I think it's a typical Nolan film. We will glean more with repeat viewings. I've seen it once and still have some things to figure out. Watched a couple of YouTube videos and can't wait to look for some of the things that were pointed out in those.
The problem with "smart" movies is they fall in love with trying to go over the heads of most if it's viewers. This often leads to a convoluted plot.
Good script writers and dialogue can mitigate this.
Hitchcock films were considered smart for it's time, the plot twists were clear to the viewer.
Nolan's films most people just don't know what is going on. But his fans seem to like this.. they can text/debate online and watch it repeatedly.
It's not that smart.
And people have trouble following not the main idea of the movie ... but the small details that construct the idea. One small detail here that you miss will not stop you from understanding the whole plot. Ok, I missed the detail of SPOILER Neil being the one that saved him in the Opera END_SPOILER. Did that change in anyway the rest of the movie? Not really.
BTW, they never bother to explain how Neil got back in time several (a lot??) of years ...
You're mom's too smart.
shareI think Nolan found the line with this one... How much can an audience accept?
There's a point where you have gone too far over everyone's head, it is pointless to bother watching. This film comes very close to that, yet still made perfect sense (beyond the leaps that fiction should always be allowed to make).
Many people couldn't figure it out, yet many others totally got it. So, line found.
I'd prefer movies that do try and push against the smart boundry, verses a restriction that movies stay below that (dummed down) to reach more people.
There's a fine line between clever and stupid.
shareYes, but i also feel it was a jumbled mess of what should have been split in to two movies at least.
share