the pride of the prigs
Just read New Yorker's Daniel Denby's review of the movie inception. You can read it on this link: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2010/07/26/100726crci_cinema_denby
What a prig Denby is. I hate self-proclaimed film critic/intellectuals like him. It is not because I thought that inception was a great movie It is not. But it was a fun ride, that's for sure. But this man is ridiculous--he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what inception is--it's a popular hollywood movie--not a filmic piece of art. He analyzes it like it is a film for class. Hello, Mr Denby, can't you understand that this movie is supposed to be for entertainment. Yes, dreams are fertile places for film makers to dig into. But before you sink your claw into something, at least have the decency to look at it for what it is before drawing audacious comparisons. Comparing Nolan's inception to Bunuel's masterpieces is uncalled for and honestly ludicrous.
And just his tone, ugh!! Drives me insane with loathing. It is so chin-up-look-down-on-your-popular-movies. I'm sorry but I can't stomach this kind of arrogance. I know, I over-react, but I hate prigs like that. Comparing Bunuel to Nolan's inception gave that away. Its so : oh-if-you-are-not-smart-enough-to-know-bunuel-then-of-course-you'll-enjoy-trash-like-nolan's inception.
We all know Bunuel is gem. Comparing flashy ad paper to a piece of gem only shows the stupidity of the person comparing it, not how lousy that ad paper is.
He says: "Buñuel was a surrealist— Nolan is a literal-minded man."
Precisely! Then why are you comparing them?
There