Inception Review Discussion (240 total)

This 2010 contemporary sci-fi actioner follows a subconscious security team around the globe and into the intimate and infinite world of dreams.
Posts: 75
Joined: August 2009
Location: Canada
arizonabay wrote:I think Armond's review has finally made me come to an understanding of where he is coming from.I don't think he is a troll, he genuinely demands movies to be made according to a set of beliefs which exist in his own mind (in other words films have to agree with his own opinions). Therefore, if a movie is all shades of grey in terms of good and evil, the normal reviewer will admire its complexity, whilst Armond will bash its nihilism. If a movie has a message his own warped mind doesn't agree with (like Toy Story 3) he will bash it. Strangely, despite his clear intelligence, the films he ends up praising are dull and simplistic because they have to fit these stringent guide lines (which seem to be the opposite of what 99% of critics on the planet want out of film - he only wants them to tell him what he already knows because he thinks he knows it all). Egotistical, small minded and irrelevant yes, a troll? No.
Nicely said.

apw
Posts: 2466
Joined: June 2009
Location: UK

Posts: 236
Joined: June 2010
Christopher Nolan wrote:
micool wrote:damn, Ebert posted some new reviews, but none are Inception Image
he keeps torturing us..
it'll be up in the morning tommorow. sorceror's apprentice just got its review out earlier because it was released a day or two before inception.

Posts: 29
Joined: July 2010
redfirebird2008 wrote:
kanjisheik wrote:I remember Ebert explaining his rating system some time back. He said that his rating is based on other movies of the same genre. Since Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are the best superhero movies by a mile, they got 4/4. Since Memento and The Prestige are great movies but not the best, they got rated less. I don't particularly agree with his ratings, but its his system. :-)

I love Ebert but that is a silly system. Very misleading. :lol:
Yeah, he seems to operate on a "how 'good' is the movie at what it does" basis. I argued against that approach here (http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... 87&#p35587) but nobody gave a damn :D although many people were discussing this point back then (2 days ago, 102 pages back!)
George did reply though. Thank you George ;) you made me happy.

User avatar
Posts: 26395
Joined: February 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
discoveringuy wrote:
going from paris to Mumbai to nameless ski slopes, carelessly shifting tenses like a video game
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: MUMBAI?????

Seriously Mr.White?
You are an idiot!!!

P.S. This is by far the most revealing post of about the critic himself.
Typical Armond White trolling, I'm sure he meant Mombasa, but again he was either not paying attention as usual or he's deliberately mixing the facts for attention.

My theory is the the harsher his reviews are, the more he enjoyed a film.
If she plays cranium she gives good brainium.

Posts: 148
Joined: July 2010
George I need to point out a mistake.

You have the Boston Herald link as a negative review. it is not a review it is a blog posting by someone who does not post direct reviews.

the reviews for Boston Herald are here.....

http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainme ... ?type=mrev


and there are NO reviews of Inception from Boston Herald yet. that is just an opinion not a review of the movie.

You can take it off

According to Boston Herald only James Verniere reviews their movies. This guy is Stephen Shaefer

User avatar
Posts: 2281
Joined: July 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
arizonabay wrote:I think Armond's review has finally made me come to an understanding of where he is coming from.I don't think he is a troll, he genuinely demands movies to be made according to a set of beliefs which exist in his own mind (in other words films have to agree with his own opinions). Therefore, if a movie is all shades of grey in terms of good and evil, the normal reviewer will admire its complexity, whilst Armond will bash its nihilism. If a movie has a message his own warped mind doesn't agree with (like Toy Story 3) he will bash it. Strangely, despite his clear intelligence, the films he ends up praising are dull and simplistic because they have to fit these stringent guide lines (which seem to be the opposite of what 99% of critics on the planet want out of film - he only wants them to tell him what he already knows because he thinks he knows it all). Egotistical, small minded and irrelevant yes, a troll? No.
You're pretty much on the right track, but he's a troll because many of his reviews are deliberately agitory and contrarian in order to attract attention for himself. But, most of the time I think that he DOES believe what he's writing (which is sad). He tends to trash a film based on highly specific philosophical or political objections. If a film introduces an analysis of morality, he'll label it as "nihilistic". If it's a populist film he'll label it as "hipster pandering". If it's an analysis of social issues he'll often label it as pandering to "liberals". He also has huge issues with race.

I don't read the reviews, but what is his main complaint about Inception (if it can be deciphered)?

Posts: 148
Joined: July 2010
Another mistake by George:


The screendaily review is a positive review. Why have you put it in the negative column?

also for new page

You have the Boston Herald link as a negative review. it is not a review it is a blog posting by someone who does not post direct reviews.

the reviews for Boston Herald are here.....

http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainme ... ?type=mrev


and there are NO reviews of Inception from Boston Herald yet. that is just an opinion not a review of the movie.

You can take it off

According to Boston Herald only James Verniere reviews their movies. This guy is Stephen Shaefer

Posts: 926
Joined: July 2010
Location: Cali
Eternalist wrote:
arizonabay wrote:I think Armond's review has finally made me come to an understanding of where he is coming from.I don't think he is a troll, he genuinely demands movies to be made according to a set of beliefs which exist in his own mind (in other words films have to agree with his own opinions). Therefore, if a movie is all shades of grey in terms of good and evil, the normal reviewer will admire its complexity, whilst Armond will bash its nihilism. If a movie has a message his own warped mind doesn't agree with (like Toy Story 3) he will bash it. Strangely, despite his clear intelligence, the films he ends up praising are dull and simplistic because they have to fit these stringent guide lines (which seem to be the opposite of what 99% of critics on the planet want out of film - he only wants them to tell him what he already knows because he thinks he knows it all). Egotistical, small minded and irrelevant yes, a troll? No.
You're pretty much on the right track, but he's a troll because many of his reviews are deliberately agitory and contrarian in order to attract attention for himself. But, most of the time I think that he DOES believe what he's writing (which is sad). He tends to trash a film based on highly specific philosophical or political objections. If a film introduces an analysis of morality, he'll label it as "nihilistic". If it's a populist film he'll label it as "hipster pandering". If it's an analysis of social issues he'll often label it as pandering to "liberals". He also has huge issues with race.

I don't read the reviews, but what is his main complaint about Inception (if it can be deciphered)?
one line I remember

"Chris Nolan is a clever con-man" or something like that, or "Inception is a video game" wtf

something like that stuck out

Posts: 23
Joined: July 2010
Andrew_97 wrote:
redfirebird2008 wrote:
kanjisheik wrote:I remember Ebert explaining his rating system some time back. He said that his rating is based on other movies of the same genre. Since Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are the best superhero movies by a mile, they got 4/4. Since Memento and The Prestige are great movies but not the best, they got rated less. I don't particularly agree with his ratings, but its his system. :-)

I love Ebert but that is a silly system. Very misleading. :lol:
Yeah, he seems to operate on a "how 'good' is the movie at what it does" basis. I argued against that approach here (http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... 87&#p35587) but nobody gave a damn :D although many people were discussing this point back then (2 days ago, 102 pages back!)
George did reply though. Thank you George ;) you made me happy.
I just read the thing, and I want to say that that post was awesome. Particularly your thoughts on how personal opinion should be the one thing that decides whether or not something is "good" or "bad". I'm glad I read it. :clap:

Also, I think that Ebert is right to be judging a film based on its own ambitions, but wrong to judge them on a different scale. If nothing else, it's easier to understand just how good he thinks a film is when you know that a four star film is, in his opinion, better than anything he gave three stars.
Last edited by Doodlebug on July 14th, 2010, 11:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply