People Who Have Not Seen Inception Are Very Eager to Express Opinions About It

by |
07/14/2010 1:57 PM |

The Greatest Filmmaker in the History of Comments Sections.
  • The Greatest Filmmaker in the History of Comments Sections.

I haven’t seen Inception, because this was one of those studio pictures where the studio makes it hard for you to get a screening because they assume their massive marketing budget worked and so now you just want to see it for free, and not that their massive marketing budget worked and so now it’s my job to have an opinion on the film. But knowing what I know about my reactions to previous Christopher Nolan movies, I quite like sometime L contributor Nick Pinkerton’s review of Inception over in the Village Voice: like our own Nicolas Rapold, and many other critics who’ve seen the film, he seems willing to go along with the movie-movie premise, but suggests the high-concept hook is dulled by obviously spelled-out themes and a lack of authentic engagement.

As of this writing, the review, published today, has garnered 37 comments, most of the “Is Nick yet another film dick from NYU or Columbia’s film studies program? Go pontificate about Godard’s latest bout of diarahea or something” variety.

(This bit of reactionary douchecock’s stereotypical image of an effete film snob will seem doubly hilarious if you’ve ever drank beer with Nick.) Nolan skeptic David Edelstein’s negative New York review has similarly garnered 89 combative comments so far (plus one industry-brownnosing faux-populist screed). The film comes out on Friday, remember—almost none of these bile-spewing commenters have actually, you know, seen the film yet.

Critics who go against the tide of public opinion are often, as Edelstein and Pinkerton have been, accused of having written their pans before they saw the movie, at least metaphorically—trolling, that is, for the sake of elitism or name-making contrarianism or whatever the fuck. I’ve always found this hilarious, because, dear internet, I spend more of my time watching movies than you do, and given my chosen profession (which nobody ever got into for the money), I find that the notion of me actively wanting to dislike a movie displays a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how masochistic I am (not very, in fact). But, you know, continue, comments sections, to say that people who didn’t like a movie you haven’t seen knew they didn’t like it before they saw it.

7 Comment

  • Unfortunately for a dumb freak like you, you fail to realise that ALLLL of negative reviews are from NY. the Positives outweigh the negative reviews 13-1 and most of the Negative reviewers say they didnt understand the movie. So basically…they are dumb.

  • So yes they do have the right to comment if the Reviewers from NY have a personal thing against Nolan films or they simply could not understand the story while the Majority of reviewers did. So its either that they are very dumb or very naive

  • And guess where this blog resides. New the fucking York. Ironic that its a New York Blog defending screwed up New York critics?

  • The further undermining thing about a Prick like you is that you actually tagged this article ‘Assholes’

    That shows the fucked up maturity of a New York blogger trying to defend screwed up and Dumb NY critics. With professonalism tagging like that, no wonder New the fucking York critics cant follow a non-linear plot

  • many (if not most!) reviews, not to mention articles or blog posts, come from NY because that’s where media companies are headquartered. Even publications that don’t have “NY” in their title! (Sneaky!)

  • Despite positive reviews from various worldwide locations, for some reason New York is pretty much the only centre of negativity. Why could that be??

  • Because New Yorkers have more discerning tastes than everyone else.