Inception: birth, fertilization, germination, impregnation
Here’s how far off the zeitgeist I am: I came out of Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster Inception tonight loathing it and its bloated, bombastic vacuousness. This film cost $200 million – how much that’s worthwhile could be done with that sort of money?
According to Philip French, the Observer film critic, the joy of Inception is that ‘you don’t have to check your mind in with your coat when you go in, or check your watch while you are seeing it’. Wrong. It’s just a loud, overblown and mindless computer game, with all its talk of ‘levels’. It lacks any credible characterisation or motivation, and the stuff about dreams and the unconcious is inane. I was checking my watch after ten minutes.
In his review, French writes:
‘Back in 1970, more than 30,000 people responded to a Sunday newspaper questionnaire about the films that most closely resembled dreams, the top 15 ranging from Last Year at Marienbad and 2001 to Belle de jour and The Seventh Seal. Nolan’s film is the most thoroughgoing to deal with the subject.’
Reading this tripe after seeing the film, I can only think that French had checked in his mind when entering the cinema.
Rex Reed wrote in the New York Observer that ‘Nolan is an elegant Hollywood hack from London whose movies are a colossal waste of time, money and IQ points’. Exactly.