Dopo le recensioni di Variety e The Hollywood Reporter e l’anticipazione di quella di Rolling Stones, sono uscite quelle dei quotidiani in vista dell’uscita in sala di oggi.
Il fronte unitario ed entusiasta che ha coinvolto anche Roger Ebert (****), Kenneth Turan del LATimes (****) e Richard Corliss di Time (****), ha trovato soprattutto a New York un contraltare guidato da A.O.Scott nel NYTimes che ha bocciato il mondo onirico di Nolan.
Scrive Ebert sul Chicago Sun-Times:
The story can either be told in a few sentences, or not told at all. Here is a movie immune to spoilers: If you knew how it ended, that would tell you nothing unless you knew how it got there. And telling you how it got there would produce bafflement. The movie is all about process, about fighting our way through enveloping sheets of reality and dream, reality within dreams, dreams without reality. It’s a breathtaking juggling act, and Nolan may have considered his “Memento” (2000) a warm-up.
Like the hero of that film, the viewer of “Inception” is adrift in time and experience. We can never even be quite sure what the relationship between dream time and real time is. The hero explains that you can never remember the beginning of a dream, and that dreams that seem to cover hours may only last a short time. Yes, but you don’t know that when you’re dreaming. And what if you’re inside another man’s dream? How does your dream time synch with his? What do you really know?
The movies often seem to come from the recycling bin these days: Sequels, remakes, franchises. “Inception” does a difficult thing. It is wholly original, cut from new cloth, and yet structured with action movie basics so it feels like it makes more sense than (quite possibly) it does…
Yet few directors will attempt to recycle “Inception.” I think when Nolan left the labyrinth, he threw away the map.
Ancora più deciso Kenneth Turan:
Welcome to the world of “Inception,” written and directed by the masterful Christopher Nolan, a tremendously exciting science-fiction thriller that’s as disturbing as it sounds. This is a popular entertainment with a knockout punch so intense and unnerving it’ll have you worrying if it’s safe to close your eyes at night.
The reason all these diverse elements successfully come together is Nolan’s meticulous grasp of the details necessary to achieve his bravura ambitions. A filmmaker so committed he does his own second unit direction, Nolan is one of the few people, to quote F. Scott Fitzgerald on film mogul Monroe Stahr in “The Last Tycoon,” “able to keep the whole equation of pictures in their heads.”
Because he’s been so successful, Nolan, like Clint Eastwood, has been able to return again and again to the same creative team, which includes exceptional director of photography Wally Pfister, sharp-eyed editor Lee Smith and composer Hans Zimmer, whose propulsive score helps compel the action forward.
Speaking of Paris, it’s one measure of how wide-ranging Nolan’s influences are that he used the classic Edith Piaf song “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien” as a key plot element. The pleasure of “Inception” is not that Nolan, as the song says, regrets nothing, it’s that he has forgotten nothing, expertly blending the best of traditional and modern filmmaking. If you’re searching for smart and nervy popular entertainment, this is what it looks like.
Di diverso avviso Tony Scott sul Times, il quale confessa di non aver amato neppure The Dark Knight:
The accomplishments of “Inception” are mainly technical, which is faint praise only if you insist on expecting something more from commercial entertainment. That audiences do — and should — expect more is partly, I suspect, what has inspired some of the feverish early notices hailing “Inception” as a masterpiece, just as the desire for a certifiably great superhero movie led to the wild overrating of “The Dark Knight.” In both cases 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.
But though there is a lot to see in “Inception,” there is nothing that counts as genuine vision. Mr. Nolan’s idea of the mind is too literal, too logical, too rule-bound to allow the full measure of madness — the risk of real confusion, of delirium, of ineffable ambiguity — that this subject requires.
Eppure Scott fa fatica a spiegare davvero perchè il film di Nolan non l’ha convinto. Il suo sembra essere un rifiuto più ideologico che razionale: è forse il cinema stesso a non poter davvero rappresentare il mondo dei sogni, a suo avviso…
And the limitations of “Inception” may suggest the limits not only of this very talented director, but also of his chosen art form at this moment in its history. Our dreams feed the movies. The movies feed our dreams. But somehow, our imaginations are still hungry.
Certo Nolan punta in alto…
And movies, more often than not these days, are made out of other movies. “Inception,” Christopher Nolan’s visually arresting, noir-tinged caper, is as packed with allusions and citations as a film studies term paper. Admirers of Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” and Stanley Kubrick’s “2001” will find themselves in good company, though “Inception” does not come close to matching the impact of those durable cult objects.
Scott si sofferma quindi sui lati positivi del film:
Which is to say that the time — nearly two and a half hours — passes quickly and for the most part pleasantly, and that you see some things that are pretty amazing, and amazingly pretty: cities that fold in on themselves like pulsing, three-dimensional maps; chases and fights that defy the laws that usually govern space, time and motion; Marion Cotillard’s face.
Ms. Cotillard, her most famous movie role evoked by occasional eruptions of Édith Piaf on the “La Vie en Rose” soundtrack, is the film’s principal enigma and its chief signifier of emotion. She is not, however, exactly a character in “Inception.”