Inception

I recently watched inception for the second time. This time while sober and not irritated by the other idiots occupying the cinema alongside me. Now then, the word that's being bandied round about such a film is its "intellegence", how it doesn't make the audience feel stupid. I beg to differ, with its constant plot point explanations and insulting to us, the more discerning viewer. If it were a Japansese or European film would these intellectual insults be as well recieved. I think not. Prime example being "Let the right one in" or "the girl with the dragon tattoo" which had about 5 people watch them. (Myself, I watched a fool of a couple walk out on the former due to its subtitles). Anway, back to the film. Well acted, fantastic premise, amazingly executed, beatifully shot. But, the comparisons between Kubrick and Nolan should really stop. For me, Nolan seems to be far easier with the human being as an entity. Kubrick always had issues, especially in later films, with relating, or even setting, his films in a element of reality. Nolan, alternitvely, managers to both create and endear characters however big or small their roll. You consider the role os Animal Mother in Full Metal Jacket to that of Tom Hardy's Eames. Both are likeable character, the latter far more so. Both are heroes. But, such people don't really exist in reality, but do in nolans. He has a notion that hope, humanisation, friendship, heroism and love still envelops man. Kubrick, i feel, never agreed. He knew the bitterness and twisted mind of a man. Hence Clockwork orange being a black comedy when it should have been a something quite more strongly devoid of humour, such as a horror. It's meant to be a lament on consciousnous for fuck sake. Inception though, I wonder how many people "got it". What was there to "get" in the first place. Did people over complicate things just to make themselves feel more intellectual? Did intellectuals tell themselves that they loved it just because Nolan has become the most important film makers in the world after shunning him for the "the prestige" (about which they're all fuckwits). In my lucidity, I don't think that there is a point "to get". This move just dares to ponder aspects of our minds, and even fears of how our mind is something which can be manipulated. Imagine someone fucking with our minds? Scary? These themes were tackled in the relationship universe of Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind. Can our dreams be manipulated? Can our thoughts? I found the differences in time between various dream states an interesting concept. But, if this were the case, wouldn't it be like the matrix. Everyone in some drone like state where days seem like weeks etc. What the fuck would happen to humanity. Back to the film, I digress. The lead, as much as I hate to say it, is very strong. I would like to see a Tom Hardy led side franchise. That man is a legend, and you got to love that accent. Better than bond. Fuck that ginger twat, bring in Tom Hardy. Again, I do actually think that this film insults the intellegence of the audience quite a bit. I heard one person say that the whole film is the leads wife's dream. If they think that, then good luck to them. The real thing with this film is telling us that there is sense in our dreams. This is not the case. You look at dream psychology. It's rubbish. None of it means anything. It's just random images and themes. People make sense of them as they will, for people as people need to find reason in things. I always used the metaphor that it's like defragmenting your hard drive for the cumpter literate in you. Inception - I hope I haven't given anything away, and I apologise for my spelling mistakes, is on the whole good. Does it have the subtext of Dark Knight - NO. Does it have the personality of The Prestige - NO. Memento, for which it's most similar to, possibly more high concept but not as satisfying. Also, her from Juno needs a charisma injection in it. Lifeless to say the least.