Armond White and Annalee Newitz will be guests on the Slashfilm Cast this week to talk about Inception. You can hear them record the show live here www.Slashfilm.com/live at 9 pm EST today(Monday), the show is normally posted as a podcast by midnight Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.
Inception Review Discussion (240 total)
Posts: 190
Joined:
July 2010
"trolling is nog allowed in the chatbox"Fallglimmer05 wrote:Armond White and Annalee Newitz will be guests on the Slashfilm Cast this week to talk about Inception. You can hear them record the show live here http://www.Slashfilm.com/live at 9 pm EST today(Monday), the show is normally posted as a podcast by midnight Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.
Hmmm, but isn't Armond White a troll as well? :JGLface:
Posts: 190
Joined:
July 2010
I'm actually interested in hearing how White comes off in person, especially because based on their twitter reactors the rest of the people that are show liked the film to varying degrees. I'm interested to see if he acts as mean spirited as he does in print.
Posts: 5
Joined:
July 2010
A.O. Scott's review was appropriately changed to "fresh" by RT just a few minutes ago.
The tomatometer increased to 85%!
The tomatometer increased to 85%!
A.O. Scott's review was appropriately changed to "fresh" by RT just a few minutes ago.
The tomatometer increased to 85%!
Posts: 1
Joined:
July 2010
Read and share Inception reviews from real fans like us on Inception Wiki: http://inception.wikia.com/wiki/Inception_Reviews
Posts: 55632
Joined:
May 2010
A.O. Scott's review was appropriately changed to "fresh" by RT just a few minutes ago.
The tomatometer increased to 85%!
Someone on another forum I go to said that when she saw Inception, the "jaded New York audience" laughed at the ending instead of gasping at it.
I went, "So...this explains everything regarding NY critics and this movie."
I went, "So...this explains everything regarding NY critics and this movie."
I feel sorry for all the New Yorkers who get lumped in with people like that.
I just need to post this because it's somewhat of what I've been feeling the past two days about Inception and Nolan. From Jeff Wells' site, titled Full Tank. http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2010/07/full_tank.php
"A financial-sector guy who always sends me reactions to HE stories rather than post a public comment says he's totally smitten by Inception. "I saw it yesterday and the only knock I can come up with on it is that it might be too good," he writes.
"I was telling some co-workers that this guy might be the answer to every gripe people have about Hollywood these days. 'There are no original stories,' 'Too much CGI,' 'Sick of 3D,' 'Everything is dumbed down,' etc. Nolan is making high-level high stakes popcorn movies that deliver on almost every angle and in the face of a degree of difficulty that no one else has to face. We are witnessing the natural progression of genius and we have no idea what his ceiling is.
"The only question that exists for Nolan now is not 'can he' but 'for how long can he do it?' Obviously that remains to be seen, but right now at this moment, he's the best screenwriter and director on the planet -- due respect to Ridley, Almodovar, Coens or any other name you want to throw out there. No one else can pull of something this good of this scale twice in a row. We should remember this time when a real genius is at his absolute best and the future looks brighter still. It's a good time to be into stuff like this."
Here's a comment in the article I totally, 100% agree with:
"We are witnessing the natural progression of genius and we have no idea what his ceiling is."
Yes. I got the feeling that a lot of the critical pushback for Inception wasn't railing against the film itself, but rather reflected a lack of enthusiasm on the part of some older critics to really get behind Nolan as a genius-level filmmaker. A.O. Scott's review reflected this, with the absurd line:
"Mr. Nolan's virtuosity as a conjurer of brilliant scenes and stunning set pieces, along with his ability to invest grandeur and novelty into conventional themes, have fostered the illusion that he is some kind of visionary."
It's bizarre. He recognizes Nolan's skill, but refuses to consider him a visionary.
It's like the older critics are afraid to admit that someone under-40, whose mainstream movies have all been released in the 21st century, and has worked within the superhero genre can be considered a "genius". They don't want to acknowledge that Nolan can be considered one of the greats.
He really is outstanding. If he retired today he'd still have made enough excellent movies to be considered a genius. The fact that he has many years of work ahead is very exciting.
"A financial-sector guy who always sends me reactions to HE stories rather than post a public comment says he's totally smitten by Inception. "I saw it yesterday and the only knock I can come up with on it is that it might be too good," he writes.
"I was telling some co-workers that this guy might be the answer to every gripe people have about Hollywood these days. 'There are no original stories,' 'Too much CGI,' 'Sick of 3D,' 'Everything is dumbed down,' etc. Nolan is making high-level high stakes popcorn movies that deliver on almost every angle and in the face of a degree of difficulty that no one else has to face. We are witnessing the natural progression of genius and we have no idea what his ceiling is.
"The only question that exists for Nolan now is not 'can he' but 'for how long can he do it?' Obviously that remains to be seen, but right now at this moment, he's the best screenwriter and director on the planet -- due respect to Ridley, Almodovar, Coens or any other name you want to throw out there. No one else can pull of something this good of this scale twice in a row. We should remember this time when a real genius is at his absolute best and the future looks brighter still. It's a good time to be into stuff like this."
Here's a comment in the article I totally, 100% agree with:
"We are witnessing the natural progression of genius and we have no idea what his ceiling is."
Yes. I got the feeling that a lot of the critical pushback for Inception wasn't railing against the film itself, but rather reflected a lack of enthusiasm on the part of some older critics to really get behind Nolan as a genius-level filmmaker. A.O. Scott's review reflected this, with the absurd line:
"Mr. Nolan's virtuosity as a conjurer of brilliant scenes and stunning set pieces, along with his ability to invest grandeur and novelty into conventional themes, have fostered the illusion that he is some kind of visionary."
It's bizarre. He recognizes Nolan's skill, but refuses to consider him a visionary.
It's like the older critics are afraid to admit that someone under-40, whose mainstream movies have all been released in the 21st century, and has worked within the superhero genre can be considered a "genius". They don't want to acknowledge that Nolan can be considered one of the greats.
He really is outstanding. If he retired today he'd still have made enough excellent movies to be considered a genius. The fact that he has many years of work ahead is very exciting.
