as he stated that he had never liked any of Nolan's films. And as for Armond White... well, I don't know. He seems to like everything that most other people don't (Transformers 2, Jonah Hex) and dislike what is more acclaimed (There Will Be Blood, Toy Story 3).
I've been following this discussion all day, and it's been absolutely riveting. Excellent topic sir.
I haven't seen Inception yet, but I plan to within the next couple of days. One thing that this discussion has made clear however is that, regardless as to whether or not I end up liking the movie, it definitely does not "suck".
Therein lies a huge part of the problem with a lot of criticism: the proclamation of an opinion as fact. Personally, I love hearing opinions that are contrary to mine; life would be very boring if we all felt the same way about everything. However, while the expression, "I don't like Inception because..." is stated as an opinion, "Inception sucks because..." is stated as a fact, and if you're going to make a bold statement like that, then brother, you'd better have the facts to support it. In this case, the facts clearly show that this movie has sparked some excellent conversation, and based on that, the logical conclusion is that the movie does not suck. It may not be an individual person's personal cup of meat, but it does not suck.
This is all just my opinion though. (And Avatar sucked. Jokes.)
I'm always amused at how much dissention and anxiety is caused by a movie with a 'smart' and 'fantastic' story line. By 'fantastic' I mean 'fantasy' or 'fantastical'. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I won't comment on the movie itself. But the uproar? Very amusing indeed!
I noticed one poster here mentioned 'Pulp Fiction' as the NEW 'Casablanca'. Huh? Pulp Fiction caused SUCH an uproar when it first came out! Mostly by conservatives who 'felt' the movie was too violent - but admitted it had a good script and direction. Not a movie for children. That's a given. But NOT a good movie? Didn't understand the point. Just understood that they let their 'disagreement' with the subject matter get in the way of their criticism of the movie. It's so hard for most people to separate the dislike of a 'genre' from whether it's a good or bad movie. Which is certainly the root cause of the discourse for Inception - as was for Pulp Fiction.
I'm a big fan of 'Dark City' and always love that you mention it. I was of 'Memento' also. It's been too long since I last watched 'Memento'. It's surely time to see it again!
Good post!
Take care Roger!
I am not a fan of Lost in Translation. I think Bill Murray saves that film and I think he absolutely deserved an Oscar nomination but I found the film to be self indulgent, kind of pretentious, and really condescending towards the Japanese. With that being said, I can see why people would like it. I am not a big Sofia Coppola fan although I am looking forward to Somewhere, largely because it seems like a departure for her. What I don't like is Stephanie Zacharek's review which is almost a personal attack on Nolan as a filmmaker and the "online" community. I found it really condescending. I also felt like, judging from her track record with Nolan, that she walked into Inception ready to hate it. As a critic, aren't you supposed to go into every film wanting to love it? You can't stop preconceived notions, for example with a beloved property that you have been waiting to see adapted for a long time or the newest film from a beloved director, but I don't think it is right to walk into a film wanting to hate it. It strikes me that Stephanie did this.