http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/16/entertainment/la-et-inception-20100716
Initiating a thought provoking statement of what all humans experience - dreams - followed by posing a complex higher level "What if..." question is how Los Angeles Times Movie Critic, Kenneth Turan captures his reader's attention for his review of Christopher Nolan's Inception.
Kenneth Turan invites the reader into the magically disturbing world of Inception. To risk going deeper into dreams. He continues the review by praising its writer/director, Christopher Nolan, for his "tremedously exciting science-ficton thriller" and how Nolan was only 16 when he came up with the idea. Noting that Nolan's success in his previous movies, is what enabled him to obtain Oscar-nominted actors and to secure the $160 Million financing to develop the movie into epic.
The reader is begging for more. Turan uses words encouraging the mind to ride the pendulum swing; posing both the intrigue and fear of the origin and control of dreams. The commonality of dreams allows our minds to follow the basic gist of what is happening on screen while the details keep us guessing and questioning reality.
Turan explains the brilliance of Nolan's blending of traditional and modern filmmaking. The typical plot and character roles yet set with ground-breaking science-fiction flair. Brief yet descriptive words of key and minor characters holds the interest of the reader and makes them wonder what this cast is going do next - who is going to become the real hero? Who falls in love with who?
Turan validates the superiority of the director by making statements that Nolan does not lose sight of the big picture while executing the details of the film. This is enhanced by mentioning the success of the history of the creative "dream-team"; director of photography, editor, special effects, composer and the like.
Essentially what Turan is trying to get across to the audience is that Christopher Nolan has taken the already thought-provoking word dream and catapults the complexity and the engineering of what we thought we knew. The talent and creativity of the team makes the events real and special effects believable. This allows the audience to be part of the journey and not mere spectators. The reader is almost certainly compelled to head to the theater.
3 comments:
the movie itself is very confusing and writting a review on it dosent seem like it would be the easiest task but this critic does a pretty good job. As for your review of the review the only slightly awkward thing is how many paragraphs you decided to divide it into
The movie was absolutely confusing until i watched it a second time. Your review of the review seemed very funny and entertaining. It kept me reading.
Drew,
A strong post with some interesting ideas. Be careful to provide concrete examples for assertions you make. For example, you write, "Turan uses words encouraging the mind to ride the pendulum swing; posing both the intrigue and fear of the origin and control of dreams." . . . which words? What do you mean "traditional and modern filmmaking"? (Both of these words could mean a host of different things.) Ideally, you'd quote the reviewer here and there as well, which can sometimes help bolster your assertions.
Well put here: "Turan validates the superiority of the director by making statements that Nolan does not lose sight of the big picture while executing the details of the film."
Post a Comment