Re: Inception
Yeah, see, he says things like this:
As a courtly and well-mannered gentleman said to me as we both exited the screening earlier in the week, "It was kind of hard to follow, wasn't it Mr. Simon?"
Indeed it was.
No it wasn't! It's not hard to follow at all! It's not convoluted and it's completely linear, just with some parts of it taking place simultaneously and in a longer timespan -- it's like a fractal structure. And then he says weird shit like this:
And I like the movie a lot when, as Page puts it, it suspends the laws of time and space — when, for instance, a locomotive suddenly and for no reason starts barreling through city streets and, especially, when a city folds in on itself and turns a city block into a kind of giant oreo cookie, without the cream filling in the middle.
WTF? Why an Oreo? The defining aspect of Oreos is the cream filling and they aren't folded over, they're two separate biscuits held together with the filling.
And if he thinks there is "no reason" for the freight train, he was not paying attention even a little to the Cobb/Mal backstory.
YOU ARE SAYING WRONG THINGS MR. CRITIC.
Although I do agree that stuff like that should have happened occasionally for no reason, making dreams an unpredictable and dangerous business, there was a very specific reason that they did happen in the movie as made.
This smacks of a guy who didn't get the movie and is trying to say that it's because there's nothing to get. And to an extent, he's right. There's nothing that complex about it (other than the question of how much of it is a meta-dream), no secret you need to unpack a la THE FOUNTAIN. It's pretty straightforward, if intricately woven. An admitted inability to follow it means that he somehow just didn't understand the material at a fundamental level.