The pattern of Inception is small, but the level of discussion is extremely deep. The director of Shen Zai is talking about the subconscious mind of people. Xiao Zai's film involves relatively narrow people and space, but it also coincides with the Buddha's flower. Nolan doesn't shoot Lost, he almost never builds that kind of cobweb with a lot of characters, and then tells stories from that cobweb. The world he wants to build is to play tricks outside the characters, and the final proposition always depends on the people themselves. If using the mirror as an inappropriate analogy, he repeatedly worked hard up and down the mirror, but what he wanted was the projection of the person in the mirror, which was clever and simple.
Nolan's talent is recognized, but you don't expect him to show a qualitative leap in this film. What Inception embodies, it doesn't matter what progress is, it's like standing still. If you remember Momento, the film's approach is pretty much the same. Momento played Time Fragment, and when he arrived at Inception, Nolan obediently changed the coordinate axis and dimension, and played Space Fragment. The operation methods are similar, and the viewers do not need to be excited in principle. This method is not unskillful, but because of previous movie viewing experience, the method of the second half of the movie is completely predictable, without the shock of Momento.
Clever, but unfortunately, Nolan's film isn't new either. Or to be fair, the art of film has been sliced into microscopes from the very beginning, and there is not so much room for innovation. Whether it is from the character setting (note the skills and age of several protagonists, personalities), or the unfolding of the dramatic conflict, the advancement and the climax (the connection between the places and characters of the most important plays), Inception is a unique A typical old-fashioned Hollywood movie. You can find these elements in any film that involves theft or/and espionage (to avoid spoilers), and not necessarily as well as those milestone films. But why smart? Because the shooting method of this film is not what he wants to innovate, the charm of Inception lies in imagination. This kind of imagination is not the laissez-faire in ordinary sci-fi movies. Against the background and support of physics, physiology and philosophy, Inception's worldview composition appears moderate and pleasing. It gives a cool and impeccable premise, and after adding characters and stories, it can be deduced and summarized, and it is no surprise to get a double harvest of reviews and box office.
Success is also imaginative, and failure is also imaginative. The flaws in this film are also planted in the film because of Nolan's rich imagination and desire to express. For example, there are many shots and special effects that show the magnificence and magic of dreams. In the opening and the second half of the film, these dream images serve the plot of the film well and are impeccable. Part of the picture in the front to middle section has turned into a naked show. Or it will remind people of a series of technical dazzling skills after the success of the undercover soldier in "Avatar": "Look, there is a world you haven't seen before, here, here, don't blink your eyes!". Compared with the industrial significance of the latter, Inception will still make many people indulge in such scenery clips, but it slightly spoils the rhythm of the story. If not, the first half is nearly perfect.
In the second half, Nolan's own talents are lost, or show off. Playing with the spatial dimension is the fun of the film, but the talented Nolan thinks about the unthinkable and overplays the layers, and his foreshadowing in the first half is too meticulous and thoughtful, so the rhythm of the second half is completely disappointing. A long feeling of sitting in a theater waiting for the ending. There is not much suspense in this film, nor is it complicated, many people may be dizzy because of the level. But in fact, according to the clues in the first half, it can be said that the ending is almost vivid, but at this time the director is methodical, performing the magic that has almost been exposed to the audience - perhaps only because there are not many people exposed. If one layer is reduced, the opening of the ending is slightly tightened, and the length of the film is reduced a little, the film can really be more pleasing to the eye.
As for the experts in physics, physiology, philosophy and other disciplines to be very critical, this film is by no means perfect. Those things that can be considered really don't affect the wonderfulness of the film at all. In the age of new media, Inception must be treated more than it deserves, and it is the same with Avatar. Of course, the gap of the former is much smaller than that of the latter. And the cast of the film lives up to their Hollywood fame—meaning, none of those faces are irreplaceable. Probably because the director's personal style is too strong, every actor has done his part competently, not much. Or, the charm of the character itself is far above the starlight of the star. Speaking of which, it should be Edith Piaf from the outside of the volume, accompanied by the friction and squeeze of the sound field.
View more about Inception reviews
