Inception Review

Foreword: This review is admittedly long overdue, since the film came out nearly three years ago to the day (in a few months, anyway). However, I just felt the need to write it after seeing continued praise permeating the corners of the internet.

By the way, spoilers are present. This review is only meant for those who have viewed the film themselves.

Dreams are fantastical, surreal canvasses for nigh-incomprehensible yet appreciable wonder. Thus, there's much ambition and potential in any media, especially films, to rest their premises on dreams. It's also a daunting task that is difficult to capture. One could posit that it is a requirement of dream-based films to have surreal qualities to them. While dreams may, but certainly not always, have an overlying "plot" of sorts to them, the presentation should not be overtly mechanical, planned, detailed. With all of this in mind, basing a film's premise around dreams is understandably intimidating.

Inception, the Nolan brothers' so-called (post-Memento & The Dark Knight) magnum opus, doesn't quite manage to capture the wonderment of dreams. The film doesn't suffer too much from not achieving their surreal quality, but it's the near complete lack of humanity of any of its characters that is unbecoming.

Oh, but the rabid, froth-at-the-mouth fanboys of this film are probably already foaming at the corners of their lips over my criticizing this film! So let me back up my assertions, you impassioned, self-annointed Knight Templars of the Christopher Nolan order. I'm sure you jest, but I'm going to try and convince you on why this film does not deserve its overwhelming praise.

First of all, it's the dreadful, obnoxious, ad-nauseum delivery of expository dialogue that serves to, perhaps non-deliberately on Nolan's part, insult the viewer. I'm not sure about you, reader, but I don't want a film to explain to me the concepts of the film's premise over, and over, and over again whilst not allowing me to care about the characters involved. I'm sorry, but if characters can't display humanity by talking like flesh & blood people actually do then I can't fathom a hint of empathy (let alone sympathy) for them. And when they speak dialogue that doesn't allow for character development at all, there's no intensity to be had. Exposition in itself is not detrimental to a film, for sure, but too much of it makes the film a chore to watch. 

Why was it so difficult to write some actual dialogue for Inception? 

As a slight merit for the film, it is redeemed a bit by the rare, rather prized incidence of humanity in the form of real dialogue and character growth. One (of few) examples comes from a revelation into what happened to Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio)'s late wife Mal; in a flashback to the incident that claimed her life (and sets up why he's carrying out the "heist" in the first place), he pleads to a delirious, fatally dubious wife to come to grips with reality. Since one of the over-explained concepts involves people being trapped within dreams (which are scrutinized by the function of a personally-chosen totem, serving to help them snap back to reality if they function correctly), she didn't have the saving grace of a proving factor to prevent her death. She sought to kill herself in a dream (as she felt she was) in order to wake up. The problem is, she was already awake. That's great and all, but there's one problem with it: it's far too brief and thus doesn't save the film from mediocrity.

Whereas the rest of the film is a convoluted excuse to throw in slightly surreal encounters with "projections", which are really armed goons described as being similar to white blood-cells reacting to pathogens, only in the subconscious instead. The Matrix had a more fleshed-out excuse to justify non-stop shooting of passerby and armed combatants, whereas this film indulges in half-assed neuroscience mumbo-jumbo to do essentially the same thing. Whereas The Matrix upped the ante with Herculean feats of physics-defying leaping & dodging, this film plays safe with your suspension of disbelief. Inception actually suffers because of this since it lowers the film into a simple action flick, which it actually is. Oh and, how does all of this resemble dreams so far?

Instead of what we got here, we could have had a stunning, actually human look into the emotionally conflicted characters at stake (well, at least that of Cobb, who is the only character we should care about and who is granted any semblance of character at all). The struggles could have been exacerbated on with quite a bit of emotional appeal while mesmerizing the audience with their personally distinct, equally invigorating dreams. However, that would not make for a good thriller film, as Deirdre Barrett of Harvard University attested when discussing the merits of the film's principle theme. Oh but the film would be far more interesting had it gone the actually creative route instead. Would have been riskier, sure, but would have made for a vastly superior payoff if done right.

Ellen Paige is a somewhat fledgling but truly capable actress, who, so far at least, has not succumbed to the condescending machinations that Hollywood typically burdens female celebrities with. In spite of her latent talents, no progress was made with this film. Instead, Adriadne (Paige) serves as the foil (for the audience) to the expository vessels in virtually all characters surrounding her. Such as when she asks if they're in reality or in a dream, or when she tries to make sense of the plans carried out by the likes of Arthur (Joseph Gordonn-Levitt) or Cobb. She is the character meant to reassure the reasonably confused audience that "this ain't so confusin'!" Oh and, since I mentioned him just previously, Arthur is the most manipulative and mechanical character of the merry band that we, the audience should care about. Like Adriadne, he doesn't do his actor any justice, either. Just what is at stake for him? Sure, he's a member of Cobb's team, but surely you could provide him ample back-story as well since he's regarded as a main character. His struggles mean next to nothing if he doesn't have any humanity to begin with. He's stoic when he should be concerned, and no tension can be felt in his action scenes.

What about the aspects of the film that actually resemble the alien nature of dreamscapes? Well, sure, there are some neat special effects involved, such as the folding street effect during the demonstration of Adriadne's ability as an architect (one who constructs the dreamscapes to implant into the mind of a mark, the target of an inception operation). The slow-motion freeze-frame antics of the following effects are kind of cool, too, but they are not exactly redeeming qualities. The more intriguing effects are not computer-generated at all, such as the iconic zero-gravity hallway scenes which feature Arthur battling a couple of, err, projections. And then there's a set of Penrose stairs featured in another scene involving Adriadne and Arthur going over final details prior to the heist. A ruined, claustrophobic city-scape of Cobb's imagination makes an appearance and it certainly is a meritorious set, but it's too little too late. And then the dry, calculated, machine-like feel of the scenery kicks in.

The thing that marvelled me most is just how mechanical, how planned, how rule-bound Nolan's vision here turned out to be. It bothered me after my cinema viewing right after its release and it bothers me even more now. I sometimes remember my own dreams just enough to recognize margins of their overall narratives, but this film didn't do much justice at all. It felt like false-advertising on the part of the film, because had they been honest about its presentation (like describing it as an action thriller along the likes of The Matrix), then it wouldn't have been so insulting to me. All of the dream within a dream (rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat) jargon are of only moderate consequence at best and are simply excuses for what amounts to a tale of corporate espionage, with tension-free gunfights and fisticuffs (because of the hollow shells that are the characters) thrown in for good measure.

And then there's the squandering of the talents cast into this epic (I find it difficult to call it such, but it technically is one), namely in particulars as Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael Caine (who serves the role of his father-in-law, also his mentor), Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Nobody except for Cobb and Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) are granted a hint of humanity, and again, it all happens too late and they are few & far between (indeed, Fischer isn't as important as he was intended to be, yet in two very brief scenes we are provided some backstory for him). I've already mentioned Ellen Paige's talents having been wasted through her character, but I'd just be repeating myself to bring it up again.

The so-called “projections” are just an excuse for this film to be yet another action romp. Unfortunately for the film, the action pretty much falls flat because the film doesn't allow us to care about the consequences. At face value as well, these projections are no different from generic mooks you find in virtually every other action film anyway. If they’re projections of the sub-conscious, then why can’t they perform strange feats to get at their adversaries? They die just like everybody else you ever see on film, so the whole thing about them being akin to white blood cells of the mind is fluff that never amounts to more than that. Ah, excuses are in full supply when trying to justify what should have been an otherwise insightful film that turned out to be a shooting gallery on film, with dreams and all that thrown in for good measure! Oh and because the film is set in dreams, our heroes can simply will any weapon of choice into their possession with which to blast away these otherwise generic grunts! No, this ain't no stinkin' rip-off of The Matrix at play, folks.

I hope your sarcasm detector was, or is turned on, because I may have had you there.

I'm just wondering whether the fanboys will come with their threats, seeing as I've committed what amounts to blasphemy for criticizing the work of their god, Christopher Nolan. If the film weren't so mechanical, dry, hollow, and unimaginative, I’d have given it ample praise. However, since the film barely allows us to give a hoot about anyone, the “dreams” are so literal and so far from being surreal that they’re not particularly fascinating, and the so-called “intellectual” prowess of the film really is just an insult to the viewers in the form of non-stop expository dialogue, I just can’t give it that good a score. This film was written with too much pragmatism at work, with little of anything else, and it shows in spades.

There’s a reason I left the theatre perplexed as to just what was so special about the film. It seems to be an intriguing puzzle of sorts upon the first one or two viewings, but after that you’re bound to piece together an over-ambitious, inhuman, sterile piece of overrated mediocrity. Why not put a real visionary like David Lynch up to task! Hell, put Adrian Lynne up to it if Lynch isn't available. They'd have conceived of a masterpiece in comparison to this tripe.

In closing: It isn't terrible, but it isn't particularly good either.

 C

The Good:

+ An all-star ensemble cast

+ Good special effects, especially when Cobb is demonstrating the powers of Adriadne's role as an "Architect"

+ Some actual, and rather decent character development towards the end

The Bad:

- Way, way, way too much exposition. It's so bad it encompasses perhaps 90% or more of the dialogue. Bad move, Nolan! That doesn't do anything for the audience except to confuse and annoy.

- Are these supposed to be dreams? Or are they just set pieces periodically accentuated by "oddities" like water flowing from out of nowhere, trains rumbling down streets, and sudden (but slight) changes to the scenery? Where's the imagination?

- The approach to the subject matter is far too literal. This isn't art that rocks your senses, it's just an excuse to make a "brainier" action film.

- Character development is severely lacking.

- A couple of plotholes are present, for example the beginning sequence where Saito (or whatever his name is, played by Ken Wattanabe) somehow brandishes a gun to threaten our main gang when you'd think they'd be careful and thorough before performing "inception" on him.

- It's all fluff, especially the "dream within a dream within a dream" nonsense. This is technical garbage, not surreal wizardry.

- The ending isn't quite as ambiguous as you would think. Subtle hints point to it taking place in reality after all because of 1) Cobb's father-in-law being present, 2) His seeing their faces again after not being able to for a year, and 3) Cobb doesn't stick around his totem for long after spinning it to test his state of mind, he just loses interest. Oh, so ambiguous, so stunning an ending!

This Planet. This God of War. This Mars.

It lives.

It thinks. It breathes. It sheds its skin.

It watches. It consumes.

It craves...

Us, for her.

Then its slumber will wrack onward.

We are not the first; we are not the last.

We are but an express course.

It frothes at the mouth.

To take us in.

To make us one.

This planet.

This God of War.

This Mars.

One into all, Queen Mab's will.

The sand shifts. The water runs.

Phantoms of yore beckon the curious.

Hands of the past reach to us.

Voices of memories, and of yearning.

A scale tips and we're on the brink.

To take us in.

To make us one.

This planet.

This God of War.

This Mars.

One into all, Queen Mab's dream.

Opportunity Looms

My goodness has it been a while, and it's been a long, tedious, inactive road travelled for the past several months. Since my last post, not much has happened, which is rather unfortunate given that inactivity doesn't allow for anything much to occur. That is obvious and I don't need to flesh it out further.

However, I've recently took advantage of an opportunity to finally break free from my enslavement to inactivity (namely unemployment). I'm leaving this dump at the end of April this year to greener pastures, where jobs are aplenty and independence, confidence, and most of all inspiration will surely follow. Suffice to say, I'm rather anxious about it because my circumstances had taken their toll to a degree. I think it's been so bad for me because I was unsure of what options I had, since there's very few left where I am right now.

I've had no luck since in getting my personal terminal in operating condition again, which aggravates me quite a bit since my work is just sitting there collecting dust. But when things pick up, so too will my terminal and things will happen again. I'm just glad I've been given the chance to really get things back on track. Much thanks are due for my father who allowed me this chance. I prefer this in every way to being enslaved to these conditions of the Canadian Maritimes. After all, I wrote a piece about it over at Superbious.

A Self-Annointed Intellectual and the Bread Recipe

TheAmazingAtheist, whom I've critiqued before on this blog, is the target of this post. This will be pretty concise and it might garner a few laughs. For clarification purposes, this man romances himself as an intellectual above the typical man, which is his form of misanthropy (which is arguably the most recurrent type of misanthropy out there; so much for being distinct on his part). Yet his own stupidity is particularly hilarious because he displays 1) the inability to learn from and recognize his mistakes and 2) the unfamiliarity with age-old & very common practices, such as what I'm going to talk about in brief next.

He doesn't know how bread is made. Un-fucking-believable...

TJ, as he's usually called in his social circles, once said in a video, "You mix wheat & water..." Is this guy serious or just fucking stupid? I'm not angry with this, I'm just frustrated. How can someone who so brazenly and repeatedly claims intellectual superiority over most of his fellow men & women be completely unaware of one of the oldest recipes of man's creation? And since he's admitted more than once that he spends a lot of time on the internet, in which there are literally countless recipes for countless types of bread to be found, how is he, at 27 years, still ignorant of even the most basic bread recipe? When he admitted this I began contemplating that the man is an irredeemable retard in denial. No offense to those who are retarded through no will of their own. Such people are above this cretin.

Here's a brief history for you, TJ: the oldest known bread was a flat-bread, made by collecting plants and pounding the grains, forming a shape, and cooking it over a fire. This specimen was dated to be as old as 30,000 years. Yeah, you read it right. It was a flat-bread that was not even complex whatsoever. It makes you think why anyone who makes any kind of living today even bother to buy bread from supermarkets, given how simple and cheap it is to make your own loaf of fabulous and fresh bread.

This idiot is known to have dropped out of high-school because he "was sick of all the bullshit." That's just a cop-out from a coward who prefers things to be handed to him on a silver platter; an excuse to avoid the responsibilities that life always demands of Earth's denizens. You see, if you stayed in high school, you could have taken culinary class. In that class you learn how to cook mostly basic recipes, usually some kind of baked food. You get accustomed to the entire process; preparation, cooking, serving, and clean-up. It's one of few classes in high school that is mostly devoid of bullshit that most educational institutions put you through, like when they discourage creativity and going above & beyond the process.

Anyway, you don't simply mix wheat and water, idiot. Wheat is a plant that you find in fields, farmed or otherwise. You can't make bread with wheat, you have to extract ingredients from wheat instead. And for many bread recipes, you need yeast. It's your choice if you want gluten for consistency, but most avoid it entirely because of the unnecessary added fat from that ingredient. If you care about your body even a little bit, you won't use the bleached, nutritionally-void white flour, either. Use the real stuff and work with whole-wheat flour. Add oats and whole grains as well for added nutritional value as well as flavour, because it's fucking easy to do so. Mix, knead, let it sit for the bread to rise (air pockets form after all, and it helps give the bread form & shape), and then bake. You have, as mentioned, countless sources of information available with just a few clicks and key presses. So TJ, you have no excuse to be this blatantly ignorant.

I guess you're just too stupid and hopelessly lazy to care.

Playing with Politically Incorrect Fire

I'm one of the authors over at the fledgling opinion site Superbious. Feel free to check the place out. To be honest without coming across as an arse, some of the writers could use a bit more work on perfecting their craft (myself included, but not quite for the same reasons). A couple of them have, so far, demonstrated mistakes with:

- The "their" & "they're" conundrum.
- The "then" & "than" puzzle.
- The dreaded proper demonstration of the oft-misused apostrophe (knowing when to use it makes all the difference, folks!).
- And common, often overlooked spelling and/or grammar mistakes.

Also on my first article, the editor of the site didn't take care to remove the final paragraph where I mentioned to the reader to view a video. That same video is featured in my second most-recent post in this blog (the one before this post you are reading). In fact, they're the same article.

Another note is that, by request of the webmaster or editor of Superbious, any of the articles I write for them won't appear anywhere else, including Corpus Intorqueo.

In the end, this should be an interesting ride. Someone took notice of me and has accepted my tutelage as a content contributor. Thanks, Superbious.

Bill "Sore Loser" O'Reilly: I Won the Rumble!

At least, in his mind he did.

Bill O'Reilly is, as expected, not owning up to how much devastation he incurred by the likes of Jon Stewart, especially when he called him 'The Mayor of Bullshit Mountain'. As you watch the video (provided below), you almost wonder what was going through the old man's mind at that point. You could tell that he wanted to retort, but he just couldn't. Yet it wasn't at the debate where he'd attack Stewart with any measure of effectiveness.

Later, nestled in his safe zone in the 'no spin zone', O'Reilly post-humously claimed victory over Stewart by, shocker alert, taking him out of context. Here's the piece where O'Reilly performs his usual tactic on his merciless opponent:

If you saw Jon Stewart and me Saturday night, you may have noticed there was a very important theme among all the chaos. Stewart, an honest and smart liberal, supports a 'nanny state' where everyone is provided basic life necessities and economic outcomes are guaranteed.

I disagree, not because of the intent, but simply because it's impossible. The Constitution provides Americans protection so they can pursue happiness, but the Founding Fathers did not guarantee happiness or material well-being, and if you try to do that you will bankrupt the nation.

Stewart and I previewed what we'll all be voting on - do you want a nanny state or do you want a self-reliant nation? That's what's at stake in this election. The left-wing press is not going to tell you that; it portrays President Obama as a moderate. And the right-wing media says he's a socialist, maybe even a communist, bent on destroying traditional America. But Stewart and I pinpointed the real situation: nanny state vs. self-reliance.

Polls show the country is deadlocked, but I find it very hard to believe that 50% of us want to be Western Europe. What do you think Europeans are rioting about? They're angry that governments are cutting back on entitlements. This is what the nanny state mentality leads to - give me free stuff or I will hurt you. Jon Stewart doesn't believe that, but it is absolutely true. So I hope you will watch our debate, which is available at TheRumble2012.com.
 

Thanks Steve of oreilly-sucks.com for the quote above.

See how pathetic he has to be to claim victory over Stewart? Of course, he didn't bring his opponent on to discuss the results, or talk about their respective talking points. O'Reilly also assumes of his audience that no one actually bothered to watch The Rumble. One couldn't blame potential audience members from not actually watching the event, because it required paying a fee to do so. Exploitative as he always is, O'Reilly took advantage of this obscure tidbit, and of his audience, and spun the debate as ending in his favor. After all, no one likes 'the nanny state'.
 
Watch the embedded video below and you can judge for yourself as to whether O'Reilly ideologically "beat" Stewart in The Rumble, or whether Stewart argued for a nanny state government that wants its citizens to be dependent on The Man.

Greenpeace is right, Globe and Mail; you're not

The article in question, authored by Margaret Wente: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/greenpeaces-golden-rice-stand-should-appall-us-all/article4541042/

This is a response that I made in the comments section for that article. I am aware that it is categorized as "commentary", but that doesn't diminish the necessity to put this shill, which she seems adamant to paint herself as, in her place on this issue. The issue is GM crops, in the end, but it is specifically about the fledgling "golden rice" that is apparently being manufactured, and thus sold (and therein comes the downsides) to curb the advent of Vitamin A Deficiency (or "VAD"). With my ever-growing knowledge of the dark side of the GMO market, I can only sense negative implications with this crop, amongst the many genetically-modified crops already present (such as virtually all corn you'll buy anymore, as well as nectarines & tomatoes). What's worse is that you can't escape from GM crops, as they are taking more hold on the agriculture industry than otherwise, and Monsanto owns over 90% of the shares of said market.

Without much further ado, I'll present to you the comment that I authored on that page. It had a maximum character count, but it was surprisingly enough to write what I wanted to. I've added a bit more "exclusively" for this post. Just a quick note: it appears that the overwhelming majority of comments get down-voted, thus hinting at a frightfully unattractive community of nitwits.

---

How much were you paid to outright promote GM crops, Mrs. Wente? Your credibility went right out the window when you said that GM crops improve health, which they don't. I'm referring to the following paragraph, completely un-edited so as to not manipulate any information for readers:

Genetically engineered crops do far more than improve people’s health. They can dramatically boost yields in places such as Africa. They are the key to feeding the world’s exploding population. But GM opponents have been tragically successful in stalling the spread of modified crops to the people most in need of it. In China, where people are already terrified about food safety because of major scandals over tainted milk powder, GM crops are generally shunned.

 

Previously, you decried Greenpeace's skepticism in the risks and implications that are not-yet-known, but at the same time quite possible, with the consumption of this new "golden rice." Keep in mind Mrs. Wente that these are genetically modified crops, and given how it appears that every GM crop causes implications in health and even in economics & biodiversity (after all, GM crops negatively impact natural crops), you made yourself appear quite one-sided. Here is the excerpt where you fail to defend your claims with a source while attacking Greenpeace's necessary skepticism:

 

The last thing Greenpeace wants is for Golden Rice to be effective. It insists that the rice poses all kinds of environmental and health risks, even though repeated risk assessments by leading scientific bodies have found no such risks. In fact, according to scientists at the University of California, GM rice reduces pesticide use and improves farmers’ health.
 

Oh, brother. In regards to the last sentence, do you have a study to back up your counter-claim? You should, as a "journalist", provide any and all information to such studies, via sourcing. Let's also not forget how aggressive Monsanto gets with this method of stifling opposition to the ever-growing GM crop market. They pay many "study groups" to produce results that coincide with Monsanto's wishes. They really are that scared of groups like Greenpeace, who help keep people aware of the industry's malpractices. 

 

You're also ignoring the economic implications that GM crops will bring about. I know that the inventor of the GM crop had good intentions with the idea, but that idea has become a ploy to gain a monopoly over what is inarguably the most important industry on earth; agriculture. Monsanto is notable in their quest to dominate the agriculture business by:
 

1) Owning all parties involved in the agriculture industry with their patents and corporate takeovers.
 

-and-
 

2) Using patents to eliminate competition, and the products that they manufacture in greater amounts to destroy any chance of would-be competitors gaining any ground (high costs of seeds, eliminator genes in said seeds which prevents sustained re-growth, buying pathetically weak politicians who implement loopholes and laws to protect Monsanto's interests, etc.).

 

Another economic hurdle will be in how much money is spent on these crops. Millions will be spent on producing this product, but read on further. Greenpeace is right when they note how it is not yet known what side-effects of consuming this rice will bring about. You can ignore it all you want in favor of "feeding the poor", but if it has impacts on health, then it'll do more harm than good in the long run. So to invest in this new product which only addresses VAD, while at the same time there are proven healthy methods of addressing VAD as well as other nutritional concerns such as supplements, proves how short-sighted you are, Mrs. Wente.
 

Shame on this Roger Cooper (a user who wrote a comment on this article previously) for exploiting the sad fact that millions of people around the world are malnourished and starving, while ignoring the sad fact that the parties involved in the sale of GM crops are only in it for the money and nothing more. Only bad things can come of that, especially if this product gains a foothold in its market and gives the producers an excuse to increase their stranglehold on said market.
 

I feel pity for those who fall to the temptation of money, and let it blind them, or allows them to demonstrably deceive those who seek information on the issues that really affect us, like the things we eat to survive. After all, Monsanto doesn't give a spit if you are a healthy individual, just as long as you depend on their often poisonous, artificial "food" products. Politicians routinely display their cowardice, their weakness in resisting the temptation of money to keep them in power, and Monsanto & its few competitors easily stifle progress in the industry this way. It's one of the many reasons why I think all politicians should be fired and lose all their money.

I understand the need to feed as many people as possible, but this actually proves to be a double-edged sword; it is causing the hopeful in these decidedly third-world nations to have to depend on Monsanto more and more, paying more and more money because of the dreaded eliminator seeds. It's also a burden against people who still luckily possess natural, or semi-natural crop seeds because should Monsanto be made aware of any growth they feel would impede on their control of the world's agriculture markets, they'll do what they can to stifle the growth, or sue those in question, or take over their resources, or easily do all three.

Margaret Wente should be ashamed for this shilling, but I doubt she is. She gets paid for it, so why should she be? Money brings down many an otherwise respectable individual, and she appears to be no exception. If anything, I wish for her sake that she didn't stupidly destroy any semblance of credibility she had with the paragraph (which I quoted, and that's the first one I quoted in this post) where she didn't hold back in defending the GM market. You might as well be a spy stating outright to his/her targets that you're spying on them with this gaffe. It didn't bolster her argument one iota, and only proved Greenpeace's point.

With that said, good job, Wente?