Inception

[The Prestige]

Wow. I'm not even sure where to begin. There is just too much to digest. For the most part it's, of course, excellent. Super original ideas. I'm not even sure if I have ever seen a film like this. I really need to watch it a couple of more times to fully digest, but seriously, there is nothing quite like this film. It's a provisional 4 stars for me right now, but there is more to digest. There where a few moments of what I felt was unintentional confusion, but that's the only qualms I have thus far. The ending is wicked.

[meatwadsprite]

Inception 2010

http://i32.tinypic.com/2iudv2s.jpg

Sleep Deprivation Inception

My alarm clock wakes me up at 11:00 AM, resultantly I fall asleep at 12:00 AM. Don't sleep well, get up at 3:00. Then I work from 9 to 6 and I'm ready to drop dead. It's 9:00 PM when Inception starts.

I've fallen in love with dream movies, most of which I was about to fall asleep while viewing the first time. Inception is not that kind of movie, it rewards coffee and red bull. Even half-asleep it's not inaccessible though. It's a psychological heist film, that continues to drop deeper and deeper into the subconscious of a young billionaire. The team already states the instability of dreams within dreams and how inception only has a chance at working, but the stakes aren't realized until they see how Cobb (Dicaprio) has risked all of them.

None of these themes are new, but I can't name a lot of multi-layered dream heist films. Dicaprio gives possibly his grandest performance yet, with Cottilard stepping up to his challenge. The action is what makes Inception though. Time is slowed, buildings collapse and transform, and eventually it's time to raid some arctic complex. This was the biggest detractor from my viewing, you need to be wide awake to follow these action scenes. Nolan is moving the camera like a mad-man and I don't think until I can see this on the the small screen, that I can truly love this movie.

4 this time

[LuDiNaToR]

i cnt wait to see this.

[Juno MacGuff]

Looking forward to seeing this today. Good review.

[christine]

hmm. Mixed feelings. At the beginning absolute confusion, no idea what's going on, thinking jeez this 148 minutes is going to drag mightily. Once Nolan let's you understand what's going on you're at least grateful the story can unfold and take you with it.
The special effects are awesome, the pace manic, the acting good, it's well done no doubt but for me I couldn't understand why the landcapes of the dreams they designed to enter Fischer's mind in order to plant the idea had to be so complicated and on such a huge scale. We ended up in a scenario that was for all the world a James Bond film. I couldn't help thinking that there was a great idea but one which could've worked in a smaller, darker, deeper film not one that played like a computer game.

It didn't drag, in fact the time went quickly, it's a clever film but it didn't satisfy and I wouldn't bother seeing it again. I see it has a 9.3 rating on imdb already which makes it number 83 out of the top 250 films. I think time will sort that one out.

[The Prestige]

Very nice little review, Meat. I find your story about your tiredness quite amusing because I had to wake up very early to see Memento with the rest of my class mates when I watched it for the first time, and was tired thinking I was just going to sleep through the film. Obviously that didn't happen. Yep, Nolan's films will do that stuff to you. Who needs a redbull and coffee when you have a Nolan film, eh?

[Juno MacGuff]

INCEPTION

First off I have to say this movie is far from the typical movies that I go and see and at first when the story began I thought I was going to be blown away and the storyline was going to go so far over my head I wouldn't enjoy it. Within 30 minutes into the film I totally started to grasp bits and pieces of the plot of the movie and tried to sort them the best I could in my own brain. Some of those early thoughts wee correct conclusions and others were way off. I continued to plunge into the storyline as hard as I was plunging into my 6 dollar box of popcorn. The story started to become more and more clear as the characters began to develop and the sense of what the plan they had was going into place. The acting was superb as DiCaprio was brilliant as was the rest of the cast. It wouldn't be a Juno review without a mention of Ellen Page who I thought did a great job in her role. This role for her could definitely land her more prominent type roles in the future. The main thing this film brought to me with it's brilliance is it opened my mind to go deeper into my own exploration of the film world.

[Yoda]

Saw this today. Wow. Just...wow. Review definitely forthcoming. I still need to finish one for Despicable Me, too, but maybe it's for the best, because there's a hell of a lot to digest here.

[The Prestige]

I must admit Juno, I ended up liking Paige's character more than I thought I would, and she did a decent enough job considering it's her, more so than the rest of the other cast, that is the voice of the audience. Christine, i'm not sure if a film that's as high in concept as this would have worked with a smaller budget. The human mind is limitless when unconcious and in order to reflect that, well, I agree with Nolan, you need a pretty big budget.

Anxiously awaiting your review, Yoda. :cool:

[genesis_pig]

Saw the movie twice in 2 consecutive days.

Loved it, this is the movie that I'd love to sit with my friends & discuss over couple of drinks..
Sadly all you people are faraway!!!

[christine]

Christine, i'm not sure if a film that's as high in concept as this would have worked with a smaller budget. The human mind is limitless when unconcious and in order to reflect that, well, I agree with Nolan, you need a pretty big budget.

Hi Pres, I'm glad you liked the film as I know you're a big Nolan fan so it's good to not be let down :). I didn't actually mean a smaller budget film, cos yeah I agree you need the fx to recreate dreams, I really meant something more intimate , more claustrophobic but still with surrealness at the heart. All the shootouts just didn't do it for me, it felt like a dream one of my sons would have after playing computer games all night ;)

[Miss Vicky]

I don't think more intimate dreams really would have worked, actually, and I felt the reasons for the dreams being on such a grand scale were pretty well laid out.

For the training sessions, intimate dreams would be fine. But for the main sequence, no. You have to remember that Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) is a high powered businessman whose subconcious has been trained to guard against these intruders. His subconcious projections are militarized. As such, the maze put forth for him had to be on a huge scale and complex in order for him to believe it. The shootouts were justified because the team were up against Fischer's own subconscious militia.

As for Cobb's (DiCaprio) personal subconscious world, he and his wife spent what equated to 50 years building it. So it stands to reason that it would be on an enormous scale as well.

[Shabutie]

Happy to see positive reviews here for Inception. I hope to check it out this week. Someone please enlighten me some more.

[christine]

I don't think more intimate dreams really would have worked, actually, and I felt the reasons for the dreams being on such a grand scale were pretty well laid out.

For the training sessions, intimate dreams would be fine. But for the main sequence, no. You have to remember that Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) is a high powered businessman whose subconcious has been trained to guard against these intruders. His subconcious projections are militarized. As such, the maze put forth for him had to be on a huge scale and complex in order for him to believe it. The shootouts were justified because the team were up against Fischer's own subconscious militia.

As for Cobb's (DiCaprio) personal subconscious world, he and his wife spent what equated to 50 years building it. So it stands to reason that it would be on an enormous scale as well.

ok, I'll come back on those points. Agreed Fischer is a high powered person, but do all high powered people have to be depicted as having a subconscious that's so defensive? Think about dreams, sometimes you know you're having a dream but you're still not in control. The big budget of the film gave some great fx I'm not denying I did enjoy those, but there could've been some more devious psychological dream invasion that could've used fx just as brilliant.

ok re Cobbs 50 year world, a little sad to see you could've built anothing you wanted and you end up building a high rise city of concrete and glass. So this could've been just a part of their world, but there could've been some amazing scenarios in this section.

Anyway, I'm not even saying I didn't like the film, it's just for me it didn't soar like I imagined it was going to.

[Miss Vicky]

Agreed Fischer is a high powered person, but do all high powered people have to be depicted as having a subconscious that's so defensive?


The movie specifically states that Fischer's subconscious had been trained to defend itself against extractors like Cobb and his team.


ok re Cobbs 50 year world, a little sad to see you could've built anothing you wanted and you end up building a high rise city of concrete and glass. So this could've been just a part of their world, but there could've been some amazing scenarios in this section.

Cobb also specifically states that he and his wife loved that type of building.

[Fenwick]

This is also in my review thread but I reckon it'll get a little more coverage in here.

http://filmonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/inception-film.jpg

Inception

Christopher Nolan/2010/Leonardo Di Caprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Cilian Murphy, Marion Cotillard

The zinger that closed my previous review would better serve this capsule for Inception, a screwball-scramble of a mind-puzzle**** from hot-off-the-block 'sure thing' Christopher Nolan. Inception could allegorize, in smashy-smashy pots 'n pans form, the filmmaking process, with Leo's plucky dream thief a substitute for Nolan, himself an architecht of design. Indeed, this is very 'out-there' for a summer blockbuster, its theology far less dimestore than standard big-budget hokum, but much of this is stymied by repetitive gunfights that make more noise than sense. Make no mistake, this is more Michael Bay than Andrei Tarkovsky, only explosions and visual gymnastics outnumber ideas here. Although it is 12 years, two Batfilms and $170 million later, like his first film Following, made for tuppence in Eraserhead monochrome, Inception is overpopulated with the kind of hocus-pocus that obfuscates rather than illuminates.

[Holden Pike]

The movie specifically states that Fischer's subconscious had been trained to defend itself against extractors like Cobb and his team.

http://www.pastapadre.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/inceptionreview.jpg

Yes, but the point is why is "militarization" the only line of defense? It's a dream, therefore limitless, so why aren't there pink elephants with laser beam eyes or any zillion other elements other than guys in suits with guns? Could nobody in that narrative involved in constructing dreams get beyond The Matrix? There's only the one thing that is really different: the freight train that comes in the middle of the street in the first level of the dream. So why aren't there more differences like that instead of more and more guys with guns? Once the suspected "intruders" of the dream have been identified, why don't the walls just collapse and crush them or fire materialize out of thin air to burn them to crisps? Even with militarization, once the armed defenses realize that they are being shot at as a countermeasure, why don't they turn into bulletproof robots or have invisible force shields? Obviously the answer is a bit of a cheat, to give the dream characters a fighting chance, but armed operatives with no aim who are felled by one single shot by the dream warriors is hardly much of a defense, is it? As the one character says as he ups the size of his armament a bit, "dream bigger". The guys with guns part definitely got very repetitive for me, as well. The train out of nowhere and the anti-gravity hotel are by far the most interesting bits, and that's because they're not more of the well-dressed Keystone Cops.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/8/2009/12/inception10.jpg

The movie definitely works despite these holes, but they are a flaw in imagination and a bit of a narrative cheat.

I think.

[Powdered Water]

Went and saw this last night and wasn't terribly impressed. I thought it was a little over long. And the big "twist" at the very end of the film was so ridiculously predictable even I could see it coming. I thought it unnecessary and pointless.

I completely agree with Christine and will be interested to hear other MoFo's views after a repeated viewing or two. I know I'm not in a huge hurry to see it again.

Holden made a reference to the old A-Team television show in his review. I couldn't agree more. All we really needed at the end was for Cobb to wake up and give us Hannibal's trademark line.

Anywho... 3

[Miss Vicky]

Yes, but the point is why is "militarization" the only line of defense? It's a dream, therefore limitless, so why aren't there pink elephants with laser beam eyes or any zillion other elements other than guys in suits with guns? Could nobody in that narrative involved in constructing dreams get beyond The Matrix? The one thing that is different, the freight train that comes in the middle of the street in the first level of the dream - why aren't there more differences like that instead of guys with guns? Once the "intruders" of the dream have been identified, why don't the walls just collapse and crush them or fire materialize to burn them to crisps?

But Fischer's subconscious only populates the maze with its projections. The maze itself is in the mind of one of the team members and so Fischer's ability to manipulate that environment is limited. The freight train was brought into the equation by Cobb's twisted subconscious, just it was his subconscious that brought his wife in.

I'll agree that part of it, too, is that the characters have to be given a fighting chance but I think a big part of it is that the audience has to believe the world just as much as Fischer has to believe it. Yes, this is taking place in a dream, but it still must have some basis in reality or there's not much sense of actual danger. I think, even in dreams, you can only expect so much suspension of disbelief from the audience.

[Holden Pike]

But Fischer's subconscious only populates the maze with its projections. The maze itself is in the mind of one of the team members and so Fischer's ability to manipulate that environment is limited. The freight train was brought into the equation by Cobb's twisted subconscious, just it was his subconscious that brought his wife in.

Yes, but what good is the training if all it's good for is armed guys who can't hit anything? If the training can't make your subconscious any more effective than that, then he needs to get a refund. Yes, the two great bits in the final dream assault, being the train and the anti-gravity hotel, have NOTHING to do with Fischer's defenses. So then what's the big challenge? They can morph into other projections and do what they want when it helps get them out of a corner they've painted themselves into, but not when it can logically throw up legitimate defenses.

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/inceptionrev1.jpg

That's the problem with such movies, setting limits on the limitless. Why are his defenses just inept soldiers? The only answer the movie gives you on any kind of examination is, "because", like a ten-year-old playing with his action figures. The movie is very clever in lots of ways and a treat visually, but it isn't as deep as it pretends and certainly not airtight. That's the point.


I think, even in dreams, you can only expect so much suspension of disbelief from the audience.

Even in Inception's dreams, maybe.

[meatwadsprite]

The inability of the subconscious solders I think ties into the mental state of Fischer, how powerful Fischer feels himself to be. He buys into the dream as reality, he gets kidnapped and feels helpless - so the subconscious is only going to pursue so hard. Dicaprio convinces him that these men in suits are out to get Fischer and so this also should wear them down.

[Fiscal]

Of course the guards are going to be inept when facing an elite Cobb and his elite team. As would the pink elephants with laser eyes. The film explained why they were there, that seemed plenty for me. What ever defence was there, Cobb and his team were going to excel and move forward...simply because the movie had to move forward.

After all, they did shoot Saito in the chest. They did flip the van several times in a vehicle chase. The defense wasnt that bad.

[The Prestige]

Vicky, Meats and Fischel have hit the nail on the head. Also, some of you guys have to remember that it Cobb has trained Fischer and people like him to use his subconcious as a defense mechanism, but he probably made sure that there are limits to these defenses, to protect his investments, if you will. I think it's an astounding film. Very powerful three dimensional plotting/thinking.

[christine]

Cobb also specifically states that he and his wife loved that type of building.

I know, I heard that too. I like modern glass buildings but if I was living for 50 years in a self imagined environment I wouldn't have them as the sole surroundings. Anyway we're not talking here about what the characters liked or didn't like, making Cobb say that, well, that's just a cop out, we're talking about what the film makers omitted from the vast scale they could've imagined

[christine]

Vicky, Meats and Fischel have hit the nail on the head. Also, some of you guys have to remember that it Cobb has trained Fischer and people like him to use his subconcious as a defense mechanism, but he probably made sure that there are limits to these defenses, to protect his investments, if you will. I think it's an astounding film. Very powerful three dimensional plotting/thinking.

Yes, but to say that someone could train your subconscious as a defence mechanism, is to denigrate the might of human intelligence and the utter delight of the power of human imagination. To confine the subconcious into preprepared vistas and not give us any leeway (apart from Cobb's freight train) to go off at a, very human, tangent, was not where I expected Nolan to go.

[genesis_pig]

Also, some of you guys have to remember that it Cobb has trained Fischer and people like him to use his subconcious as a defense mechanism

where does it say that Cobb trained Fischer?

[meatwadsprite]

Any interpretations of the ending ?

I thought the ending to be ambigious for awhile, but it's pretty conclusive that he's dreaming (kids still the same age, doing the same exact thing as they do in his memory).

I've read some intrepretations that the whole movie is actually Cobb performing inception on himself, which seems a little far fetched right now.

[genesis_pig]

I can agree on the bit about the kids, they seem to be exactly the same way he remembers them to be.

the 2nd thing is highly unlikely, but I was having a thought that maybe Saito planted the idea in cobb's mind...

[thracian dawg]

Highlight spoilers:


Yeah, I think the ending refers to moment he becomes permanently locked into his own fantasy world.


Two reasons support this:


The kids. The story is the authorities believe he's responsible for his wife's death. So he's a fugitive on the run. At least a couple of years must passed since this tragedy. But notice when he's united with his children, they appear to be exactly the same age as his memory of them.

He spins the top and goes to play with his children.


But His wife's deepest darkest secret, the one that she kept locked away was his top. The totem object in which he differentiates between what is dream and reality, but remember this is not her totem object but his.

[The Prestige]

Yes, but to say that someone could train your subconscious as a defence mechanism, is to denigrate the might of human intelligence and the utter delight of the power of human imagination. To confine the subconcious into preprepared vistas and not give us any leeway (apart from Cobb's freight train) to go off at a, very human, tangent, was not where I expected Nolan to go.


I would have to respectfully disagree, mam. ;) I don't think that the defence mechanism in anyway invalidates the idea of the human mind as powerful. I would say it's the other way around, the fact that somebody would have to train subconscious gives you an idea of just how powerful the nature of dream and constructing dreams is. The fact that you would have to defend against such a technologically advanced forced shows you how far the human mind has come.

It seems that you and a few others may have figured there the film will be a bit more random and you guys may have taken the whole 'anything goes' scenario a bit too literally. I think having such things pop in and out would have been too easy, personally. 99.9% of films that deal depict dreams tend to go a bit too over the top, imo.

It's almost like having someone win the lottery and go on a spending spree with most of the money spent in one day. Nolan showed some considerable restraint while still making the film feel very surreal. I agree that there were more gunplay than there should have been, and yes, I would have like to have seen a bit more variety in the subconcious acts, but, really, do you guys honestly think it affects the film to an extent where you would have to take away a star?

[The Prestige]

where does it say that Cobb trained Fischer?


I'm seem to remember Cobb saying something about he had trained Fischer to use his defences in the past but that Fischer doesn't remember or something. Or maybe he meant his team had trained Fischer at one point, which would make a bit more sense, I guess. I'm sure it was said in the 2nd level dream sequence.

[genesis_pig]

I'm seem to remember Cobb saying something about he had trained Fischer to use his defences in the past but that Fischer doesn't remember or something. Or maybe he meant his team had trained Fischer at one point, which would make a bit more sense, I guess. I'm sure it was said in the 2nd level dream sequence.

Nope... that never happened..
If you are referring to the Mr. Charles trick, than that was a trick.

[The Prestige]

Nope... that never happened..
If you are referring to the Mr. Charles trick, than that was a trick.

Ah, right. I think I may have misremembered it then..I really need to watch it a few more times. But Fischer was still trained.

[genesis_pig]

Ah, right. I think I may have misremembered it then..I really need to watch it a few more times. But Fischer was still trained.

Yep he was.. That's why after Saito gets shot, Cobb ends up yelling at Arthur for not doing a proper background check on Fischer.

[The Prestige]

Yep he was.. That's why after Saito gets shot, Cobb ends up yelling at Arthur for not doing a proper background check on Fischer.

I seen, I completely forgot about the scene. Now I remember. Like I said, there was a lot to digest :D

[Miss Vicky]

Yes, but to say that someone could train your subconscious as a defence mechanism, is to denigrate the might of human intelligence and the utter delight of the power of human imagination. To confine the subconcious into preprepared vistas and not give us any leeway (apart from Cobb's freight train) to go off at a, very human, tangent, was not where I expected Nolan to go.

But it doesn't "denigrate the might of human intelligence" to say that one could trick someones subconscious into revealing secret ideas? I don't think it's a big stretch to go from buying into the idea that the subconscious could be tricked in this way to buying into the idea that the subconscious could be trained into guarding against such trickery.

Maybe I just don't have as much faith in human intelligence as you.

[Juno MacGuff]

Wow, these conversations are getting as deep as the film itself. I wouldn't even know where to jump into the conversation because I am having a hard enough time digesting the movie as a whole in the first place and to try to break it down at this moment would totally blow my mind out of the water. I think I need to see this film at least one more time to get a harder grasp on it.

[Fiscal]

some minor spoilers in the last paragraph

I saw Inception again today, and I now feel comfortable writing some thoughts down after I mopped up the drool and picked up my jaw.

Inception is not a lot of things. It's not a psychological examination into the subconscious nor is it a complex character study. So don't expect it to be one. Instead, the film aspires to be a mindbending adventure heist film set in the realms of dreams and in this regard, the film is flawless. With jawdropping and visceral sequences, it not only engages the intellect but also the emotions as it deals with guilt and loss and being haunted by your past. In its own right, it's a masterpiece.

Inception was filled with great performances. Not DiCaprio's best but very solid. I was once again shocked by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. This kid is full of talent. Cillian Murphy stood out as well, in my book.

The vocal and physical reaction Cobb (DiCaprio) abrubtly shrieks into after his wife Mal (Cotillard) jumps from the multi-story window really stuck with me as one of those great moments Leo has in all of his films. Another favorite scene was Fischer speaking with his projection of his dying father in the safe room vault - this was another moment that gave me chills.

I give Inception no less than a perfect 4/4 stars.

[MovieMan8877445]

Inception
Christopher Nolan, 2010

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/the-ticket/Di-Caprio-gun-16.07.10.jpg

Christopher Nolan has done it yet again with his seventh feature film, Inception. Nolan first truly original film might be his greatest yet; maybe he should stick to original ideas in the future. To me this seems as like a cross between the intelligent storytelling of Memento mixed with the look of The Dark Knight. The film really does make you question reality, because it goes so deep into the concept of a dream; and as the film goes on you just go deeper and deeper into the dream. The whole storyline is just so incredibly done. I find it hard to believe that anyone could even think an idea like this up and somehow make it work. There is nothing quite like it.

Of course DiCaprio shines from start to finish, this actually might be one of the most emotionally challenging roles that I’ve seen him. The entire plotline between him and his dead wife, Marion Cotillard, seems like it would’ve been really challenging for an actor to do. Maybe this role might finally get him his long deserved Oscar win. The real shining star of the film, though, is none other than Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I don’t think I’ve made it any real secret that I’m a huge Levitt fan, ever since I saw in (500) Days of Summer just last summer, but he did extraordinarily amazing in Inception. Hopefully this’ll get him the stardom he deserves, with this being his first non-indie film since a decade ago. I hope you all realize that I’m not counting G.I. Joe for a reason. Who I was most surprised about, though was Ellen Page. I hated her, especially in Juno, which may be one of the blandest films I’ve ever seen. I think the fact that her character, Ariadne, was a lot more interesting than all of the other roles I’ve seen her in helped too.

The movie’s score is done by Hans Zimmer, who’s now scored three of Nolan’s films. Most of it was quite amazing, namely the final track on the soundtrack which plays during the final moments of the film. Some of it just doesn’t sound that great to me, but I guess I shouldn’t have expected to love the entire score. The film’s climax is extremely well done as well. The fact that Nolan made the climax an hour and a half long and kept everyone entertained was amazing. Which also brings me to the film’s pacing, and Nolan really knows how to pace a film. There wasn’t a single moment in the film when I started to get bored at all, and I’ve seen it three times already. I guess at some point I’d have to bring up the Kubrick-like ending, too. I think Nolan made a great call leaving the ending open to interpretation rather than just giving us the usual happy ending, even if it did end up leaving some people disappointed.

I think there is no doubt in my mind that this will the best film of the year, no matter what else comes out. This might even be Nolan’s greatest achievement yet, even though I still prefer Memento and The Dark Knight. Also on one last point, the entire hallway fight scene is probably one of the coolest scenes I’ve ever seen in a movie. What’s even more spectacular about it is that Levitt did all those stunts by himself. That just shows you he’s someone who truly loves what he does in life.

4.5

[Yoda]

Yes, but the point is why is "militarization" the only line of defense? It's a dream, therefore limitless, so why aren't there pink elephants with laser beam eyes or any zillion other elements other than guys in suits with guns?
Because it's his subconscious, and nobody's subconscious associates random things like pink elephants with laser beam eyes with the concept of "defense." I'd say, to a person, the first images that word conjures for any of us deep down would be some variation on guys with guns, or a fortress, or any of the other things that we do, in fact, see in Inception.

I get what you're on about, and I'm not unsympathetic to it, but I think the key here is to remember that this isn't his conscious mind. He doesn't have control over it. It does things on its own, so it can't do calculating things like flatten whatever building the good guys are in. It's nebulous, sure, but then again, so is the subconscious.

Yes, but what good is the training if all it's good for is armed guys who can't hit anything? If the training can't make your subconscious any more effective than that, then he needs to get a refund.
This complaint I can understand a good deal more; the projections are annoyingly incompetent at times. That said, it's clearly better than nothing, and even at that level of effectiveness it probably makes sense for the titans of industry to have it done in a world where psychological corporate espionage is a possibility.

I also really like meatwad's explanation that their effectiveness reflects Fischer's state of mind, as well as Fiscal's points that they did manage a thing or two. They were ineffective more in terms of efficiency, or ratio of bullets fired to targets hit...but as a swarm they got things done eventually, and I think we can presume they would have overwhelmed the good guys if things had gone on much longer.

What I really would have liked to have seen are the good guys using genuine creativity to outsmart the more predictable projections. This would explain why they're able to withstand the assault so well and dovetail perfectly with the film's recurring themes about the raw power of inspiration. It fits so well I'm kind of stunned it wasn't employed in this manner.

[Yoda]

Re: the ending. I completely and totally (but respectfully :)) disagree with some of the interpretations above...

...the top level is not a dream. I feel very strongly about this. I also feel very strongly that we're meant to ask ourselves that question, anyway, so I can understand why some people's thoughts are drifting this way.

To me, the only real point in this favor of any weight is that the kids look about the same. But really, do we even know how long it's been? A few years? Heck, do we even know that the versions he sees in his head aren't warped, or his attempt to compensate for their aging by making them appear about as old as they are? What about videos/pictures? He might know exactly what they look like.
The key point, I think, is this:

The top wobbles. He puts the top on the table. This item is a direct and blatant representation of whether or not we're in reality. That's its entire reason for existing. When in the dream world, it can spin forever. The fact that it wobbles -- albeit slightly -- tells us everything. This is the real world.
But really, before the film even started I expected that, at some point, the question "is the top level also a dream?" would be posed. It was inevitable. But Nolan's too smart, in my opinion, to do something so obvious, and which so thoroughly undermines the potency of his own drama.

[Yoda]

Sorry, triple-post, but it's necessary to space out the different lines of discussion!

Just finished reading an awesome interview with Dileep Rao (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inceptions_dileep_rao_answers.html), who played the chemist in Inception. This is a must-read for anyone spending any time speculating as to the film's meaning and ending. It solidifies a lot of things I assumed and felt about the film, and Rao's arguments are remarkably persuasive and eloquent.

I'm going to reproduce some of the best/most relevant bits. Spoilers abound, so stop reading now if you haven't seen the film yet!

So what about the final shot, when the top seems like it could keep spinning before we cut to black. Let's call it the n-1 theory, where the whole film is all a dream, even the "reality" level. In other words, every level is one lower than we think it is.
Yeah. I don't think the "It's all a dream" theory makes much sense to me, because where is "the real" Cobb? We never see n. We never see reality. We have no idea who this man is, what his circumstances are. To me, there's really only two paths: either it's a wobbling top, which it does sound like at the end, and it's real; or the whole thing, regardless of totems, moments, girls, children, people, machines, the whole thing — it's all some dream. And that's more philosophy. I think the film does this wonderful exploration of the entire idea to the nth degree. It feels so full. Because of that, there's so many weird bits that seem to warp our sense of the real and unreal.

I felt a very dreamlike feeling when Cobb is being chased by the Cobol guys and Ken Watanabe shows up to save him. I mean, squeezing through the wall when they're coming for him, I've had so many nightmares like that.
Archetypes. We all dream in certain ways. Teeth falling out, being chased... and that stuff is poignant. But the more you explore it, the more you realize that Chris has already thought about it. I think there is a definitive answer, but it's hidden so you have to take time to think about it. But I do think it's real because it's an Apostatic act on art itself to suddenly say "Well none of this happened, and I have no explanation."

What if Leo is the one being "incepted" with an idea (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inception_theory.html)? We keep hearing the phrase "Do you want to become an old man, filled with regret?" and it's like someone — maybe Ellen Page's character because she's the catalyst of his emotional catharsis — has set this all up so he can let go of his regret over Mal's death. That's why at the end with Saito he offers to come back and be young again (not old, full of regret). Even the Edith Piaf song they use to signal ten seconds before kick translates to "No, I regret nothing." And there's so many scenes where Ellen Page is talking to Leo, getting him to reveal his issues, in the same way that Eames tricks Fischer into revealing his issues. Also, Leo's kids are the same age at the end, right?
I'm not trying to be authoritative, so this is just my understanding of how I approached it from my work on it. But you're saying it's like some sort of crazy-ass psychotherapy session where the whole thing is a constructed narrative of massive complexity only to distract Cobb so that he will achieve his change? I mean sure, you could totally say that that's what it is. In a way, that's what we're doing to Fischer, so it's not unfounded.

The problem for me is that you're using negative evidence to support a story that isn't there. I don't know what to say about a character who only exists before and after the movie. You're talking about a character who isn't on screen. And I mean on one hand, it's awesome that this movie can sustain that kind of discussion. It shows you just how well-though-through and comprehensive it is, but I mean I don't know where that kind of speculation ends. It's like people who are convinced 9/11 is an inside job. It's a mental heuristic failure to think that one or two minor details explain absolutely everything. I mean, kids wear the same clothes all the time.

To me, it's a far more elegant story if it's a vast job that Leo has to pull off. The threat is real, the growth is real, the adversary is real. The weakness of "It's all a dream" — why we hate that, why we feel cheated when narratively anything is revealed to be all a dream — is that you've just asked me to spend so much time and emotional capital investing in the stakes of this, and you've now swept it away with the most anti-narrative structuralism that doesn't have anything to substitute in its place. It's laughing at you for even taking it seriously. You don't want to feel like a victim of the narrative, and I don't think Christopher Nolan would do that.

That last paragraph is worth reading more than once.

This part's really funny:

I think a lot of people are confused by the ending/beginning where Ken Watanabe is an old man in limbo, but Leo is still super handsome.
Well, two ideas. One: Leo is aged too, but he's been down there less time and from a younger age. Cobb is in his forties and Saito in the eighties by the time they meet.


Is there anything to the idea that Leo knows he's in limbo?
Well that's option two: He knows where he is, so he can keep track a bit better of where he is, who he is.


Ellen Page warns him something along those lines just before she leaves him in limbo...
But Leo also starts out younger. In fact, he looks even younger in real life than as Cobb in the film. He looks so young!


I kept thinking about how much he looks like Bizarro Chris Nolan.
He does! It's weird.


And if movies are the director's dream, that means Leo as Nolan is...
Stop.:laugh:

Anyway, in short, I completely agree with Rao: I think the idea that the top level is a dream is a fun thought, and something we're supposed to ask, but Nolan gave us about as much evidence that it's real as he could without spoiling all the fun, so to speak. The top wobbling is plenty, and all the reasons it might actually be a dream are circumstantial and easily explained away. And, as Rao suggests at the end of the interview, the most important part is that Leo has gained a faith he didn't have before.

I'm glad that I wasn't the only who thought DiCaprio's character looked a helluva lot like Nolan, too.

[meatwadsprite]

re yoda

Just how real is the "real" world he inhabits ? Dicaprio appears from country to country assembling his team, Saito can do whatever he wants, agents chase Dicaprio in the real world just as the subconscious chases him in the dreams.

I really hadn't put it together that his memory of the children would include them being their current age, but in all of his other memories on the elevator - they are pretty much time capsule moments. On top of that, the kids are still doing the exact same thing, in the same spot, mirroring his memory of them.

On your question of how long he's been away, it's only like 2 years.

[christine]

What I really would have liked to have seen are the good guys using genuine creativity to outsmart the more predictable projections. This would explain why they're able to withstand the assault so well and dovetail perfectly with the film's recurring themes about the raw power of inspiration. It fits so well I'm kind of stunned it wasn't employed in this manner.

exactly!

and thanks for posting that interview with Dileep Rao Yoda. It reminded me that the part where Cobb squeezed through that tiny gap was the bit that had my heart beating faster, cos I have nightmares about being trapped in caves and having to squeeze out. Nice touch that. Now if they would've had a bit where his teeth crumbled away that would've had me in pieces!

I agree that the end is reality. The top did wobble and I don't like the age old ending 'it was all a dream'. Surely Nolan wouldn't do that! it's just a tease.

by the way isn't it nice to have a film that has meat enough for a proper discussion!

[Yoda]

Finally got my review done. Pretty hard to put this one into words, particularly given that I wanted to describe as little of the plot as possible.

Inception

http://www.movieforums.com/images/main/inception_main.jpg (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/inception.html)

More M.C. Escher than The Matrix. The delicate balance between rabbit-hole and reality was always going to be the film's greatest challenge, but Nolan keeps it from toppling....READ MORE

4.5

[Juno MacGuff]

Fantastic review.

[The Prestige]

Excellent review and interview, Yoda. I completely agree that the ending was reality too, but to be fair, I can see why some people would say otherwise (the aforementioned childrens clothes, the idea of Inception itself) That's what I love about the ending, though. It's vintage Nolan and although it comes across as open ended, there is a true answer there.

Like Yoda said, the totem never stopped spinning during the dream sequences, it always spun perfectly. Considering that we were taken on a wild journey throughout the film with Cobb, it would have been a bit too harsh not to reward him and us, the audience somehow.

I think that the addition of the wobbling top also calls forth the notion of reality blurred with fantasy, and that reinforces the films theme of 'how do you tell the difference between the two?'

The whole thing being a dream thing does not make any sense at all, for reasons others have stated, the biggest evidence against that being that there were mildly intimate scenes between other characters other than Cobb. Plus what do they have to gain by performing inception on Cobb anyway????

[Yoda]

The whole thing being a dream thing does not make any sense at all, for reasons others have stated, the biggest evidence against that being that there were mildly intimate scenes between other characters other than Cobb.
Great point. That's a total narrative cheat if we're really to believe it was all a dream.

Also, I'm almost certain that, earlier in the film, Cobb wakes up (and is therefore on the "top" level) and spins the totem, and watches it stop. How could that happen if even the top level is a dream?

To my mind, these are two separate, definitive marks against the theory. It's a fun theory, but it's also a bit too obvious for a filmmaker like Nolan. The whole thing reeks of amusing red herrings to generate speculation, rather than actual clues as to some hidden meaning.

[Powdered Water]

I think the top level is reality as well. I just think the addition of the spinning top was, heh... over the top, is all. I knew the second I saw it, that tons of people would be talking it up and trying to sell me on how brilliant it was. Hey, good for Nolan. He's used a few tricks to get more people interested in his movie.

I seriously think though, that anyone saying this is his best film ever, really needs to go back and see some of his earlier films. I'm not even including TDK (which I think is his best), no, I mean, start with Following and then go to Memento. They are so much simpler but so much better than Inception.

The only reason I see that most folks aren't piling on this movie as a big dumb action flick is because it has apparently made many of you stop and think about some things, I guess.

That's cool though, Zombie movies make me stop and think about stuff too. Probably why I like them so much.

[Yoda]

Well, I do think it's probably his best film, and I've actually seen both Following and Memento within the last couple of months, so both are pretty fresh in my mind. Granted, I'm totally subject to change my mind on this, because Memento, both Batman films, and Inception, are pretty much all bunched at the top of the list for me. It's not 1, 2, 3, 4, so much as 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d. I suspect it could end up at something like 1c after many viewings, but it's hard to say.

All I know is that it's right up there in the thick of things; whether or not it's technically his best is slicing pretty thin, given how much I like the other candidates.

[Powdered Water]

Fair enough. And I plan to see this again so, my rating may go up slightly. Something about the flick left me really cold though and I'm not sure if that's going to change.

[WBadger]

Before seeing this film, I knew Christopher Nolan had the ability to make really good films but I didn't think he had the abilities to make a film of this high caliber and depth. So I guess you could say it is the inception, IMO.

[The Prestige]

It's tough one. I think, for now, I will have to put Inception on par with The Dark Knight, which I consider to be '1b'. I'm going to watch it a couple of more times and come up with proper verdict as to where it stands. It's definitely better than Following, but i'm not sure if I think it's better than Memento, but at this point I can say it's pretty damn close. It's certainly the most ambitious film he has ever created and does more than enough to rise to it's ambitions.

I did this thing earlier in the year where I watched everyone of Nolan's films on the 16th of each month starting from January and finishing, of course, by Inception's release date, and I think that the films holds up well with the others. But need to watch it again.

[Yoda]

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether or not I'd be seeing it again, but now I'm pretty sure I will.

[The Prestige]

Repeat viewings won't harm, that's for sure. What do you think of the film's chances at the oscars?

[meatwadsprite]

Not good.

[Yoda]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing...it just doesn't strike me that way, as much as I like it.

The best bet is probably a nod for Best Original Screenplay. Best Director might be possible, given how monumental and ambitious it is. But if I had to bet on just one category it'd be on the former, and it wouldn't shock me if it were completely shut out.

[genesis_pig]

I think Dark Knight had more chances at Oscar for Best Movie.

[Fiscal]

This is a pretty nice visual:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=6772&stc=1&d=1279649971

[TheUsualSuspect]

Just got back from seeing Inception.

Writing review now.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Inception

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/INCEPTION-005.jpg

In trying not to give too many plot details away, I'll sum up the story of Inception with this. A team of people use a device to go into another person's dream. While there they can do things such as extract information, or even plant ideas. That's about as far as I will go; it's the basic plot of the film that most people already know. Much like District 9 and Avatar (at least for me) the less you know about the film, the better.

Christopher Nolan, with Inception, has created a masterpiece. It's hard for me to heap such praise on the guy who has a small film resume under his name, but he has, in my opinion, 3 films that will never be forgotten. Memento, The Dark Knight and now Inception are all films that I hold in high regard. It's funny, right after The Dark Knight, I heard Nolan was planning on making Inception, instead of a third Batman film, I was a little ticked off. I wanted another Batman film, not some side project. It's ironic that I enjoyed Inception more than The Dark Knight.

Inception is a multi-layered film that has so much going on that it might seem intimidating. Yet, you never lose sense of where you are. Nolan is able to pull off this feat remarkably. People go into multiple dreams and different levels and the viewer never loses a sense of where. Nolan shows nothing but confidence and creativity in this film. It's not afraid to challenge you a little bit. I'm not saying it dives into deep philosophical issues here, but it is enough juice to get people thinking.

Inception had me giddy and smiling all the way through. It's very hard for a film to do that. There was one scene in particular, where I was not only in amazement at how utterly and ridiculously awesome it was, but how simple it was to achieve. The scene is the hallway fight sequence in which gravity no loner seems to be an issue. The simplest form is used, moving and twisting the set, and Nolan makes it look ten times better than anything else we've seen in recent years.

Nolan creates films that people really need to wrap their heads around. He is the next big thing. Hell, he is the big thing. He is the hottest director right now that has yet misstep. Nolan and his brother have created an original piece of art here, a crime caper if you will, that involves going into the subconscious. The creativity is off limits, as seen by the section of the city overlapping itself. I loved how they have taken things that you feel and think about while dreaming and incorporated it in to the film. In order to wake up you need a kick, that feeling that you're falling. I've felt it and I love that they have incorporated things like that.

There is a lot to talk about with Inception, even the ending, which in my mind was Nolan having a little bit of fun. Obviously that question would pop up sometime in the film, but Nolan knows not to go that route. I think it's there simply to get people talking while he laughs at his own little joke. In any event, I'll through my two cents in by simply saying I'm an optimist.

I hear that people aren't that big a fan of Ellen Page. I think she did fine holding her own against DiCaprio, who shines yet again much like his tortured role in Shutter Island. My one complaint about her is that she was a bit intrusive of characters and their dreams. The film feels a little bit like a Batman reunion. Michael Cain has a small role, but Cillian Murphy and Ken Watanabe both have integral parts to the story. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who I couldn't stand on 3rd Rock From The Sun, is quickly becoming a favourite of mine. Marion Cotillard has an interesting role and her performance, other than DiCaprio, has the most emotional depth to it. Every single addition to the cast is a perfect mold for this world.

I really loved this film, for it's running time, it never drags. It's always interesting and engaging the viewer. It doesn't slow down to explain things, and doesn't really need to. It might seem confusing at first, but like Ellen Page's character, the viewer is a quick learner. Inception is the best film of this year and another achievement that Nolan can be extremely proud of. I like that it's an original idea and it seems to be doing well, we need more films like Inception.

4.5

[kirbinator93]

First off, Inception was an amazing movie. If you didnt like it then you didnt understand it. I am not bragging or thinking im a movie buff here, because im not at all (I go to a movie maybe once a month at best). I just felt that I actually got 95% of this movie which for me made the movie. If this guide doesnt help you that much, try wikipedia - Inception. So here it is some things in random order, because I was trying to write everything before I forgot, that will help you "get" Inception. Also, there might be some things in here that are completely obvious TO you but I felt a need to put some basics just in case.

***OBVIOUSLY SPOILERS***

* ANYTHING MARKED WITH A (?) -mean I am not 100% sure* Please comment below with any additional facts, theories, etc

1) The old man at the end and begginning of the movie is Satio, or the asain guy in the group.
2)All dreams that Cobb, Leonardo Decaprio, enters are under his perception which is why he constantly sees his wife and kids.
3) Satio died on the snow fortress where he went to limbo. He is so old because of the time difference. Satio and Cobb have a conversation when he gets shot saying that he will be an old man and he wont remember the "arrangements" when back in the real world. Satio remembers the arrangements in the end.
4) The top, that Cobb always spins, determines wether he is in real life (if it stops) or a dream (just keeps spinning)
5) The time difference is a key part and as Cobb says an hour in the first dream level is about 5 min. in real life. I believe that the further you get in a dream (level 1-4/limbo) time becomes slower and slower.
6) The girl whos name is apparently Aradnia bulit all the levels (rainy city-hotel- snowfortress) (?)
7) Mal , wife, represents Cobb's guilty conscience
8) In continuation with 7, Cobb performed his first Inception on Mal which causes her to believe that she is in a dream when she is in fact in real life, since the only way to return is to be killed, she jumps off a building.
9)Everyone remebers the dream besides Mr.Fisher (the man whos dream they invade)
10)The mission- to elimate Satio's buisness competition
11)The mission was to set him free because Satio promised to clear Cobbs name...
12)Cobb was under suspicion of murder of his wife...
13)Which explains why he flees to a foreign nation and the scene that is "in" his memory where the guy gives him the ticket and he takes it.
14) A key thing to remeber is that they are on the airplane in real life the whole time, the stages there after are this :
-Rainy City
-Hotel
-Snow Fort
-Limbo
15) A kick is needed to drop down a level, it is explained in the movie as the feeling your falling while sleeping. ..
16) A man must remain behind on each "stage" of the dream to watch over the bodies and must provide the kick back. ..
17) They time the kicks : exploding the snow building, exploding the elevator, and the van falling into water all at virtually the same time.
18) They time this with music
19)Aradnia was needed as a new architect since the old one failed (why?)
20)The cafe scene was "practice" they were in Cobb's dream. She died quickly because she changed too much of the surroundings.
21) One of the men in the group has the power to manipulate ones minds to think they are someone else (acts as Uncle Peter and hot blonde)
22) The opposition is the minds ,Fishers, defenses.
23) Pain is real in a dream and real life, only death brings you back.
24) Extraction and stealing an idea, NOT inception, is what Cobb is good at.
25) Noone but Aradnia knows that Cobb has a problem when facing his past with Mal, which could and does result in an obstacle.
26) Fisher is convinced he is in his Uncles consciene when in the snow base when he is really just deeper in his own dream.
27) The people stare at you when you do something that might cause the dreamer to know hes dreaming, when you change the environment.
28) Since Aradnia built all the levels she knows there is a pipe line on the snow building.
29) A totem is an item each member carries around that will tell them if they are in the real world or a dream.
30) Mal and Cobb were in limbo together for about 50 years. Cobb grew disgust with limbo and planted the seed of inception into Mals mind.
31) THE ENDING - an amazing ending as well as many theories as to what happened. Here are just a couple
- He is still in a dream, since he went to Limbo (met Satio there)
- He is in real life, which could be proven from them waking up on the airplane, the top wobbling at the end (even though the cliffhanger tells us otherwise?)
- Satio shot Cobb and himself, had the gun when he was the old man at the end, bringing them somehow back to real life.
-The entire movie is a dream.
- The top or totem as the movie calls it was Mals, and therefore Cobb never had a totem meaning the top was false.

So thats all for now, I knwo I rambled but wow what an amazing movie. Its going to be hard to top that. Please Please comment on anything I/you missed as well as your idea or theory of what happened at the end.

[genesis_pig]

Wow... You got the movie dude!!..
But guess what, so did everyone...

I hope you didn't feel MoFo is full of dumb "Movie Buffs" who watch a lot of films but don't get them.. (Since this your first post and your opening line was a bit rude..)
But nice for you, I am glad you spent a monthly movie experience well..

Welcome to MoFo BTW, enjoy your stay.. intellectual people are always welcome.

[Fiscal]

1) The old man at the end and begginning of the movie is Satio, or the asain guy in the group.


:rotfl:

Stopped reading after number 1.

[Yoda]

Yeah, most of that's really, really obvious. And some of it's wrong; like #15. You need a kick to move up a level, not drop down one.

Anyway, nice review TUS. Really glad you dug it.

[meatwadsprite]

Hoping to see this again Saturday.

[The Prestige]

Another great review, Suspect. I too didn't mind Ellen Paige much in the film. She did a bit better than I thought she would, and didn't feel out of place, which is feat given the caliber of actors around her.

Quite surprised to hear that you were initially disappointed that Nolan wasn't doing the third Batman straight away, though. I loved The Dark Knight too, but I would a bit upset had he gone on to do the next one straight away. But yeah, I figured you would like the film and glad that you do. Again, great review kiddo.

[christine]

If you didnt like it then you didnt understand it.

I hate it when people say that!

[Kuhlade]

I guess the cheese stands alone and I am the cheese.
Bitterly disappointed! Grossly bloated with special effects, overly
saturated with testosterone and ultimately, a rip-off of two former
80's films, Brainstorm and Dreamscape, both of which I found to have
much more substance. With a two and a half hour runtime, it quickly
became no more than an assault on the senses. Once again, I was duped
into wasting my money on an over-hyped behemoth with no redeeming
qualities. As for the performances, DiCaprio came off as being slightly
miscast, it seemed to me that he had to work a little too hard to get
his lines out. It felt like Page, whom I do adore, was thrown in at the
last minute for some token estrogen. I do always love to see Caine in
small but meaty roles, this one was small but hardly meaty. AKA
'Inception: The Imax Experience' says it all. Basically, just a
showcase for SFX on a very big screen.

[genesis_pig]

But if you hate it then you didn't understand it.

:rotfl:

[christine]

:facepalm:
:laugh:

[Yoda]

Just a quick note: did anyone else catch the Inception prequel comic online? It's called "The Cobol Job" and details some of the events leading up to the movie's beginning:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/inception-comic.html

I think this represents another noteworthy mark against the "everything we see is a dream" theory, because it establishes a world outside the film, and we see Cobb's totem stop spinning in it, as well.

[therumsgone]

Just a quick note: did anyone else catch the Inception prequel comic online? It's called "The Cobol Job" and details some of the events leading up to the movie's beginning:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/inception-comic.html

I think this represents another noteworthy mark against the "everything we see is a dream" theory, because it establishes a world outside the film, and we see Cobb's totem stop spinning in it, as well.

Thanks for pointing that out, hadn't seen that yet!

I saw the movie Monday night, and needed to wrap my head around it for awhile before I felt like saying anything about it.

Once again Chris Nolan shows that he is a master of utilizing film to tell stories that might be impossible to tell any other way. Unlike the disjointed storytelling in Memento, this narrative begins to make sense quite early on. The pacing is great and the storyline unfolds rather smoothly, but you still feel a bit like you're stuck in an M.C. Escher piece. That the film is surrealist while still drawing the types of audience that typically would spend money on an action flick is a point in it's credit, I think.

The film is peppered with seemingly metatheoretical comments on the meaning of film. When Cobb tells Ariadne that you start in the middle and don't know how you got there, we think back to the beginning of the film, where we (the audience) experienced precisely that. The spinning top seems to remind us that a movie isn't really reality; it just seems real while we watch it. Even the idea of the dream world being populated with projections of the subconscious seems to comment on film: as a viewer, we can only understand the actions of the characters through the filter of our own mind and experience.

It felt great to leave the theater thinking about the meaning of reality, the nature of dreams, even the existence of a higher being (is there are world beyond the one we conceive of as reality? Is Mal there?). I don't think this is going to be a big winner at the Oscars (although I didn't expect Lord of the Rings: Return of the King to get as much recognition as it did, and was pleasantly surprised), but I appreciate a summer blockbuster that makes the audience think. Unfortunately, I could tell that some members of the audience didn't share this appreciation: one group loudly complained that "the ending didn't tell us anything!" (that's the point; also it seems pretty clear that they are in "reality" at the end, whatever that means). Another girl said that they surely had to do a sequel to tie up the loose ends (I sure hope not). Seems filmgoers often expect things to be handed to them, wrapped up in a neat little package. Too bad.

[Cries&Whispers]

Just a quick note: did anyone else catch the Inception prequel comic online? It's called "The Cobol Job" and details some of the events leading up to the movie's beginning:

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/inception-comic.html

I think this represents another noteworthy mark against the "everything we see is a dream" theory, because it establishes a world outside the film, and we see Cobb's totem stop spinning in it, as well.

This is cool, my cousin showed me this and said it's official. But who wrote it? Is this Chris Nolan's work? I just want to know if this is part of the official Inception 'canon' as it were. Because if it is, then we can assume not everything is a dream.

I've been looking for as many reasons as possible to prove that the plot-line we generally accept as real was not a dream. There was that interview with Yusuf, who says Cobb's totem stops spinning, but people still want to entertain this theory. I just don't think Nolan would create a story in which every person we care about, and all the actions they perform in the film are operating in a dream world. It kind of negates any semblance of emotion in the movie; it has no moral center because it's not based in reality. I wanted Cobb to come to terms with his guilt over his wife and kids, I wanted Fischer to resolve problems with his father and become a success on his own, and I wanted Ariadne to prove she's strong enough to resist the appeal of the pure inspiration and creativity of the subconscious world. On a simpler level, I wanted Arthur and Eames to succeed, I wanted the job to be successfully pulled off to perfection like any good heist movie.

Nolan has been known for his coldness, a quality that I think works in some films and doesn't work in others. But for a movie that spans a plain as vast as dreams and the hopes they can bring, and forces us to become emotionally invested in the characters and their fates, it would be downright wrong for a storyteller to just say, "Fooled you! It was all fake!" We need to know it was all for something.

[Fiscal]

This is cool, my cousin showed me this and said it's official. But who wrote it? Is this Chris Nolan's work? I just want to know if this is part of the official Inception 'canon' as it were. Because if it is, then we can assume not everything is a dream.


"Written by Jordan Goldberg, and featuring art by Long Vo, Joe Ng, and Crystal Reid,


http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/07/13/inception-prologue-comic-book-online/

Jordan Goldberg seems to be a long time Nolan collaborator. He has helped produce Inception, The Dark Knight, and The Prestige.

[Mr. Estonia]

I would have to respectfully disagree, mam. ;) I don't think that the defence mechanism in anyway invalidates the idea of the human mind as powerful. I would say it's the other way around, the fact that somebody would have to train subconscious gives you an idea of just how powerful the nature of dream and constructing dreams is. The fact that you would have to defend against such a technologically advanced forced shows you how far the human mind has come.

It seems that you and a few others may have figured there the film will be a bit more random and you guys may have taken the whole 'anything goes' scenario a bit too literally. I think having such things pop in and out would have been too easy, personally. 99.9% of films that deal depict dreams tend to go a bit too over the top, imo.

It's almost like having someone win the lottery and go on a spending spree with most of the money spent in one day. Nolan showed some considerable restraint while still making the film feel very surreal. I agree that there were more gunplay than there should have been, and yes, I would have like to have seen a bit more variety in the subconcious acts, but, really, do you guys honestly think it affects the film to an extent where you would have to take away a star?

First, hello from me, everybody! I'm new here. :)

I agree with this post a lot. Although the shooting was indeed too much, it doesn't really take away the brilliance of the movie.

[The Prestige]

Thanks for the comic link, Yoda. Had no idea about it. It's pretty cool and I imagine we'll be seeing further comics in the future which I will definitely be checking out.

[rickabbey]

nice reviews I can wait to watch this

[Shouse]

Awesome movie. Interesting that there's a small class of people that didn't care for it.

[planet news]

Yall just didn't "get" the shooting in Inception.

Yeah, I'd have to say that the car chases and the snow shootout were really unnecessary--extra clutter--especially the second time when you KNOW that it's pointless. The 0-G fights were very impressive in the same way the action in the original Matrix was impressive. The Matrix was far better in integrating action into the concept. Inception had a start-stop action kind of feel. "Time fur sum action nao lolz". Not to say that this really affects the rest of the film, but if it was all gone I would not miss it.

I don't think the Mombasa chase was "necessary" to the ambiguity as some claim, in that, if these were projections of the unconscious, there would have been many more, and they would have relentless.

The cinematography was below par for Nolan's perrenial Wally Pfister IMO. The non 0-G action scenes especially were very poorly composed. I did like the clever use of rack focus for most of the closing airport shots. All the effects shots were perfect however, and, seeing as there was much more focus on these shots, it's understandable.

Perhaps the best Nolan script since Memento. Not as good a film as TDK or The Prestige by any means.

[genesis_pig]

I think the action scenes were just fine... without them the movie would have been a bit dull.

[Yoda]

Seeing this again tomorrow afternoon, and I've got a small mental list of things to look out for. How marvelous is it that I feel the need to do that?

[tramp]

Well, it was fun to come home and finally read this thread. I didn't want to before.

Wonderful film, I liked it a lot. I especially enjoyed DiCaprio, although after this and Shutter Island, he needs to do a comedy. Either that, or actually have a real living wife. :p

Just one thing -- while the top was spinning, I started to laugh because I suddenly thought about all those people in the theatre holding their breath waiting for it to stop.

Nolan could easily have faded to black and then there would be this sound of it hitting the table....

:)

[ManOf1000Faces]

When I saw this,my mind was hurt because so much ideas about the explanation of this movie came into me. I really loved it because you needed to think to understand this huge mind twisted movie, i loved how the dreams were so twisted.Cobb's (DiCaprio) life was very depressing,I cant believe how Cobb could handle everything,his wife dying, not seeing his children,going into dreams,trying to leave the wife but i bet a part of him wouldn't want to leave his wife but he ended up doing it.

[Cries&Whispers]

I have a lot of questions, not meant to detract from the movie, because I think it was one of the best movies in recent memory. I just need some clarification. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

There may be obvious answers to this, I'm so confused tying things together, that sometimes I lose hold of the obvious stuff, so please be patient with me. I'm going to try to break down the climax chronologically, because I see some inconsistencies that I think Nolan is too good to forget, so I must be fundamentally mistaken about something.

Fischer was shot as soon as he entered the snow fortress by Cobb's projection of Mal. He then went to limbo, was captured by Mal, who was holding him hostage to get to Cobb, and then he awaited revival, seemingly dead, on the snow level. Saito died considerably later than this, much later factoring in time differences in each dream level.

As for Cobb, he and Ariadne left the snow level and went into limbo to find Fischer before Saito died, where they met Mal in their house. If Fischer was in limbo so long, why did he still appear as his young self when Ariadne found him and kicked him off the building? Saito was there, it seems, for a shorter period than Fischer, yet he became an old man. I accept that after he watched Mal die in his arms, he resolved his guilt and was able to keep her out of his subconscious. But what happened that made him wake up on the shores of his subconscious? Isn't this the same limbo in which he and Ariadne just killed Mal? Did he pass out from the stab wound and wake up still in limbo, but in the place where he always starts? He couldn't have died, because I think that would have woken him up. At least that's how he and Saito wake up in the end.

Ariadne was about to shoot Cobb to wake him up, but then he said he was going to look for Saito. So after kicking Fischer off the building to initiate his kick, she herself jumped off and left limbo. So those two went back up to the snow level. That means Eames, Ariadne, Fischer, and Saito's dead body were on the snow level (Eames' dream), Arthur was on the hotel level (his dream), and Yusuf was physically in the van as he drove it off the cliff on the rainy city level (his dream).

Are the waking up rules basically this?: First, you need to sync up kicks on every level for every person with the Edith Piaf countdown; the lower the level you're on, the slightly sooner your kick must be (Ariadne and Fischer fell off the building in limbo to enter the snow dream, Eames jump-started and awoke Fischer as he fell off the building in limbo, moments later they exploded the fortress and fell into Arthur's dream just as Arthur dropped them in the elevator, which pushed them up to Yusuf's dream.) Then, Arthur, Ariadne, Fischer, and Eames (disguised as a projection of Fischer's godfather) escaped the sinking van. Did this kick push Yusuf up a level into being fully awake on the plane, since the furthest level he dropped to was his dream (the first one)? Or did he also escape the van under water in his dream? I can't remember, but either way, it raises questions for me. If he was still in the van underwater, does that mean only the timer can awake people from the first (Yusuf's) dream? And if Cobb and Saito shot themselves in limbo to wake up, were they somewhere in one of the dreams until the timer went off? It appears they awoke a little later than everyone else, but does that mean the timer didn't wake them up?

Since they were under such heavy sedation, they would fall into limbo if they got killed on any of the three dream levels. But in limbo, if you die, do you just wake up? Because that's basically how Cobb and Saito woke up back on the plane. Why didn't Ariadne just shoot herself and wake up after kicking Fischer off the building? Or maybe she didn't understand the rules of limbo? Also, I can't remember, did she reawaken on the snow fortress level and wait for Eames kick of blowing up the fortress, or immediately enter Arthur's dream in the falling elevator?

Also, in limbo is time completely relative? Did Saito only age because he so frequently referenced dying an old, lonely man, so that is what happened to him. I don't think Mal and Cobb literally got old in limbo, if they did, I don't think they realized their aging. Since it was a dream, they saw each other as forever the same as when they first started the dream. Is this why Cobb could be in limbo so long without aging, because he didn't imagine himself aging? Because, think about it, based on the snow fortress level time, he went into limbo about five to ten minutes after Saito at most. Then, for about five to ten minutes snow level time, he and Ariadne walked through Cobb's old 'subconscious neighborhood' before reaching Mal. Factor in time spent talking with Mal, watching Mal die, and doing whatever he did to wind up on the shore, and he was in limbo for long enough so that if Saito was that old, he should at least looked half as old if not as old as Saito.

Good luck answering these, they're really poorly organized and some may not make sense, but I just typed questions as they popped in my head. I think I must have forgotten some parts of the movie, so please correct me if my sequencing or something else is wrong.

[planet news]

No, they're valid questions, but I honestly don't think that they deserve need to be answered--that is, you shouldn't fret about them like you're missing something.

You're not. I've seen the film twice, and there's no way around them. The time in limbo is definitely just a big plot hole. Personally, I don't care, and neither does anyone else as long as stuff generally works.

I prefer the symbolic/psychological route to the hard sci-fi boil down of dream dynamics. The machine is NOT EXPLAINED at all. It isn't about the machine or the technology or the dynamics, which, I agree with you, are all messed up.

Then again, let's get something straight. These are dreams not VR simulations like in The Matrix. I don't know about you, but when I dream, there's sometimes very little logic involved. The Architect is the one who is able to maintain a stable environment to fool the subject. In Limbo (lolradiohead), there is no architect. It is just "infinite subconscious" or "what is left over from the other people who have been there, that means YOU Cobb!".

One of the "complaints" about the film I've been hearing around is that Nolan doesn't quite take full advantage of the Lynchian dream logic. I get why he doesn't in the Extraction/Inception sequences--because it would be totally against the purpose of those procedures--but Limbo should have been more insane. Maybe it was? Maybe those plot holes were just Limbo being Limbo.

This is an adequate excuse for me. It is a dream after all.

[Cries&Whispers]

I agree, that the safest answer is probably to dismiss everything as occurring in a dream state, so no logic is necessary. But the entire purpose of Nolan's screenplay was to ground the dream world in logic. There are entire scenes of exposition establishing set rules for the subconscious. That's why I think everything that happens is supposed to have a 'logical'-- according to Nolan's invented dream logic-- explanation.

I don't want to accept that everything can be random because it's a dream. There should be consistencies, since Nolan worked so hard at tying these three worlds and limbo together through painstaking editing.

At least answer me this. Do they all awake from the first dream (Yusuf's rainy city) when the timer winds down? Did Cobb and Saito wake up when they (presumably) killed themselves? Or did the timer wake them up? Or they killed themselves, wandered around between worlds, and the timer woke them up. I'm just wondering, because the movie goes to great lengths to set limbo up as this black hole of raw consciousness that grabs hold of people inside like quicksand, and they just get stuck there. After all, that is what happened to Saito.

--Actually I'm remembering something I thought when first watching this. I think Saito didn't even know it was a dream and that's the whole problem! He thought it was real, so he aged; Cobb knew it was limbo, so time was irrelevant to him and he didn't age. When Cobb reminded him, awaking to reality is as simple as killing yourself. Just like Mal and Cobb did on the train tracks. Duh! Maybe?

[genesis_pig]

I think the action scenes were just fine... without them the movie would have been a bit dull.

I can't believe planetnews gave me a -ve rep for this statement.:laugh:

[genesis_pig]

I wonder what people would have wanted instead of action then, I would have gone with Holden's pink elephants with lasers, but we know that won't happen unless it was directed by Lynch (instead of elephants, there would be rabbits though).

I think the action was absolutely necessary.. I don't see a lot of things not happening in the film if it wasn't scenes like car chase, etc..
They just provided thrills..

How else would saito get shot??
Everything would have been just easy right? just walk in a dream & walk out..

Before repping someone negative, atleast reply to the post, suggesting what's your opinion,

[planet news]

I've never encountered a forum with that feature before :D, so I might as well use it haha. I think the whole thing is pretty bad anyways. It's sort of an online middle finger; the semiotics are nonverbal.

My answer to you then: Paprika/Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. There are always 2 types of Star Trek films, right? Kirk v. Kahn and exploration. Why then have they only ever had one exploration film? Because it sells, I guess?

Dreams are wonderful to explore, as Kon and especially Gondry show. Explorations of the unconscious, what Jung called this infinite reservoir of all your past/future possibilities. Exploration of the Escherian architecture more than just twice would not have outworn the novelty. That's the first time I've ever seen the impossible staircase realized in live action.

Plus, Ariadne had apparently spent a good deal of time creating a maze in the James Bond snowbase but they lacked time so they had to just cut through it. Well, there's a massive time killing chase sequence that would have been much more interesting than Saito tossing a grenade into the airvent.

I'm not going to argue that this film would have worked without action at the end since it began with action and has action music and stuff (i.e. I'm not going to rewrite the script without action), but Nolan didn't have to force it into an action film as he did. Isn't it kind of funny that DiCaprio just has to be holding a gun on the movie poster? Same thing with The Matrix. A Virtual Reality simulation has so many more possibilities for me than just martial arts fighting, as awesome at that was.

Action is Inception's weakest point as a film; that is, as a work of art. The token twenty mins of action took it down from maybe something around an 8.5/10 to a 7.0/10 for me; that is, 7 parts good, 3 parts bad.

[Yoda]

I'll try to knock a few of these down, if I can. I don't think we have any big plot holes here, but I'm going to see this flick again in an hour or two, so I'll probably be back with more specifics. But here's my interpretation after a single viewing:

If Fischer was in limbo so long, why did he still appear as his young self when Ariadne found him and kicked him off the building? Saito was there, it seems, for a shorter period than Fischer, yet he became an old man.
We don't see Saito as an old man until after Fischer is kicked up out of limbo. We kind of jump forward after that, to Cobb waking up on the beach. We have no idea how much time has passed, but whatever it was, it was enough to age him.


I accept that after he watched Mal die in his arms, he resolved his guilt and was able to keep her out of his subconscious. But what happened that made him wake up on the shores of his subconscious?
No idea, but it is still a dream, and consistent with the "don't remember how you got there" theme that comes up a couple of times.

Are the waking up rules basically this?: First, you need to sync up kicks on every level for every person with the Edith Piaf countdown; the lower the level you're on, the slightly sooner your kick must be (Ariadne and Fischer fell off the building in limbo to enter the snow dream, Eames jump-started and awoke Fischer as he fell off the building in limbo, moments later they exploded the fortress and fell into Arthur's dream just as Arthur dropped them in the elevator, which pushed them up to Yusuf's dream.) Then, Arthur, Ariadne, Fischer, and Eames (disguised as a projection of Fischer's godfather) escaped the sinking van. Did this kick push Yusuf up a level into being fully awake on the plane, since the furthest level he dropped to was his dream (the first one)? Or did he also escape the van under water in his dream? I can't remember, but either way, it raises questions for me. If he was still in the van underwater, does that mean only the timer can awake people from the first (Yusuf's) dream? And if Cobb and Saito shot themselves in limbo to wake up, were they somewhere in one of the dreams until the timer went off? It appears they awoke a little later than everyone else, but does that mean the timer didn't wake them up?
I think the way we see people wake up (or not wake up right away) is probably inconsequential. But yes, my understanding is that, at the top level, they're waiting on the timer. That's the final "kick," and it's one of the reasons everything has to be synced up, I believe. I think Dileep Rao (Yusuf) said in the Q-and-A I linked to earlier that you basically need to time it so that the first kick is from the bottom level, and on up. If the 3rd level kick came before the 4th, for example, it wouldn't work, because they wouldn't "be" on the 3rd level yet.


Since they were under such heavy sedation, they would fall into limbo if they got killed on any of the three dream levels. But in limbo, if you die, do you just wake up? Because that's basically how Cobb and Saito woke up back on the plane. Why didn't Ariadne just shoot herself and wake up after kicking Fischer off the building?
Yes, it seems that limbo, dying wakes you up. But there are some caveats: one is that this is only true if you're in limbo with one level. Dreams-within-dreams is another matter, and it'll only kick you up to the next-deepest level.

I think the thing is that, once you're in limbo, you lose yourself. You become less aware of what's happening and even less willing to stay. I believe it's supposed to be a fairly herculean mental feat that Cobb was able to become aware of his limbo with Mal, and even decide to leave it. Even then, it seemed to take him decades to muster up the awareness and ability to do this. I think Cobb's exceptional on this point. Also, there may be a major difference between whatever Cobb and Mal were experimenting with, and Yusef's sedative cocktail. Not to mention, again, the dreams-within-dreams thing, which could account for other differences.

Also, in limbo is time completely relative? Did Saito only age because he so frequently referenced dying an old, lonely man, so that is what happened to him. I don't think Mal and Cobb literally got old in limbo, if they did, I don't think they realized their aging.
They did get old, but as you say, they didn't really realize it/visualize themselves that way. We see them that way late in the film, when Cobb reflects on it. So it's a little tricky, because we have how old they are, and how old they feel, or allow themselves to seem. So I think you're touching on something important here that explains a number of differences. Also, Saito was, it seems, probably a decade or so older when he entered limbo than when Cobb and Mal did, if that makes any difference.

Good luck answering these, they're really poorly organized and some may not make sense, but I just typed questions as they popped in my head. I think I must have forgotten some parts of the movie, so please correct me if my sequencing or something else is wrong.
I think the key to 90% of this is the way the film depicts the passage of time. We never really know if it's 1 minute or 5 that passes between scenes or cuts. If 5-10 minutes can be a decade, then I don't know if it would be too hard to find a few shots or jumps that would account for the difference, since we're constantly cutting away to other levels.

Mainly, though, I agree with what you said in the beginning, which is that the things that seem like big problems can't be, given how much time Nolan clearly put into this. That may sound like a brush-off for anyone who thinks they've found a plot hole, but I think it's true.

[Brodinski]

Whoa, I saw it this afternoon and right now, I am utterly confused and flabbergasted by what I've seen. There is just so much to process and I didn't have enough time to actually do all this processing, because complicated stuff just kept coming. I was overthinking one thing and before I knew it, the next line already had me pondering again.

What I can say though, is that this is one of the most experimental and thought-provoking films I've ever seen. Yet I'm unsure on how to rate it. I think I need to rewatch it multiple times before completely understanding everything, let alone begin to rate it.

SPOILERS from here on.

This is the theory that I've worked out so far on how everything works out. Bear with me here please: Cobb says that if you die in a dream when you're under heavy sedation, you fall into limbo. But limbo is:

A. unconstructed dream space
B. the dreamspace of whomever in the party that has spent the longest time there, i.e. Cobb

In the snow level (level 3), Fischer dies because of Mal's action, thus falls into limbo (i.e. the dreamspace that was constructed by Cobb and Mal). Cobb and Ariadne then decide to rescue Fischer from limbo. This is possible, because Cobb has constructed the world that is limbo. Therefore, when Cobb and Ariadne are hooked up to the machine, they enter Cobb's dream (i.e. limbo). Right?

So they enter Cobb's dream / limbo and Ariadne notices the lightning flash (i.e. the defibrilator) and tells Cobb that they have to leave. Cobb tells her "no, I will find Saito and bring him back with me". Then, Ariadne pushes Fischer off the building and lets herself fall down as well (i.e. the kick to drop down to level 3: snow level).

I am then bugged by the question of howCobb ends up washed up on the shore. I presume it's because he died from drowning in the van? I like to think this, as we see Cobb seatbelted down (yes, I just made that verb up, I think) in the van and then a direct cut to him washing up on shore. I thus assume this signifies the drowning in the van, meaning that Cobb died in a dream while under heavy sedation which would mean that he is plunged into limbo.

Then he persuades Saito to take the leap, i.e. shoot himself, in order to return to reality. Cobb must've realised that the other levels had collapsed by now, which means that if you kill yourself in limbo, you go straight back into reality, much like Cobb and Mal already did.

Am I about right with this theory or just way off the mark?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why Saito is so old in limbo, but what I've worked out so far: A good 10 minutes passes between Saito's actual death in level 3 (thus plunging him into limbo) and Cobb's drowning in the van. This could mean that Saito is already in limbo for decades,whereas Cobb is immediately found on shore by Saito's guards. Hence, why he has not aged, but Saito has.

I guess... Inception was definitely worth my € 8,5. And I'd gladly pay that sum again to see it once more asap.

[genesis_pig]

SO I guess Planetnews is just going to -ve rep just coz he doesnt agree with me & he feels my point of view is not correct...
Got -3 from him already,...

Just coz he wants to give me a middle finger coz he feels my views are wrong and whatever he says is correct..

I have a feeling he will negative rep me here as well.

[genesis_pig]

My answer to you then: Paprika/Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. There are always 2 types of Star Trek films, right? Kirk v. Kahn and exploration. Why then have they only ever had one exploration film? Because it sells, I guess?

What kind of answer is that..
I asked you how would Inception work without the action?? How would show the car chase, saito getting shot, Saito going into limbo..
Or did you want the whole movie to be based without guns...
The movie is a sci-fi action film... Majority went to see that & they got lot more than that....

You can't compare Eternal Sunshine, Paprika to this... You can't be artistic and expect to make money like Inception..
I think Inception was perfect the way it was made.. It seemed like it turned out just the way Nolan wanted it to.

[christine]

SO I guess Planetnews is just going to -ve rep just coz he doesnt agree with me & he feels my point of view is not correct...
Got -3 from him already,...

Just coz he wants to give me a middle finger coz he feels my views are wrong and whatever he says is correct..

I have a feeling he will negative rep me here as well.

GP I'm sure that neg reps weren't supposed to be used in this way.

[genesis_pig]

I have no problem with -ve reps Christy.. They dont affect me in anyway.
But giving -ve rep in every consecutive post of mine, just coz I mention that the action was necessary... That was a bit annoying! Also. maybe I over-reacted..
Apologies to all...

[genesis_pig]

BTW anyone else felt the car chase & action scenes were unnecessary??

[meatwadsprite]

Action scenes ? Action movie ? I would take that question up with someone who didn't like it. Dicaprio shooting guys and sliding on knees to catch them is awesome.

[planet news]

I get it. It's impolite to derep someone, but the option is there. Just like how the Japanese are allowed 40 days of vacation, but you're considered a jerk if you ever take more than 20. I get it: metarules.

And to Genesis Pig: I'd criticize the action in any film. It's a film, not an action film. If you want to allow all kinds of concessions to a film just because it's marketed a certain way then fine. Don't stop me from criticizing action films. I wouldn't criticize the action in something like Transformers because it's new, something to see. Awful, awful film, but the action was not dull. Not to say that you've got to be new all the time, but Inception just felt very old all of a sudden when the action scenes came in--save for the 0-G, that was exhilarating--the rest was pointless, depressing almost. Inception's concept is brilliant and exciting because its so original. The strange choice to fill it with a lot of action totally destroyed a lot of the tension for me. The second time around was even worse. You just don't care about what's happening at all. What Nolan could have done was stylize the aggressive projections more so they could have been almost "satirical" figures since killing them is basically no more than getting past a locked door. They could have been almost funny like archetypes from James Bond films. Redshirts, if you will. He took them too seriously for me to take them seriously.

I basically hate all action films anyways. Nolan has been the only director to do them well. This time he failed in action though. The rest of the movie was wonderful, but we've got to look at the work as a whole.

Feel free to derep. I won't consider it impolite.

[genesis_pig]

Why would I derep you for your own personal views.. What you have stated are your own personal views..
Just the same you feel Godfather is overrated among other things... they are your own personal views.. not necessarily wrong or right..
You are just talking about how the movie should have been according to you.. So I would never derep someone for sharing their own personal views.

The movie is making its money, plus getting good reviews... lots of fans already..
So I think Nolan did an awesome job!!... He did everything right..

[Cries&Whispers]

Action scenes ? Action movie ? I would take that question up with someone who didn't like it. Dicaprio shooting guys and sliding on knees to catch them is awesome.

I just need to repeat this because it's so true: "DiCaprio shooting guys and sliding on knees to catch them is awesome." Dude, that was so awesome. There were definitely flashes of James Bond in Cobb's character in certain scenes, and this was kind of one of them.

[Fiscal]

He was catching his own brass! God, I loved that scene!

[planet news]

Genesis Pig: That's taking it a little too far. Everything anyone says is their personal view. Even mathematics, for instance. It's most people's personal view that mathematics represents a viable system for calculating reality. Alain Badiou would go further in his personal view that mathematics is actually the ontology of existence. Some people might derive a personal view that mathematics is invalid, and for some things it is. I don't mean to get all postmodernist on you (really it is you going dat on me), but complete relativism doesn't rationalize everything. Hitler had his own personal view, dontcha know.

Is this a discussion forum or what? The text's the thing that will reveal the veracity of your personal view, as Shakespeare would say. These thumbs are just a gimmick.

[Fiscal]

I don't mean to get all postmodernist on you

Yeah dude, stop that sh*t

[Juno MacGuff]

If the thumbs are such a gimmick then why are they warrented a 3 page discussion in the Inception thread?

[linespalsy]

i just saw it today. i don't want to discuss it to death yet but i like it a whole lot. it gave me the kind of fits of excited laughter that i got from the incredibles and district 9. not that there's anything otherwise similar about those movies, it just gave me that kind of enjoyment.

[genesis_pig]

You want it to be a discussion? then go ahead discuss....

That's something you are not doing at all.. All you are doing is making statements, then making another one & then another one... Just like your statement above is unrelated as a reply to mine..

You just want to state flashy trivia to look all smart.. & you still haven't explained why you feel the action scenes were unnecessary in Inception, but you made a statement that you dont like action scenes.. so that makes it your own personal choice and viewpoint..

If you tell me why the scenes were not needed without comparing it to other films & directors style of filmmaking, then it would be a fair discussion.

[Cries&Whispers]

I get what you're saying planet news: often times an opinion doesn't matter as much as the decisions someone takes to formulate it. But what people are trying to tell you is, on this forum, negative repping is an action reserved for an extremely negative post, in which the poster attacks another poster instead of addressing the post itself, or says something that's in general inconsiderate, or continuously, annoyingly interjects with posts that add nothing to the discussion. Positive rep is awarded for a number of reasons: a funny or clever post will usually get one or two, giving one's own honest opinion on a movie with no strings attached will normally get more, and offering a well thought-out, mature, and respectful response in support of or in opposition to another post will get you the most. They aren't just a gimmick. They are a way of telling people that this is a post worth reading. For example, I always look at the posts with the most positive rep because I'm sure that person had something worth my time.

Anyway, I agree that some of the less important action in this film did not live up to the smart action of The Dark Knight. I think in particular of the first time they are attacked in Yusuf's dream (the first level). Arthur, Eames, Saito, and Fischer Jr. are in a car and people in front of them shoot at the car with automatic weapons; Arthur drives in reverse, hits some cars, and people behind them shoot the car with automatic weapons. He shifts back into drive, and the people in front of them shoot them again. This continues, noisily for about four minutes until Cobb swoops in and hits a guy, rather inelegantly, with the side of his car. It's boring, but I think Nolan did it with a purpose. The group did not expect Fischer to have been trained to defend his subconscious, they are ambushed and figuratively and literally have no way out. I think that scene was just trying to illustrate that.

But, again, I agree that it failed to excite me. In The Dark Knight, every action sequence was choreographed so beautifully that it flowed into the picture naturally. For example, Nolan didn't linger on the truck flipping over; it made for an amazing stunt for about five seconds, and immediately segued into Batman driving toward the Joker, resisting hitting him. This led directly to the Joker's capture. The scene wasn't made to stand alone. It astounded, but it was relevant and moved the story forward. A similar scene was the one in the under-construction skyscraper, where the guards were disguised as doctors and the hostages were made to look like bad guys. It was a fine example of how Batman's always right, always serving justice, and always at odds with the cops who make him out to be the bad guy. Inception had several shootout scenes that just distracted from the driving narrative. They did not tell us anything about the characters, except that they knew how to ride snowmobiles or shoot huge guns. I agree with your sentiment that Nolan could have found a more clever, dynamic way of showing Fischer's projections.

But to dismiss all the action in this movie as being distractions from the originality of the story is kind of stubborn. You want Inception to be a sophisticated thinking man's science fiction movie with no time for fun. But Nolan's goal from the start was to make a film that dealt with these huge ideas of inspiration and dreaming in a heist movie setting, with homages to James Bond films and The Matrix. Long, senseless shootouts and fight sequences were inevitable. But that doesn't mean all the action detracted from the movie.

We agree that the zero gravity and tumbling hallway scenes were excellent action scenes. But what about the tension created in synchronizing events on four different levels of consciousness, each with differing laws of time and space? This is about as good an example of cross-cutting as I can find in a movie, and if cross-cutting between this many narratives this quickly does not equate to action for you, I don't know what does. On the first level, we have a speeding car being assailed on all sides, while Yusuf struggles to keep the car from tipping over, and getting rid of Fischer's projections. This directly effects the people in Arthur's dream, leading to that hallway sequence. There are many more examples of 'smart' action in the movie that, as genesis pig says, keeps the viewers fully engaged, but this post is already long enough.

[planet news]

TDK just sorta rocked so hard on all fronts it's not even fair.

Yes! The editing in this film creates the most literal visual interpretation of "climax" since Requiem for a Dream, i.e., the van HITS the water, Ariadne goes up, up, up... Cross cutting was brilliant there.

But when I watched it the second time, I just ignored the snow shootup completely. I just waited for it to end so I could think about Dom and Mal's conversation more. The van's super slow-mo was pretty awesome every time they cut to it, so was 0-G, but the snow shoot-up was just a major disaster in holding interest or looking like it mattered at all. I didn't really give a **** the first time either.

I'm just saying that these choice by Nolan made certain parts of the film just fall completely dead and that's bad, bad news for any film. 7/10 is as much as I can give it guyz. 70% of the film was good.

[genesis_pig]

You just can't compare it to DK, they are 2 different films based on 2 whole different universes, DK is an adaptation while Inception is based on a material constructed entirely by the director himself..
Comparing DK to Inception, would be like comparing Se7en to Fight Club.

I saw it the 2nd time too.. & I didn't feel the same way as you did..
So the choices that Nolan made don't exactly fall completely dead!!... And it's noway a bad news.. why??? coz it's making the film work... in other words it's a SUCCESS!!!

Look at the ratings it has got.. It's on #3 on IMDB (I know that doesn't mean anything to you, like you already mentioned in another thread)... But it takes a lot to reach that position...
So I'd like to ask you again, How are those things you mention "BAD NEWS!" for the film?

[meatwadsprite]

My eyes we're kind of destroyed by the time the snow shooting started up. Just the concept of raiding a big snow base is awesome though, the brilliance of Inception (I think) is how convincing Dicaprio is in his motivations and character - while the movie is at it's heart an all-star mashup of epic action scenes.

[planet news]

G P, you're absolutely wrong about films being adaptations having to be looked at in a totally different way. What different way is this? Do you subordinate all the directorial decisions to the decisions of the source material? What are you even saying about the differences that make tDK and Inception hard to compare? wtf I think it's pretty easy to compare Se7en to Fight Club. They are very, very similar films. They even have, like, the same lead actor so you can compare how Fincher uses Pitt. My god, tDK and Inception are very easy to compare. Explain to me how the source material has anything to do with it. Inception used plenty of elements from Jung in his film, if that counts, but even so...

I totally disagree with this notion that two films cannot be compared. Give me two films that cannot be compared, and I will attempt to compare them. It's art. You can compare anything. wtf are these rules you're setting up that comparing two works of art is futile or pointless or something.

OH U.

... But it takes a lot to reach that position...
It takes absolutely nothing at all. Fads take absolutely nothing at all. I think some utter garbage like the Simpson's movie shot up to number one when it first came out 2. Inception's been out for 2 weeks; that's hardly enough time for a fair judgement anyways. People are impulsive, and the film is highly advertised. I don't even need to explain how IMDB has NOTHING to do with the quality of a film.

A quick search yielded that Battleship Potemkin is utterly missing from its top 250. This is strange seeing as many critics cite this as one of the greatest films of all time.

I guess fads win then. Inception's been out fur 2 weeks yall.

[Yoda]

Okay, first off; The Simpsons Movie was hysterical. :p I something in your general direction if you believe otherwise. Unless you hate the show as a whole, in which case, there is no talking to you, sir, and we must part ways.

I agree that people tend to flip out when a film is first released, but you can't dismiss it on that alone. And you sure can't cite "many critics" when discussing a film when you've been deriding such measures in other discussions about The Godfather and the like. I cry foul! Foul I cry.

But, I'm getting off topic. To your first few paragraphs: sure, you can compare any two films, but the comparison will always be imperfect, because each film sets out to accomplish a different thing under a different set of circumstances. I wouldn't say this means we can't or shouldn't compare them, but it does mean they are not fully comparable, if you get my distinction. It's perfectly reasonable to modify one's general judgments based on the constraints a film and a filmmaker have to work within. Inception has a freedom that an adaptation doesn't realistically have, and noting that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Now, I realize 99% of this reply has nothing to do with Inception, so I'll stop talking for the moment.

[Cries&Whispers]

My eyes we're kind of destroyed by the time the snow shooting started up. Just the concept of raiding a big snow base is awesome though, the brilliance of Inception (I think) is how convincing Dicaprio is in his motivations and character - while the movie is at it's heart an all-star mashup of epic action scenes.

After the post about Leo shooting people with a silencer and sliding to catch them before they fall, and now this, you are officially my favorite MoFo. :up:

[Fiscal]

One of my favorite moments of Inception took place in the snow fortress bit. Fischer is about to open the safe room vault, but a figure is entering the room from the ceiling. Cobb is following the torso in the scope of his rifle as the unknown figure drops down from the ceiling into the room. Finally the figures face is visible, and in Cobb's scope he see's Mal. Cobb can't pull the trigger. Ariadne says something like "She's not real" and Cobb repies "But how do you know?" and the expression on Cobb's face was bone chilling. I really loved that scene.

[Brodinski]

One of my favorite moments of Inception took place in the snow fortress bit. Fischer is about to open the safe room vault, but a figure is entering the room from the ceiling. Cobb is following the torso in the scope of his rifle as the unknown figure drops down from the ceiling into the room. Finally the figures face is visible, and in Cobb's scope he see's Mal. Cobb can't pull the trigger. Ariadne says something like "She's not real" and Cobb repies "But how do you know?" and the expression on Cobb's face was bone chilling. I really loved that scene.

I completely agree.

Now let's please continue on this note. This is a thread about Inception, NOT about negative rep or a comparison between The Dark Knight and Inception. Though Planetnews, you have given me an idea for a thread. We can discuss some of the things you said over there so that this thread's sole subject remains Inception.

@ Yoda: You've seen it 2 times now, right? Am I about right with the ideas I put forward in my post on page 5?

[Cries&Whispers]

I completely agree.

Now let's please continue on this note. This is a thread about Inception, NOT about negative rep or a comparison between The Dark Knight and Inception. Though Planetnews, you have given me an idea for a thread. We can discuss some of the things you said over there so that this thread's sole subject remains Inception.

@ Yoda: You've seen it 2 times now, right? Am I about right with the ideas I put forward in my post on page 5?

I've seen the movie five times in theaters and I think your ideas were pretty solid, except I'm not sure about these parts:

I am then bugged by the question of how Cobb ends up washed up on the shore. I presume it's because he died from drowning in the van? I like to think this, as we see Cobb seatbelted down (yes, I just made that verb up, I think) in the van and then a direct cut to him washing up on shore. I thus assume this signifies the drowning in the van, meaning that Cobb died in a dream while under heavy sedation which would mean that he is plunged into limbo.

Cobb and Ariadne voluntarily went into limbo, then Ariadne left and Cobb stayed back to find Saito. They were on the snow fortress level and used the machine to put them to sleep, sending them to limbo, because they wanted to find and rescue Fischer. That whole resolution between Mal and Cobb in their house took place in limbo. Mal was shot here, Cobb was stabbed here, and he came to terms with his guilt and let her go here. So I'm not sure how he would have plunged into limbo, since he was already there.

But I never thought that maybe he died 'again' when he drowned in the van, and sent his subconscious back to the start of limbo, on the shores. Maybe he was looking for Saito in limbo, and concurrently drowning in Yusuf's dream. Then when he died, he just reappeared on the shores of the subconscious as if he just got there. This also may account for the age different between he and Saito. Saito died a while ago in the snow fortress dream, and seemingly decades in limbo. Cobb just died in Yusuf's dream and went straight to limbo. Basically, we saw his entire time there. He washed up on the shore, the guards took him to Saito, he ate at his table, Saito shot him and woke him up. It may not have mattered that he was already in limbo for so long because he essentially 'started over' when he died.

Then he persuades Saito to take the leap, i.e. shoot himself, in order to return to reality. Cobb must've realised that the other levels had collapsed by now, which means that if you kill yourself in limbo, you go straight back into reality, much like Cobb and Mal already did.

I never even thought of the other dreams collapsing factor. That makes sense. So then did shooting themselves immediately wake them up on the plane, or did they linger somewhere between dreams until the timer went off. Because I thought the only way of waking up from the highest level was through the timer, and clearly everyone else used it. But since everyone on the plane woke up about the same time, I assume the timer awoke everyone. Do you think maybe when Cobb and Saito were in limbo staring at each other across the table they had a profound revelation and understood the nature of the dreamworld, so when they shot themselves, they immediately woke up to reality?

All of this makes a lot of sense, but I still think we're reaching beyond things Nolan presented in the film. I want definitive evidence of why things happened the way they did. But maybe this just isn't that type of movie.

Still, great ideas Brodinski.

[Brodinski]

But I never thought that maybe he died 'again' when he drowned in the van, and sent his subconscious back to the start of limbo, on the shores. Maybe he was looking for Saito in limbo, and concurrently drowning in Yusuf's dream. Then when he died, he just reappeared on the shores of the subconscious as if he just got there. This also may account for the age different between he and Saito. Saito died a while ago in the snow fortress dream, and seemingly decades in limbo. Cobb just died in Yusuf's dream and went straight to limbo. Basically, we saw his entire time there. He washed up on the shore, the guards took him to Saito, he ate at his table, Saito shot him and woke him up. It may not have mattered that he was already in limbo for so long because he essentially 'started over' when he died.

Yeah, that's my way of accounting for the age difference. Cobb was already in limbo, but then drowned in Yusuf's van, causing him to replunge into limbo but in a different location, namely the shore in front of Saito's feudal palace. Of course, Cobb could've also died when the snow fortress was blown up, but I just made the link between drowning and washing up on shore + the fact that the film cuts from Cobb drowning in the van to washing up on shore.


I never even thought of the other dreams collapsing factor. That makes sense. So then did shooting themselves immediately wake them up on the plane, or did they linger somewhere between dreams until the timer went off. Because I thought the only way of waking up from the highest level was through the timer, and clearly everyone else used it. But since everyone on the plane woke up about the same time, I assume the timer awoke everyone. Do you think maybe when Cobb and Saito were in limbo staring at each other across the table they had a profound revelation and understood the nature of the dreamworld, so when they shot themselves, they immediately woke up to reality?

I think the others were woken up by the timer. But I do not believe that Cobb and Saito were awoken by it. As I already said, I think the other levels collapsed, meaning that limbo is now the sole remaining level. Cobb and Mal already got out of it by killing themselves, so why should this be any different for Cobb and Saito?

Another theory could be that other rules apply for limbo. Cobb said that if you get killed in a level when under heavy sedation, you get plunged into limbo, this being unconstructed dream space OR the dream space of whomever of the party has been there for the longest period of time (i.e. Cobb). But does this rule also apply for limbo? I thought that Cobb mentioned that the only way to get out of limbo was by killing yourself. Seeing as Cobb built limbo (together with Mall) he must've realised he was in it and then asked Saito to take a leap of faith with him.

Too many theories and ideas are still circulating in my mind though. I'm unable to draw up any definitive conclusions.

Thanks btw for the quick reply C&W

[meatwadsprite]

One of my favorite moments of Inception took place in the snow fortress bit. Fischer is about to open the safe room vault, but a figure is entering the room from the ceiling. Cobb is following the torso in the scope of his rifle as the unknown figure drops down from the ceiling into the room. Finally the figures face is visible, and in Cobb's scope he see's Mal. Cobb can't pull the trigger. Ariadne says something like "She's not real" and Cobb repies "But how do you know?" and the expression on Cobb's face was bone chilling. I really loved that scene.

I saw it again today, definitely my favorite moment.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

Just the concept of raiding a big snow base is awesome though,


Yeah, I agree. Watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service to see it done, much much much better.

[tramp]

Just wanted to add that the action sequences, imo, are a flaw. Mainly in the snow fortress... the others seemed to work. I loved the feeling of being in a Bond film, and homages to genres/films is always fun, but I can say that all that shooting in the snow fortress took me out of the film. I was bored and started thinking about dinner. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure of the answer, though, since all that action pushes the plot and creates the problems of the main characters which was the real story. Maybe the shooting went on too long? Somehow the suspense wasn't there; maybe because it was a dream, I wasn't into all that shooting and didn't take it seriously. I'm not sure what the problem was...

BTW, my favorite scene was Cobb and Mal in the hotel as she is about to jump. Leo's reaction just broke my heart. I'm not a particular fan of Leo, but after this and Shutter Island, I do think he's an amazing and intense actor. The scene at the table when he's talking to Mal... he really got to me.

[genesis_pig]

My problem with the shooting in the snow fortress was that I couldn't make out what was going on... who was shooting whom...

It was just too damn difficult to make out what's happening there..
Actually now it makes me wonder.. why did Nolan/Eames/Ariadne pick a snow fortress? what was it's significance??..

[genesis_pig]

G P, you're absolutely wrong about films being adaptations having to be looked at in a totally different way. What different way is this? Do you subordinate all the directorial decisions to the decisions of the source material? What are you even saying about the differences that make tDK and Inception hard to compare? wtf I think it's pretty easy to compare Se7en to Fight Club. They are very, very similar films. They even have, like, the same lead actor so you can compare how Fincher uses Pitt. My god, tDK and Inception are very easy to compare. Explain to me how the source material has anything to do with it. Inception used plenty of elements from Jung in his film, if that counts, but even so...

I totally disagree with this notion that two films cannot be compared. Give me two films that cannot be compared, and I will attempt to compare them. It's art. You can compare anything. wtf are these rules you're setting up that comparing two works of art is futile or pointless or something.

OH U.


It takes absolutely nothing at all. Fads take absolutely nothing at all. I think some utter garbage like the Simpson's movie shot up to number one when it first came out 2. Inception's been out for 2 weeks; that's hardly enough time for a fair judgement anyways. People are impulsive, and the film is highly advertised. I don't even need to explain how IMDB has NOTHING to do with the quality of a film.

A quick search yielded that Battleship Potemkin is utterly missing from its top 250. This is strange seeing as many critics cite this as one of the greatest films of all time.

I guess fads win then. Inception's been out fur 2 weeks yall.

All I can say is that not everyone watches movies the way you do...
You are surely looking for philosophies in every movie you see..

If Nolan has made the movie the way it is, it's mainly coz he wants it to be successfull... And he has done a great job with it... Almost everyone loves the film, So Nolan wins.. I think Nolan knows a lot about filmmaking to know how make a movie work...

Ofcourse you can't compare 2 films.. Maybe you can, but most of us can't.

Can you compare Casablanca with The Octagon???
They are meant for 2 different target audiences..
I don't think the makers of The Octagon had any intention of winning oscars...

About DK, Nolan had tons of comics & previous movies to learn from...
That's what made DK stand out.. You can't mention theories and philosophies as adaptations.. ultimately the plot matters..

[nebbit]

:love: it :goof:

[EdsReview]

This movie starts with a 1 minute flashback. Uh oh. This movie has held #1 in the box office for 2 weeks in a row, and shows no sign of letting up. When I went to see it, the theater was full. I was expecting to be blown away. Well, I wasn’t. What’s Leonardo doing these days? He’s been in one weird movie after another.


Now, I certainly did not HATE this movie. I just wasn’t blown away as I expected to be. Maybe I expected too much.


The concept is original….oh wait, no it isn’t. Didn’t I see Sandra Bullock, Kevin Bacon, and Natalie Wood doing this some time ago? Ok, so you can go into someone’s dreams and control what they see, and fake them out. You can “extract” their most well guarded secrets. (Didn’t Robert Jordan write this in the Wheel of Time series? Until he died, that is without finishing the story, I might add. (Bummer). So what would happen if you were to give a person an idea in the dream, but make them think they thought it up, and it wasn’t given to them. Very difficult and to do this you must think up the most convoluted, werid, strange, far fetched, out of the question, impossible scenario known to modern cinema. How many dreams inside dreams inside dreams can we create? Then the “phsyics” of this. Hey, did you know that every level of dream within a dream is faster? What poppycock.
However, the views were exceptional! I sat in the first row, surrounded by the beauty. There were colors, and sounds, and scenery. There is a James Bondesque chase scene on a snowy mountain.


So did they succeed, or fail? Did you really care? Do you know what’s real and what isn’t? I think this film is like the Emperor’s New Clothes. Two thirds of the people in the theater had no idea what just happened, but everyone wanted to say how great it was because they didn’t want anyone to know they didn’t know what was going on.


So the word of mouth grows. You must see this, it’s so cerebral.
Well, don’t expect a great flick storywise. Be prepared to set your common sense (dare I say intelligence) aside, and enjoy the cinematography. You’ll definitely want to know what it’s about, so you can share the conversation around the water cooler. Just don’t tell anyone the Emperor has no clothes.

[Fiscal]

What’s Leonardo doing these days? He’s been in one weird movie after another.

The hell are you referring to?


Two thirds of the people in the theater had no idea what just happened, but everyone wanted to say how great it was because they didn’t want anyone to know they didn’t know what was going on.

This certainly didn't seem like a film that was hard to grasp at all. I belive Nolan threw in a trick here and there to raise a few questions, but generally everything was pretty straightforward.

[tramp]

Wow, that was a pretty condescending review. True, there were people there did not like the film and I heard a woman muttering to her husband that she didn't "understand it." Maybe there are those few that like to say films like this are great and all that even if they don't "get it."

BUT, really, are you saying that anyone with any intelligence would see right through this and realize what crap it was?

I found it a pretty entertaining ride and a lot of fun. And believe me, I don't fall for many of those films that seem to ride on a trick.. I didn't like Memento, a film most Nolan fans love.

And as to being "original?" There is nothing wrong with someone taking an idea that has been put forth and putting their own spin on it. Jeez, that is what movie making is. There are no TRULY original stories.

As to Leo being in "weird" movies? You know Shutter Island was an homage to Hitchcock, right? Yep, that's weird alright. :rolleyes:

[The Prestige]

Ed's verdict sucks. This film is as original as it gets. I've never seen a film in which the architecture of the mind is invaded to extract and plant information. I've never seen a film where 4 -5 dream levels are displayed and cross cutted right before our eyes. If this film is not original, I don't know what is.

[planet news]

Kevin Bacon WTF???

I'm not one to agree with Prestige or defend Inception but the idea is fairly original as original goes; this cannot be argued. It's not based off of any kind of novel for a start. As a film it is mediocre because Nolan forces action genre into it without integrating it with the stakes of the plot. Also there was a lack of attention to aesthetic composition, which I think this film definitely deserved due to its "elegant" sort of plot where the main players are like "skilled artists".

[Holden Pike]

Now that Inception is out, this is how I rate Nolan's filmography thus far...


http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=189545982303&id=639ed41ff94de7d3ec8529a8fc2f1a97&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leftfieldcinema.com%2ffiles%2fimages%2fmemento1.teaser.jpg
1. Memento
GRADE: A
2. Batman Begins
GRADE: A-
3. The Dark Knight
GRADE: A-
4. The Prestige
GRADE: B+
5. Inception
GRADE: B
6. Insomnia
GRADE: B-
7. Following
GRADE: C+

AVERAGE: B

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=172676685108&id=3decf619a095c6dfdbb3f6e9f1c82bab&url=http%3a%2f%2fstatic.guim.co.uk%2fsys-images%2fFilm%2fPix%2fpictures%2f2006%2f11%2f02%2fargles_nolan3.jpg

[planet news]

I agree except for Batman Begins and Insomnia. The two should be switched. Maybe you accidentally

[Sedai]

Begins before Dark knight, eh Holden? Seems a small margin of victory, as well. The origin story put it over the top for you? I feel like both films are only marred by some editing issues in the fight scenes, but are other wise top notch A-pictures. I just felt The Dark Knight added levels of complexity (successfully) that weren't present in the origin piece, and that made it a bit better for me. Eckhart's performance is also aces. Ledger's contributions have been discussed to death, so i don't need to mention how good his performance was.

OK - back on topic:

@ Ed - Do you dislike surreal pictures for the most part or did this particular one just not live up to the hype? Some of your complaints seem a little workman-like and banal. Something being weird, for instance, isn't automatically a bad thing for some folks - it's usually a boon to me, for instance. Also, the complaint about time shifting in dreams is downright silly, because time is always distorted in dreams, at least in mine - I am pretty sure most dreams that seem like hours take only seconds or minutes in real time. Nolan adding a set structure to the time shifting was there to help keep the different levels of time segregated for the viewer.

[Holden Pike]

I agree except for Batman Begins and Insomnia. The two should be switched. Maybe you accidentally

If this fragment is your attempt at inception, your own preferences are not taking hold in either my subconscious or conscious mind. Insomnia is well made and acted but, among other things, totally unnecessary. Skjoldbjærg's original film is superior. For me.

Let THAT take root.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=167462114214&id=b8ad9a4070d89068ba26e2e42a1ed145&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.stellanonline.com%2finsomnia2x.jpg

[planet news]

I agree that the original is superior, but that shouldn't matter when judging art. If Nolan redid it shot by shot, it still would have been a good work, and it is.

Also Nolan's smugass face is pissing me off right now.

[Sedai]

Face? Is he here? ;)

[linespalsy]

I haven't read the entire thread so I apologize if this has already been discussed or was something that's too obvious to discuss but I just wanted to say the key image in the movie for me first time around was the paradoxically self-generating and perceiving loop.

If nothing else it appears in all sort of different forms at each level of film-within-film-within-film etc. Cobb's diagram and Ariadne's description of how her mind seems to be discovering as it's creating*; Ariadne closing Cobb in infinitely regressing mirror box (I think that was a pretty darn clever use of space too**); Arthur's looping staircases.

Finally the seeming causal loop whereby Cobb convinces Mal that the one reality isn't real and then goes on to convince himself - either through inception or some other process (private? collective?) -- that his "container" reality isn't real. The one he returns to in the end where (not unambiguously) perhaps he's "altered the memory" which is presumably just a further projection.

My feeling right now is you never really see the full outside referents that the projections (which are the film) reach in from. You do see Smith and his father in both an outer (not necessarily the outer) form and an inner, more metaphorical projected form (The father giving his son catharsis within the safe within the hospital within the fortress). I think that implies that there is likely an outer fully real world that Cobb's projections are coming from but I think that if you assume that the children haven't aged and are dressed the same and the top will likely continue spinning, then you never see that real form and so his projection remains distorted. Not much but that's about the best I could think of on my own (I mean, not fully on my own, I also talked to the people I saw it with and some coworkers).

*That circular diagram may also correspond to the circular maze that Ariadne draws, which convinces Cobb to hire her.
**The reflected "framing pillars" receding to create an underpass. It's also significant that the mirror trick seems to "calm down" Cobb's subconscious, at least temporarily.

As for my personal experience of it, I did think the movie was a bit limited visually if the ideal form is dreams or Tarkovsky. But not every movie that I love has to look like a Tarkovsky movie and as for the way the plot unfolded I definitely found it more engaging than any of Tarkovsky's movies (some of which are among my favorites as well). I think the main thing for me is that there wasn't a single point that I didn't find my attention focused simultaneously on the movie and on my unselfconsciously joyful reaction to the movie which is pretty rare, maybe I see 1 or 2 movies a year like that. It's the words that count the most but even if it's been a while since I've given anything over 4 when thought about soberly, I wouldn't have any trouble going higher than that just going by how much I felt my movie-watching-receptors "turned on" by Inception.

[planet news]

stuff
1. You've said some of the most insightful things I've seen on this thread. Don't apologize.

2. NO. Don't compare Nolan to Tarkovsky pleeeeaaazzzzeee. I see 0 similarity except in the most generic "type" of subject matter for this one specific film.

3. Are you familiar with the work of Douglas Hofstadter? Mainly his idea of the strange loop, the same self-referential feedback that occurs when a mic is pointed into the amp its connected to, or, in this case, Ariadne's infinitely regressing mirrors?

4. The top was wobbling a lot. I think Nolan was just a little too scared to even have just the littlest amount of actual ambiguity. Let's be honest here; the top was just about to fall down. How much more wobble do you want?

5. I don't mean to do a self-plug (oh yes, but I do :devil:), but maybe check out my blog (homepage) post about Inception. It's almost nearly a direct response to your propositions about the lack of "outer, outer" projections. Ah hell, I'll just repost it here.

If taken at a purely literal level, there is nothing more at work here than simple Cartesian doubt-games. That is, I can doubt the existence of everything, but I can never doubt my own existence; we can all be figments of God’s dream and so on. However, there is something greater at play here. The Jung quote above, that “waking” life itself is comprised of a kind of fantasy, is the “theoretically pure” interpretation, though I mean this more in the sense of Lacan than Jung. What Jung means is that the reality of the psyche is the reality of the world perceived and that the unconscious is not divorced from the psyche during waking life; it is only hidden away. Dreams and foreconscious experience are merely separate halves of the whole of our mind. It is not merely metaphorical to refer to foreconsciousness as a waking dream. We return to Kierkegaard’s infamous question, Which is more difficult, to awaken one who sleeps or to awaken one who, awake, dreams that he is awake? [4 (http://youngdaguerreotypes.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/on-christopher-nolans-inception/#4)]
Jung once had a conversation with a woman with whom he described a girl who said that she had been on the moon. The woman wanted to clarify that it was a dream, but Jung replied that no clarification was needed and that the girl had been on the moon. Fantasy can be as real as anything else “real” if it is to be believed so, and reality—in Mal’s case especially—can conversely be as false as any fantasy if it believed to be so.

In this sense—in the sense of Kierkegaard’s question—the Dream Machine is far more insidious than any Id Machine. Both concepts are horror stories because they reveal that infinite, unknowable darkness of our unconscious. But what is so much more frightening about the Dream Machine is that, just like Thomas Anderson in The Matrix (1999) and of course Dom Cobb’s uncertain totem, the dreamer may never know whether or not he is in the dream or in the real world. Ultimately, this uncertainty, through Descartes’ line of logic, leads to a kind of paranoiac solipsism; a kind of all-encompassing schizophrenia. Where the formations of the Id Machine can strive to be destroyed or at least disconnected from the Id Machine, the only escape from a dream is an escape from the world itself. Cobb’s wife, Mal, transformed this universal paranoia into a kind of comforting certainty, the rational sort of metaphysical suicide that escaping the Wachowski’s Matrix or Peter Weir’s Truman Show hail as something inherently triumphant.

I claim that what Nolan tries to do with his final scenes is an implied critique of this heroic notion of escaping “back” into reality. Do we as an audience really have such a luxury to just “feel good” for Cobb’s victory? Should we really be comforted by the sight of his children? At first, everything seems wonderful. He is back in homeland America (more importantly, our homeland). He sees his children and hugs them. Only later does our paranoia set in: were the children not in the exact pose that they were when he last saw them and repeatedly reprojected them in all of his dreams since? And wearing the same clothes too? How do we account for these coincidences? The easiest interpretation of the heroism of Dom Cobb is exactly the kind of modernist, positivist heroism in which we are encouraged to reach for the “fundamental truth” that structures our world. It is almost Hegelian in its arrogance.

It is not even enough to say that “it is possible” that we all exist in a fantasy world—that is, some form of the VR in The Matrix. Here at last, we have Lacan.

What Nolan suggests is that we live in a world constructed of fantasies. We interact with the substances of our dreams. We project and imagine everything about our environment. The Real is only the framework by which we organize these projections. I am not claiming that we are in a VR, as Morpheus does so bombastically, but that on any level, within or without any reality, human consciousness will inevitably create its own inescapable web of symbolic order. What is the Lacanian big Other but the unseen, nonexistent Architect for the shared-dream of the world?

[Thursday Next]

Well I saw Inception on Tuesday and first let me say (since I imagine I will spend more time discussing its flaws) that I did enjoy it immensely. It kept me entertained for the full time, I didn't feel it was insulting my intelligence like some blockbuster movies. It was slick, entertaining, looked pretty good and gave me something to think about. And the music was excellent, possibly the best bit about the whole film.

I have skimmed through this thread and seen that a few people have quetioned why there isn't more imagination in the dream scenarios and I'm with them. I get that the idea, sometimes, seems to be to have the subject not know they are dreaming, but as they say in the film, when you're in the dream you don't know it's a dream, you accept things that are slightly surreal, so where was that surreal dream logic, aside from the train that suddenly attacks them and the one paradox staircase? Why just giant cities full of skyscrapers and not waterfalls that go up or crystal caves or well, anything? Maybe Nolan should have spent less time watching The Matrix and more time thinking of the visual possibilities. Because it could have been spectaular.

There was all the usual the bad guys can't shoot straight and the good guys never die (or when they do, they're ok because it's just a dream). That and the nagging suspicion right from the start that you can't really trust any of what you're seeing because it may all turn out to be a dream stopped me from connecting emotionally with the characters and the story, although Cobb's desire to get home to his kids was fairly convincing, and the awfulness of the situation with Mol. That there would be a question mark at the end over whether it was all a dream was inevitable, although I think it more ambiguous than some people have given it credit for, the point is less that it all might not be real and more that Cobb thinks it might. Although I also like the theory that he is stuck in some kind of dream loop.

I enjoyed the brief snippets of humour, mainly the interactions between Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy's characters, and the bit where Arthur gets Ariadne to kiss him, but I couldn't help the feeling that there needed to be a few more moments like this, a bit more quotable dialogue or 'woah cool' moments if this film is going to be the sort of cult film that people rewatch with affection.

A few questions which may be plot issues or may be me not fully 'getting it'... when they are attacked by Fischer's subconcious in the first level, why can't they change things, make their van bulletproof, for example? It's explained earlier on that changing things causes the subconcious to attack, but if it's attacking anyway, where's the harm? Or is it only the architcet who can change things and not when it's not her dream?

Why is Cobb's subconcious the only one that turns up and attacks them? Do the others not have subconscious secrets? Is it to do with him having been down to the bottom limbo level?

Is the bit right at the start a flashforward, to what happens later, or is everything in between a flashback to explain how they got there, or is it actually happening all over again and that's why Leo looks so confused during that scene, like he's said all those words before?

Why the only two times we see them infiltrating dreams do they end up telling the people whose dream they're in what they're doing?

If the spinnning top means it's reality, what is it doing in that scene between Cobb and the elderly Saito?

A lot of fun to discuss, anyway...

[The Prestige]

Glad you enjoyed it, Thursday. I'm going to be honest though, I am not going to even attempt to answer all of your questions as I really feel like I need to watch the film again in order to engage in more in depth discussions.

If the spinnning top means it's reality, what is it doing in that scene between Cobb and the elderly Saito?The top by itself doesn't just tell you whether or not you are in reality, you have to spin it to find out. If it stops spinning then it means you are in reality, if it doesn't and spins perfectly then you are dreaming.

[Thursday Next]

The top by itself doesn't just tell you whether or not you are in reality, you have to spin it to see to find out. If it stops spinning then it means you are in reality, if it doesn't and spins perfectly then your are dreaming.

Ah yes, I think I remember now... but if his subconcious keeps conjuring up his dead wife, what's to stop it from conjuring up a spinning top that stops spinning? What if the dream architect knows about his top and deliberately plants one in the dream? So many questions...

Also, as I forgot to include this in my last post, I couldn't watch this film without thinking of a one-line review I'd seen on twitter: 'A dream within a dream within a dream within a Sony Bravia advert...'

[stevo3001]

I applaud the ambition and effort in the film. There's a lot of work and some inspiration in that concept.

There's not much of either apparent outside the mechanics of the concept, though; this is a deeply flawed film. The huge amount of exposition wrecks the dialogue. The characters are uninteresting. The visuals are... good, I guess, but not the wow-factor I was expecting. (Nolan would, however, seemingly make a nice interior decorator for upscale hotels). The plot is very thin. A lot of it is an action movie, and it isn't an especially good one- there seems so little on the line, and it's neither visceral nor entertaining enough.

But this is different, this has some really good stuff in places, and it's worth checking out. I didn't find anything in the movie fascinating but it's certainly a more interesting conversation to be a part of than Avatar a few months back.

I'm still waiting for Nolan to get close to the promise shown in Memento. This, though, is at least far better than the mediocre Batman Begins, The Prestige and Insomnia. It's better in many ways than The Dark Knight too, better constructed, but it sorely lacks that film's one performance that brightens the muddy dullness of Nolan's 'you-must-take-me-seriously-because-look-how-seriously-I-take-myself' movies (Tom Hardy was much better than the rest of the cast, but didn't have a big enough role). I'm glad that there's an A-list Hollywood live-action director trying different things. One day he may produce something really special.

[linespalsy]

If the spinnning top means it's reality, what is it doing in that scene between Cobb and the elderly Saito?

Nice catch! Does the top stop spinning when Saito's playing with it? I'm pretty sure it does and if so I think that backs up my notion that the reality Cobb exits to, and perhaps even the one he enters from (the one with the bullet train and the airplane and the Mombasa streets) can't be proved real just by the top.

Is the bit right at the start a flashforward, to what happens later, or is everything in between a flashback to explain how they got there, or is it actually happening all over again and that's why Leo looks so confused during that scene, like he's said all those words before?

I hadn't thought of that possibility but I like it.

Why the only two times we see them infiltrating dreams do they end up telling the people whose dream they're in what they're doing?

I'm not sure if the way all the dreams are blended makes perfect sense, that's something I don't think I understand very well. But I think you can't always trust the characters' "expert" assertions about how dreaming works. One of the times that there may be a contradiction is when they're in Saito's apartment and the first architect gets the carpet wrong. If you believe what Cobb tells Ariadne isn't it supposed to be Saito's subconscious that supplies the little details like the carpet?

EDIT: This also goes back to your point about "what's to stop him from projecting a top that stops spinning?"

2. NO. Don't compare Nolan to Tarkovsky pleeeeaaazzzzeee. I see 0 similarity except in the most generic "type" of subject matter for this one specific film.

Fair enough. That was in response to what a lot of detractors seemed to be saying about Nolan's dream imagery not being imaginative enough. I just meant that even though the imagery isn't the strongest part of the movie it was more than good enough for me given its other strengths.

3. Are you familiar with the work of Douglas Hofstadter?

I've heard his name but that's all. Feedback stuff is really cool though. I didn't know that about the mike-amp feedback trick, but it sounds kind of like fractal video feedback, which is another really cool effect.

4. The top was wobbling a lot. I think Nolan was just a little too scared to even have just the littlest amount of actual ambiguity. Let's be honest here; the top was just about to fall down. How much more wobble do you want?

I'm not sure about this, you might be right. I'm pretty sure that the top was wobbling but was relatively more stable than when he first set it spinning. It's interesting that you read that wobble as making the ending less ambiguous because I interpreted it as more of a tease, like saying "yeah, this top has been going way too long for this to be real but maybe it'll stop" which would be doing the opposite. Maybe Nolan went a little overboard with the Tease.

[Glamourhits]

Go into the theater execting a cerebral film that dishes heavy helpings of the human condition and you wont be disappointed. The visuals there make this heavy film that much more amazing to take in.

All I have to say is that I don’t mind that he put aside Batman 3 to take time to make this. I don’t know if Nolan will ever top this film. He just made his own shoes even bigger ones to fill.


I give Inception a 10 out of 10

[TeeEm]

I don't know why everyone is rooting for film. I can't simply get it. It is so boring that i literally fell asleep in a 3D cinema while watching it. The character, the storyline and the characterization bored me to sleep.

Movie should be fun, entertaining and interesting. It should not be like a puzzle that viewer should decipher, if that would be the case i would rather buy a newspaper and try figuring out suduko and crossword puzzle.

[Cries&Whispers]

Nice catch! Does the top stop spinning when Saito's playing with it? I'm pretty sure it does and if so I think that backs up my notion that the reality Cobb exits to, and perhaps even the one he enters from (the one with the bullet train and the airplane and the Mombasa streets) can't be proved real just by the top.

Do you mean when elderly Saito is in limbo spinning the top, like when he's sitting across the table from Cobb in the beginning and again in the end of the movie? It does not stop spinning here, because this is a dream. When they first start talking, Saito spins it just because he remembers the top. After he and Cobb start realizing it's a dream, Cobb stares at the top and it is still spinning. This is a long time after Saito spun it, and it's perfectly upright. Thursday Next, the spinning top does not mean reality, it means just the opposite.

But something I did find strange was that in the several times I've seen the movie now, I've never heard anyone say that if the top stops spinning, you're not dreaming. When Arthur is explaining the properties of the totem to Ariadne, he says it only proves that you aren't in someone else's dream. But what about being in your own dream? So let's say Cobb's top did stop spinning in the end... this would prove that he's not in someone else's dream, but couldn't that mean he's in his own dream?

I'm not sure if the way all the dreams are blended makes perfect sense, that's something I don't think I understand very well. But I think you can't always trust the characters' "expert" assertions about how dreaming works. One of the times that there may be a contradiction is when they're in Saito's apartment and the first architect gets the carpet wrong. If you believe what Cobb tells Ariadne isn't it supposed to be Saito's subconscious that supplies the little details like the carpet?

I never thought of this, that's a great point.

[Fiscal]

I can't simply get it. It is so boring that i literally fell asleep in a 3D cinema while watching it.



YOU SAW INCEPTION IN 3D?!?!?111one

[Glamourhits]

did they make it on 3D

[Cries&Whispers]

I don't why everyone is rooting for film. I can't simply get it. It is so boring that i literally fell asleep in a 3D cinema while watching it. The character, the storyline and the characterization bored me to tears.

Movie should be fun, entertaining and interesting. I should not be like a puzzle that viewer should decipher, if that would be the case i would rather buy a newspaper and try figuring out suduko and crossword puzzle.

You sure you were watching Inception? It wasn't presented in 3D anywhere. Nolan isn't a big fan of it.

I think if you give yourself up to the outlandish set-up to begin with, the movie can be a very enjoyable heist film without requiring deep thought, just close attention. There are certainly larger ideas explored in the film, like regret and guilt, creation and inspiration, but even ignoring these, the movie is paced so well that I'm surprised you got bored.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILER SPOILERS

I do agree that the emotional core of the story--Cobb's guilt over performing inception on his wife, and his struggle to overcome it--does not feel real enough to me. Also, I don't like the ambiguity of whether or not the ending was a dream, whether or not the entire movie was a dream. This is possible, if you think about how few times Cobb spun his top. But this would basically nullify any emotional investment the viewer has in the characters and their plights.

[Cries&Whispers]

did they make it on 3D

No, I'm not sure what that guy's talking about.

[planet news]

WTF yall? Inception's 3D was teh awesome! Yall need 2 do yr research.

[Cries&Whispers]

WTF yall? Inception's 3D was teh awesome! Yall need 2 do yr research.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not. I'm about 150% positive it wasn't in 3-D

[Yoda]

It's a joke.

The other dude probably did see it in 3D...because he was on something.

Anyway, I owe a few people replies here, particularly given that I went back and saw the film again, but I've got real-world concerns for the next couple of days. Will try to post again soon, though.

[Holden Pike]

I saw Inception in 4D. Leo DiCaprio sat next to me and held my hand the whole time. Made a move for my knockers, too, but I swatted him away. Naughty boy, that one.

But if you give a close reading to TeeEm's post (and BOY, does it warrant close reading and study), they only say it was a 3D theater, not that Inception was being shown in 3D. Spatially, this is correct.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Squarecubetesseract.png/400px-Squarecubetesseract.png http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=191503414854&id=e78fe652cc8747daf69f3284c253b340&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.rimrockcinemaservices.com%2fmovie-theater.jpg

[Cries&Whispers]

I saw Inception in 4D. Leo DiCaprio sat next to me and held my hand the whole time. Made a movie for my knockers, too, but I swatted him away. Naughty boy, that one.

A. I always thought you were a dude, Holden. Knockers?

B. That is really, really funny.

C. I would give my left nut for Leo to sit in a theater and hold my hand the whole time.

[Holden Pike]

A. I always thought you were a dude, Holden. Knockers?
Boys have knockers, too. And nipples! I'm no Mamie Van Doren, but I do OK. Leo seemed to be intrigued.

[Cries&Whispers]

Boys have knockers, too. And nipples! I'm no Mamie Van Doren, but I do OK. Leo seemed to be intrigued.

Is this you, Holden:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af165/Renoir11/Movie%20Stills/fc_bob.jpg?t=1280423240

[meatwadsprite]

I belive that's Bob.

[The Prestige]

Ah yes, I think I remember now... but if his subconcious keeps conjuring up his dead wife, what's to stop it from conjuring up a spinning top that stops spinning? What if the dream architect knows about his top and deliberately plants one in the dream? So many questions...


Yeah there are beyond too many questions. Everything about this film invites infinite speculation and that's just one of many wonderful things about it. I don't think that the top is just apart of his subconcious, though. You would have to ask yourself what the dream architect has to gain from planting one.

[Thursday Next]

You would have to ask yourself what the dream architect has to gain from planting one.

Unless he is the dream architect... ;)

[meatwadsprite]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but we open with the scene of old Saito and Cobb and then we go way back to the test extraction on Saito. From the beginning of the movie Saito and Cobb know the line about "growing old and dying alone", then when the moment actually comes later in the film - Cobb says Saito's line.

[Yoda]

I belive that's Bob.
His name is Robert Paulson.

[The Prestige]

I do agree that the emotional core of the story--Cobb's guilt over performing inception on his wife, and his struggle to overcome it--does not feel real enough to me. Also, I don't like the ambiguity of whether or not the ending was a dream, whether or not the entire movie was a dream. This is possible, if you think about how few times Cobb spun his top. But this would basically nullify any emotional investment the viewer has in the characters and their plights.


This is just another reason why the notion of the film being an entire dream is a messed up conclusion to come to. Nolan wouldn't even think about doing something like this. You can't cheat the audience that way, it wouldn't be fair.

I don't think there is that much ambiguity in the last couple of mins of the film, honestly. The top wobbled and Nolan just teased us, that really is all. The film and comic do just about enough to establish a world outside the dream.

The emotional aspect of the film, yeah, I suppose it isn't it's strong point, but I do genuinely feel sorry for Cobb and the fact that he has all that subconcious weight on him. Though I do think that Cobb's selfishness compared to his game dream team make it difficult to proper root for him the way we would root for a Jason Bourne or Bond, i suppose. But remember, the other more likeable characters are in the thick of things with him aswell so naturally we sort of HAVE to root for him to perform inception.

I did think that the way Fischer was portrayed was a bit weird. Even though he is the subject, he has one of the most vital emotional scenes in the film, but prior to that he is a bit unflattering with his 'there is 500 dollars there and the wallet is worth more' stuff. I think he comes off a bit too arseholey. I know most of Nolan's characters are meant to be unlikeable but I thought Fischer was unintentionally so.

[Thursday Next]

I did think that the way Fischer was portrayed was a bit weird. Even though he is the subject, he has one of the most vital emotional scenes in the film, but prior to that he is a bit unflattering with his 'there is 500 dollars there and the wallet is worth more' stuff. I think he comes off a bit too arseholey. I know most of Nolan's characters are meant to be unlikeable but I thought Fischer was unintentionally so.

On the contrary, I think it was quite deliberate, Fischer is the spoilt, hard-nosed corporate type who undergoes an emotional re-evaluation of his life thanks to the inception.

I agree that in some ways it's a problem that he gets more emotional scenes than any of the team members, there's never anything really at stake for them, they won't die if they're shot by any of the terrible shots Fischer has defending his subconscious, they're doing it for money or curiosity or a mixture of the two. But then again, he is the inception target, his emotional turn around is a vital part of the whole concept. And that he gets a happy ending, even though what they're doing to him is wrong could be seen as either suspect or nicely morally ambiguous.

[tramp]

The emotional aspect of the film, yeah, I suppose it isn't it's strong point, but I do genuinely feel sorry for Cobb and the fact that he has all that subconcious weight on him. Though I do think that Cobb's selfishness compared to his game dream team make it difficult to proper root for him the way we would root for a Jason Bourne or Bond, i suppose. But remember, the other more likeable characters are in the thick of things with him aswell so naturally we sort of HAVE to root for him to perform inception.

I did think that the way Fischer was portrayed was a bit weird. Even though he is the subject, he has one of the most vital emotional scenes in the film, but prior to that he is a bit unflattering with his 'there is 500 dollars there and the wallet is worth more' stuff. I think he comes off a bit too arseholey. I know most of Nolan's characters are meant to be unlikeable but I thought Fischer was unintentionally so.

I rooted for Cobb the whole time. I chalk that up to Leo's performance and especially the scene where she jumps.

As to Fischer, I really enjoyed his transformation. I even wanted him to say something to Cobb in the airport like, "Hey, Thanks!"

Of course, that would not have been a good idea. :eek:

[Cries&Whispers]

I rooted for Cobb the whole time. I chalk that up to Leo's performance and especially the scene where she jumps.

As to Fischer, I really enjoyed his transformation. I even wanted him to say something to Cobb in the airport like, "Hey, Thanks!"

Of course, that would not have been a good idea. :eek:

I agree, Leo's performance was so great, especially in the scenes where his wife jumps, and where he blows up at Arthur for not researching Fischer well enough. He kind of forced me to care about him, but realistically, his story was pretty stale, and Nolan missed every chance to explore his guilt further.

I also agree that Fischer's growth was probably the most profound in the film. He was kind of an *******, since he was a spoiled billionaire heir, but he drastically changed, starting around the time Leo invented Mr. Charles and Fischer agreed to go into the dream. His scene with his father in the end is the only truly emotional scene in the film for me. It represents a true transformation.

[planet news]

Actually, I found the "Jesus Christ" line to be very awkward and failed for me every time they showed it. I almost wanted to laugh at that line for some reason. I don't know, just the phrase "Jesus Christ" seems kinda goofy to me at that moment... this is probably just me.

[Cries&Whispers]

Actually, I found the "Jesus Christ" line to be very awkward and failed for me every time they showed it. I almost wanted to laugh at that line for some reason. I don't know, just the phrase "Jesus Christ" seems kinda goofy to me at that moment... this is probably just me.

That's probably just you, that was one of my favorite lines in the movie, because Leo delivered it so well. Though, I admit, the phrase is a little awkward in that moment. I thought it was weird that Nolan cut to the next scene immediately after that phrase. He never allowed DiCaprio to express his feelings right after his wife jumped. This is without a doubt the single most traumatic experience in Cobb's life and the motivation that drives literally the entire plot, and Nolan chose to skip the entirety of his phase of processing the incident. I would have loved to see how Cobb went back into the hotel room and cried or panicked, or did whatever he would do--I don't know, because they skipped it--and then left before he could be discovered.

[planet news]

The sudden cut was good IMO. A prolonged Leo-cry sequence would have felt cliched, and Leo's panic was heightened later when his lawyer said he had to leave "nao" and the whole kidz thing. Plus, I was already turned off with "Jesus Christ".

I'm not sure repeating the same shots over and over was necessary. I feel like this is a kind of a dumb way to "remind" you of "that". I think they maybe did "Jesus Christ" twice or thrice, but one time was enough for me. Each time afterwards felt like more of a joke.

F*ck am I a bad person for not mourning Mal? :devil:

[Miss Vicky]

No, but I believe the word you're reaching for is "mourning."

[WBadger]

Jesus Christ, can this person spell?

;)

[Yoda]

I'd have to agree with planet news, actually. I didn't really feel it was "goofy," but it did kinda stick out. It didn't seem like the kind of thing someone would say in that situation...but, if I can qualify my qualification even more...it did feel kinda random in an authentic way. IE: people react to extreme things in weird ways, when it's all in the moment. I guess the only thing I can say for sure is that I really noticed it, which felt strange. It doesn't bother me much, though.

I think I kind of like the sudden cut away, though. The suffering on his face would feel obligatory after more than a few moments. It'd feel too much like "let's showcase this actor" scene, to me.

[tramp]

OMG, I have no idea what you guys are talking about, lol. I don't remember "jesus christ" at all... I only saw the movie once.

I remember Leo crying and I have the image in the mind, but I have no memory of what his words were.

[Miss Vicky]

OMG, I have no idea what you guys are talking about, lol. I don't remember "jesus christ" at all... I only saw the movie once.

I remember Leo crying and I have the image in the mind, but I have no memory of what his words were.

I have to say, I don't remember him saying that phrase either.

[Thursday Next]

I have to say, I don't remember him saying that phrase either.

Me neither. I'm trying to recall it but all I'm getting is The Wicker Man...

[tramp]

*phew* Glad I'm not the only one who doesn't remember! :p

[christine]

Can't help wondering if our boy Pete Postlethwaite earned more per seconds appearance in Inception than any other film he's been in.

[sarah f]

My initial thought walking out of the theatre, which no one else here seems to have mentioned as a possibility, was that the end is a dream; not that the entirety of the movie is a dream, but that Cobb never truly woke up from limbo at the very end, while everyone else presumably did wake up. He instead, is living out his ultimate fantasy, to see his children's faces again. If everything that happens at the end is to be taken at face value, as I actually take the rest of the film, I just plain don't like the ending at all. It's way too clean and perfect and easy. Also, the ending seemed much too abrupt to me, if it's all supposed to be real. Ken Watanabe touches a gun in limbo and then they wake up and everything works out perfectly. I felt like more was going to happen. It leaves me unsatisfied, the idea that everything gets tied up so easily and quickly. If the end is reality, then has Christopher Nolan ever before made a movie with such an obvious and happy ending?

Of course, this isn't to say I think poorly of the film.

[mark f]

My rating: 3.5+

Sarah quoted her new Sig from I Thought My Father Was God. I know she doesn't believe that but c'mon already...

I thought these Zones were "Spoiler-Free."

The reason you don't recall Leo saying "Jesus Christ" when his wife dies is that it's probably one of the most normal things for a person to say when a painful experience occurs.

I like that planet noticed that the kids are exactly the same, filmed at exactly the same time, wearing the exact same clothes.... Now if, as the credits "claim", that the kids are a different age somewhere in the movie and "look differently", then I'm a blowhard, but the kids I remember in the flick are all exactly the same and in the exact same space. This leads me to believe that Nolan tried to fool me somehow by putting miniature "kids" in the exact same pose as real kids (no matter how often they are his [Nolan's] OWN kids.) I find that difficult to believe.

Another thing I just thought about was for the Prestige. His number one is Memento and Inception is what he may see as a followup to Memento. Now, Citizen Kane is obviously referenced in Inception when Fischer goes into his "father's" safe and cries.

I didn't notice anybody in here discussing their fave scenes. For example, the zero gravity hotel. Somebody may have said it was their fave, but did you notice that about 95% of it was played backwards in the movie. Only some of the intros and outros seemed to be shown forward in the flick.

Somebody said that Leo's top was not the same as his wife's, but I would have sworn that Cobb took the top out of his wife's "safe". As far as the actual ending when Cobb gets home, I thought the top was already spinning when he first saw it. It was at this time that the top started to wobble. It was only after we saw the faces of Cobb's kids that we saw the top again, spinning as perfectly as perfect can be.

I think Dumbo would have been a perfect reference point for this flick, with all the "Pink Elephants". Maybe they didn't have laser eyes but they felt very good by rubbing lightning on their butts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=944cPciN-kw

Sarah and I never thought once of The Matrix while watching the film. I certainly thought of Shutter Island though and wondered why the films were so superficially similar.

The best idea I've heard from anybody is Sarah's about the ending. Look, we went through the ringer with Cobb, but the movie is more about the viewer's [viewee's/dreamer's] experience than some other "unenlightened" interpreter.

[Thursday Next]

My initial thought walking out of the theatre, which no one else here seems to have mentioned as a possibility, was that the end is a dream; not that the entirety of the movie is a dream, but that Cobb never truly woke up from limbo at the very end, while everyone else presumably did wake up. He instead, is living out his ultimate fantasy, to see his children's faces again.

That makes an awful lot of sense. The ending is almost too neat, everybody nodding and smiling at each other, he walks straight through passport control, Michael Caine is waiting for him and his kids are just the same... yeah. The more I think about this, the more I think you might be right. And that ending is the best ending because it doesn't make the whole thing a dream and negate everything that happens including all the other team members. He could have been shot by Saito while in limbo and not woken up because of the sedation, he's just still there.

[christine]

It'll be interesting for someone who goes and sees the film again to specifically look to see if the children are the same thoughout. I think they're different older kids at some points.

[The Prestige]

On the contrary, I think it was quite deliberate, Fischer is the spoilt, hard-nosed corporate type who undergoes an emotional re-evaluation of his life thanks to the inception.


I agree that in some ways it's a problem that he gets more emotional scenes than any of the team members, there's never anything really at stake for them, they won't die if they're shot by any of the terrible shots Fischer has defending his subconscious, they're doing it for money or curiosity or a mixture of the two. But then again, he is the inception target, his emotional turn around is a vital part of the whole concept. And that he gets a happy ending, even though what they're doing to him is wrong could be seen as either suspect or nicely morally ambiguous.

That's one interesting way of looking at it, I suppose. But if it was deliberate then I still think it's a risky way of going about it.

I rooted for Cobb the whole time. I chalk that up to Leo's performance and especially the scene where she jumps


When I say that Cobb is unlikeable that is no way a reflection of DiCaprio's performance or abilities. He was as solid as he has been in the last 6 years. I just meant that Cobb isn't normally the type of guy to root for despite his Solid Snake skills.



Another thing I just thought about was for the Prestige. His number one is Memento and Inception is what he may see as a followup to Memento. Now, Citizen Kane is obviously referenced in Inception when Fischer goes into his "father's" safe and cries.


Rar, honestly man I didn't even notice to Citizen Kane reference. It seems pretty obvious now that you have mentioned it though.

Yeah man, I definitely viewed Inception as a follow up to Memento. The theme of the limitations and possibilities of the mind are identical but explored in a more literal and grand scale in Inception.

Also, I read one review that says that Inception encompasses everything Nolan has done before, and I would have to agree. The absolute freedom and deep themes of Memento combined with the visual flair of Insomnia/The Prestige and spectacle of Batman Begins/The Dark Knight.

As for favourite scenes. Well Mark, there are so so many of me.

Nolan/Lee Smith have become masters of cross cutting. The ending in The Prestige was made even more dramatic than it normally would have been because of the cross cutting between the hanging and the doppelganger's reveal. And a lot of people compared The Dark Knight's double execution sequences where The Joker simultaneous kills Commissioner Loeb and The Judge to that of the church scene in The Godfather, and rightly so. This type of editing technique has become a favourite of mine and I think it was done perfectly near the end of Inception where they go through the triple 'kick'. Somebody else on here mentioned that it was one of the best editing sequence they'd ever seen and I am inclined to agree. Not become i'm a Nolanite but because it really is. It's an exciting scene and the editing category is probably the best chance the film has in getting an oscar.

Not much of a scene more of a quick flashback but I also really loved the visual where Mal and Cobb are in limbo building the sandcastles and while Mal smashes them, there are buildings behind them collapsing. I didn't notice it the first time around and it's a gorgeous moment which further gives you an idea of why they felt like 'gods' in their dreamland. You think something and even though you don't visualise it, it happens anyways. Yeah, not sure what I just said there too, but that's the way I saw that scene. :)

Arther's zero gravity fight scene was another favourite of mine too. It did remind me of The Matrix but that wasn't a bad thing to me. It was still very exciting and to think they used minimal effects and no stunt doubles really emphasises the wow factor of it. Probably the action highlight for myself and many others.

Other notable scenes was near the beginning where Cobb saves Arther from torture by shooting him in the head and the dream subsequently collapsing. I really like the editing and intensity in that scene too. Having the beautiful Mal walk fearlessly around while the whole building crumbles was surreal and the editing between Cobb getting beaten up and Brick alumni Lukas Haas aggressively trying to wake him up.

Anyways, just some of my favourite moments in this wonderful film.

[the professional]

Great Film.

[Yoda]

My initial thought walking out of the theatre, which no one else here seems to have mentioned as a possibility, was that the end is a dream; not that the entirety of the movie is a dream, but that Cobb never truly woke up from limbo at the very end, while everyone else presumably did wake up. He instead, is living out his ultimate fantasy, to see his children's faces again. If everything that happens at the end is to be taken at face value, as I actually take the rest of the film, I just plain don't like the ending at all. It's way too clean and perfect and easy. Also, the ending seemed much too abrupt to me, if it's all supposed to be real. Ken Watanabe touches a gun in limbo and then they wake up and everything works out perfectly. I felt like more was going to happen. It leaves me unsatisfied, the idea that everything gets tied up so easily and quickly. If the end is reality, then has Christopher Nolan ever before made a movie with such an obvious and happy ending?
Well, no, but he's never made a film completely from his own idea, and from his own screenplay, either.

I see what you're saying about the ending being a little out of character with his other works, but this particular interpretation is out of character with the other scenes that precede it, isn't it? He has a very difficult, touching moment with his projection of Mal in which he makes the incredibly painful, but necessary, choice, to reject that false reality in favor of the real one. It's a lovely little speech about how his memory is just a "shade" of her, and that she's "just not good enough" as his real wife, with all her "complexity and perfection."

The idea that Nolan would give us a "happy" ending might be a little unusual, but isn't it less unusual then us seeing Cobb make all those heartfelt decisions, and explain them to us adamantly, and then turn around and immediately choose the dream world anyway, a few levels up?

As for abrupt; a lot of the abruptness comes from the dreams, where it's quite common throughout the film. I kind of like that Nolan gets to the next issue quickly. We don't really need some long, drawn-out epilogue after the heist, because at a certain point it becomes quite obvious what's happening. Personal preference, obviously, but I like when a movie trusts us to fill in those standard blanks from time to time.

I will say that after having seen the film a second time and specifically looking for clues of this sort, the idea that the end is a dream is plausible, at least (though the idea that all of it is, isn't). But it seems stunningly inconsistent with the resolution in limbo he has with his projection with Mal. It'd be a complete 180, invalidate the emotional climax of the film, and it would have only the faintest of hints to suggest what had happened.

[Yoda]

I still owe a few people replies earlier, so apologies for that. Just replying to what I can remember is out there at the moment. I'll catch up, though, I promise. :)

I didn't notice anybody in here discussing their fave scenes. For example, the zero gravity hotel. Somebody may have said it was their fave, but did you notice that about 95% of it was played backwards in the movie. Only some of the intros and outros seemed to be shown forward in the flick.
Zuh? Backwards? I don't follow.

Concerning my favorite scenes, though: I really like Ariadne's training program, and I really like Cobb's Mr. Charles routine. Obviously the hotel scenes were the most inventive and fun, though. I think they have to be among just about everyone's favorite scenes. It's one thing to have cool, Matrix-y style fights, but it's another thing to actually have a logical reason for the bizarre nature of the fight. Really dug that. A lot.


Somebody said that Leo's top was not the same as his wife's, but I would have sworn that Cobb took the top out of his wife's "safe". As far as the actual ending when Cobb gets home, I thought the top was already spinning when he first saw it. It was at this time that the top started to wobble. It was only after we saw the faces of Cobb's kids that we saw the top again, spinning as perfectly as perfect can be.
No, he had it with him, and deliberately spun it on the table. He did the same thing three times earlier in the film, two of those times right after he'd woken up, to make sure he was in reality, and the third time while he was holding a gun, ready to shoot himself if the top didn't stop (this was right before he was on the phone with his children, early in the film).

Anyway, in the final scene he comes in, spins the top, but then sees his children's faces and walks away before seeing what happens to it. The top wobbling was the very last thing we see/hear; we don't see it correct itself again, which is one of several reasons I think the ending is reality.

Sarah and I never thought once of The Matrix while watching the film. I certainly thought of Shutter Island though and wondered why the films were so superficially similar.
Same here, though probably because I saw Shutter Island just a couple of weeks beforehand. I think someone said this already, but that'd be a heck of a double-bill.

The best idea I've heard from anybody is Sarah's about the ending. Look, we went through the ringer with Cobb, but the movie is more about the viewer's [viewee's/dreamer's] experience than some other "unenlightened" interpreter.
I dunno if this jibes with what Nolan has been saying about the film, though. He's repeatedly emphasized that it took forever because he couldn't find an emotional core to connect to, and he says DiCaprio found it. The film certainly works on many levels, but I don't think Cobb is just some excuse to drag us into it all; he's pretty clearly integral for Nolan.

[planet news]

Fischer's pinwheel is like the Kane's sled. It's the one thing that defines the man that the dream team exploits. If the dream team were to perform inception on Charles F. Kane in some insanely awesome crossover fanfic, they would have made a safe containing the initial snow scene. Then Kane would have broken down and they would have performed the kick and................

---

The Matrix, Inception, and Dark City are a highly connected triad, each exploring a different aspect of reality, as in The Real, versus reality of, let's say, Karl Popper's "World 2". TM and I are both clearly action thrillers while DC is more of a mystery. All three are sci-fi and use the motif of urban jungle as their representation of the dream world. Beautifully, all three bear no explicit developmental relationship to each other. Take a look at Inception's art design; it is evident on any poster: it's about architecture, the sleek forms of the city and the business-class heist thieves that work about it, within it. The Matrix features a similar elegance, though it also contains decay. Dark City is utter decay. The world of Dark City is "obscenely finite". It's the world on a platter--Terry Pratchett's Discworld realized. The world of The Matrix is half finite and half virtual infinite. The world of Inception is entirely virtual infinite, as suggested by the ending. Thus, the triad is placed as follows:

Inception -- The Matrix -- Dark City

Keeping in chronology with the latest date beginning on the left of the timeline:

Dark City -- The Matrix -- Inception

We see a simple dialectic format emerge with Dark City as the original, The Matrix as its response, and Inception as their mediation. Unfortunately, this triad works much better when out of order, namely in the structural order presented above. The Matrix is the mediation between Inception and Dark City. It contains distinct elements of both films even though, at the time of its filming, Inception did not exist. Inception was thus the necessary "response" to the missing member of the triad. DC's antithesis, one that had already been mediated by The Matrix.

This is why, I claim, it took such disproportionate amount of time for Inception to me made.

Look at the release dates: DC (1998), TM (1999), I (2010). The conflict had already been mediated; the synthesis was discovered even from before the emergence of the antithesis. This is the Wachowski's genius and why the film made so many waves. If Inception came out before The Matrix, the response to The Matrix would have been more mild, as would the response to Inception. Instead, both films were switched out of their dialectical order--their natural form of development--and thus retained their ability to shock and surprise. Hollywood executives may be smarter than you think.

More later................

[meatwadsprite]

I don't remember a scene where Cobb obtains Mal's top, as far as I can remember it's only ever seen (without Cobb) in their dream world. It's also been pointed out to me, that Cobb's totem is his wedding ring, which he wears in all the dreams and not in the ending.

[Yoda]

Interesting stuff, planet, though I certainly don't believe that this is part of some grand scheme. I think it holds up in the sense that each film has to be released with the foreknowledge of the entire history of similar films that come before it. Inception as it was originally conceived might have felt like a tired retreat of The Matrix before The Matrix came out, but once it did, it would have had to evolve and change, or else it wouldn't have been made and we wouldn't have discussed it.

Any thoughtful film is going to have to be this way, or it's not nearly as likely to get made, so there's a selection bias when it comes to the order they come out in, and the manner in which they "shock and surprise." We're seeing the end result of the process, not all the ways in which they may have been exactly alike, or more or less similar, before they got to "see" each other.

I don't remember a scene where Cobb obtains Mal's top, as far as I can remember it's only ever seen (without Cobb) in their dream world. It's also been pointed out to me, that Cobb's totem is his wedding ring, which he wears in all the dreams and not in the ending.
He picks up the top in the hotel room, I believe; it's among all the broken glass.

[planet news]

Truth is what works, as they say. That's why critical theory is so fun.

---

And yes, the moment right before Mal's death is the moment Cobb pick up her totem, thus destroying her only real link to reality. She doesn't necessarily see this, but it is as if, at this point, her reality in "our" world has totally collapsed.

---

And I think Nolan will be forever trying to recreate his BECUZ HE KAN TAEK IT ending. Something so overblown that you can actually forget how ridiculous what just happened was. He definitely tried it again with the R U HERE 2 KILL ME? dramatic whispering while scowling.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

I posted this in my review thread, but I'll repost it here. As some of you know, I really disliked the film. Here's more as to why it didn't work... at all for me.

Inception (2010, Christopher Nolan)

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/preview-inception-431.jpg

Dreams aren't exactly a new concept to focus a film around, and Inception is the latest of several "action idea" films to hit the screens. Dreams within dreams within dreams is a cool concept, I'll admit. A few other films that treaded down similar territory as Inception - some more alike, some less include; Total Recall, The Matrix, Dark City, and so on. Movies that deal with dreams and reality that are in less of an action vein include Vanilla Sky, The Science of Sleep, Being John Malkovich, and on and on... Why do I name drop these other films? I do so to point out that Inception is really not groundbreaking at all, and this concept has been floating around in Hollywood for several decades now. I guess I find it a bit perplexing when I read reviews or hear people discuss how groundbreaking and inovative the film is. Not really, audiences have seen this type of thing before and done much better.
The film begins with putting the audience into the action and then progresses into an extended exposition explaining the premise. Leonard DiCaprio is a thief and fugitive who steals information by putting people to sleep and then entering their dreams to extract information. Even more difficult to do is to implement rather than extract information, thus the title of the film. Cillian Murphy, one of my favorite young actors, plays Leo's target for the film for whom our protagonist must dissaude from following in his father's business.
A simple plot really, but the film would like the viewer to think it's more complicated than it really is. Of course Christopher Nolan throws in a backstory about how Leo lost his wife and now she haunts his dreams and his career and so on. This would work if there was any chemistry between the two characters of which there is not. Also there is no effort spent on developing the relationship or scenes spent on showing the two together in love aside from a couple scenes where they say they are in love. Regardless this romantic/haunting love backstory is thrown into the film for two main purposes. Number one is of course marketing and demographic based. Without this sideplot the film would be a difficult sell to females who must tag along with their boyfriends to see the film. The second reason of course is to give Leo's character a movtivation and driving force, but to show he is fallable, which gives the illusion of a three dimension character, when really his character is very thinly drawn.
Juno Hard Candy is also thrown into the film who looks a little too young and child-like for the role of a person responsible for creating a dreamworld. But she's a fresh face who will attract young audiences who would normally go see a Michael Bay film this time of year, so it was for all purposes a smart casting move. As a viewer I found it insulting that her character is let in on everything and understands more after a day or two of working with Leo than his entire crew who has been working with him for years. But that fits within the film rules because Leo's crew are secondary characters, while Juno is a primary character. Also miscast is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who plays an action role, but also looks like a little kid. For this part it calls for someone a bit more gruff.
Up until now my complaints about Inception have mainly been limited to the plot, which by the way the film breaks every rule that it builds up with the last frame. SPOILERS, but either the top will spin or it won't spin. If it spins it is a dream. If it falls it is reality. Well Nolan jerks his audience around by having it wobble and then stand up straight, clearly going for the ambiguous "let's discuss it and try to figure it out" ending. Too bad he can't stick to his own film's rules. I dare anyone who has not seen this film, but will or who will see it a subsequent time to count how many seconds each shot is held. I don't think you will get above five seconds. The camera is constantly moving and the editing is as frentic as a Michael Bay film, with no shot held to enjoy the beauty of the mise en scene. The soundtrack is stock "urgent" music and never lets up. There is very little dialogue in the film outside of exposition, and plot. There is no chemistry between any of the characters, or reason I should care about any of this.
Chris Nolan is a fine filmmaker, but clearly he has been goaded by the suits in Hollywood to make hybrid films that attract both the film snob viewer and the Michael Bay viewer. In that regard Inception is a masterpiece of marketing because it is able to attract and cater to a broad group of viewers. Memento was amazing, but Inception... ehhhh not so much. If I want a "thinking film" I'll watch one, and if I want an action film I'll watch one. I'll even watch Total Recall if I want a brilliant hybrid of the two. I'll watch Inception again if I want a headache.

Grade: D

[iluv2viddyfilms]

http://www.mannythemovieguy.com/images/total_recall_remake.jpg

[Yoda]

A disconcertingly large portion of that review is based around speculating about what people were thinking, and assumptions about studio machinations. There's a whole mess of assumptions here, and I'm not sure some of them really have that much to do with the film, or ring true. A few that caught my eye:

... Why do I name drop these other films? I do so to point out that Inception is really not groundbreaking at all, and this concept has been floating around in Hollywood for several decades now. I guess I find it a bit perplexing when I read reviews or hear people discuss how groundbreaking and inovative the film is. Not really, audiences have seen this type of thing before and done much better.
I don't usually hear "groundbreaking," but I definitely hear innovative, because it is. Sure, we've seen films about dreams before, and we've seen films that question the nature of reality, but many of them are wishy-washy, or only skim the surface of the idea, or treat it as some bizarre oddity we're just meant to accept. That's all well and good, but it's not quite the same thing as Inception.

But really, whether or not a film is groundbreaking or innovative is of secondary concern here. I realize that any time a film attempts to be thoughtful some fanboys, or teenagers, or whatever, flip out and declare it the deepest and most poignant thing they've ever seen. But just as bad is the rush of corresponding reviews which seemed less concerned with the film itself, and more concerned with offsetting a perceived overenthusiasm for it. "It's not as good as this particular group of people think" isn't the same as "It's not good."

A simple plot really, but the film would like the viewer to think it's more complicated than it really is.
I don't think so; the film wants us to think the scheme inside it is complicated, and it absolutely is.

Of course Christopher Nolan throws in a backstory about how Leo lost his wife and now she haunts his dreams and his career and so on. This would work if there was any chemistry between the two characters of which there is not. Also there is no effort spent on developing the relationship or scenes spent on showing the two together in love aside from a couple scenes where they say they are in love. Regardless this romantic/haunting love backstory is thrown into the film for two main purposes. Number one is of course marketing and demographic based.
Of course? When did this become some kind of established fact?

Really, if marketing had half the sway here that you seem to be suggesting, do you think they'd really have cast Marrion Cotillard? Do you think the relatively normal moviegoers that you seem to dislike so much know who she is, or find her to be a draw?

Let's consider the possibility that this is the story Nolan wanted to tell. Because we have every indication that it is. Nolan's gotten to make some pretty atypical films with some pretty large budgets, and there's no denying that he has a lot of pull when it comes to marketing, but his films consistently give far, far less away in their trailers and clips than basically every other major release.

Juno Hard Candy is also thrown into the film who looks a little too young and child-like for the role of a person responsible for creating a dreamworld. But she's a fresh face who will attract young audiences who would normally go see a Michael Bay film this time of year, so it was for all purposes a smart casting move. As a viewer I found it insulting that her character is let in on everything and understands more after a day or two of working with Leo than his entire crew who has been working with him for years.
Cobb remarks that she's picking things up unusually fast. That's a perfectly reasonable thing, given that she was recommended for the job by Cobb's father (in-law?) because she's an exceptional student. She gets to see more of Cobb because she's in a unique position; he has to tutor her in this art, and he doesn't have much time. She's also very bold; she violates Cobb's trust a bit to learn his secrets, he doesn't just offer them up.

Also, since when is being young and child-like something which undermines creativity? It's exactly the opposite.

Also miscast is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who plays an action role, but also looks like a little kid. For this part it calls for someone a bit more gruff.
The "action" is in their minds. He doesn't have to be gruff/strong/whatever.

Up until now my complaints about Inception have mainly been limited to the plot, which by the way the film breaks every rule that it builds up with the last frame. SPOILERS, but either the top will spin or it won't spin. If it spins it is a dream. If it falls it is reality. Well Nolan jerks his audience around by having it wobble and then stand up straight, clearly going for the ambiguous "let's discuss it and try to figure it out" ending. Too bad he can't stick to his own film's rules.
I've re-read this paragraph three times, and I have no idea how not showing us what happens with the top in any way breaks the film's "rules."

Also, to my memory it doesn't wobble and stand-up straight. It just starts to wobble. But that's probably not important in regards to this point, anyway.

I dare anyone who has not seen this film, but will or who will see it a subsequent time to count how many seconds each shot is held. I don't think you will get above five seconds. The camera is constantly moving and the editing is as frentic as a Michael Bay film, with no shot held to enjoy the beauty of the mise en scene. The soundtrack is stock "urgent" music and never lets up.
Simply pointing out that the music is urgent (how is it "stock" exactly?), or that the editing is quick, isn't an indictment in and of itself. You can't say "Michael Bay uses quick shots, Inception has quick shots, ergo Inception is as bad as a Michael Bay film." Sometimes, they're appropriate. For example, when you have a ton of things happening on four different layers of reality at once.

Also, I'm pretty sure that some of the shots in Ariadne's tutorial are held for quite awhile at some points, precisely to "enjoy the beauty of the mise en scene."

Chris Nolan is a fine filmmaker, but clearly he has been goaded by the suits in Hollywood to make hybrid films that attract both the film snob viewer and the Michael Bay viewer.
I don't think he has, and I see almost nothing to suggest that he has, but more importantly, I don't know why anyone would be so concerned and inherently put off by a film simply because they think it was trying to appeal to a large audience.

[planet news]

I've thought an obscene amount about this film. I'm tired of it, and I don't want to praise it anymore other than for choosing a very interesting topic that I care a lot about.

I don't know exactly what D means... maybe a 60% or 6/10. I initially gave it a 7/10, and I'll stick with that.

I agree with all of Yoda's criticisms of your criticisms though. I don't think they're as strong as others I've seen on this thread.

[Yoda]

I should probably add that I really don't want it to sound like I'm all pissed off, and I hope my reply doesn't offend you, viddy. I'm glad you wrote your review and I never want to discourage anyone from writing what they think. You just happen to have written the kind of review that tends to get my goat a little, and I've tried to explain why, what I disagree with, etc. I hope you take it in that spirit, and not as some kind of attack.

[mark f]

Well, to me a 7/10 is a B and a 6/10 is a C+, so a D would be about a 4/10. I gave Inception about a 7.2/10, just shy of a B+.

[planet news]

So 28% of the film was dung or mild dung. Sure, I'd agree with that.

Also...

I hope you take it in that spirit, and not as some kind of attack.

http://www.mannythemovieguy.com/images/total_recall_remake.jpg

[planet news]

Also...

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/34dkciw.png

[mark f]

So 28% of the film was dung or mild dung. Sure, I'd agree with that.


I think my ratings are coming from a totally different perspective. I give an 8/10 an A-, so I'd never say an A- is remotely partially 20% cowpie. It's just that I try to save the area above 8/10 for the movies I find just that much better. I also don't buy into the "anything below a 6/10 is an F" school. Why would you have the majority of your available ratings be movies which are "failures"? My F zone goes from about 0-3/10 although it's getting harder to determine what deserves a 0 or a 1 because you actually have to watch a lot of bad movies to differentiate. :cool:

[iluv2viddyfilms]

I should probably add that I really don't want it to sound like I'm all pissed off, and I hope my reply doesn't offend you, viddy. I'm glad you wrote your review and I never want to discourage anyone from writing what they think. You just happen to have written the kind of review that tends to get my goat a little, and I've tried to explain why, what I disagree with, etc. I hope you take it in that spirit, and not as some kind of attack.

It's all cool. Differences of opinions, don't mean duel at sunrise.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

I've thought an obscene amount about this film. I'm tired of it, and I don't want to praise it anymore other than for choosing a very interesting topic that I care a lot about.

I don't know exactly what D means... maybe a 60% or 6/10. I initially gave it a 7/10, and I'll stick with that.

I agree with all of Yoda's criticisms of your criticisms though. I don't think they're as strong as others I've seen on this thread.

D means a D I guess. I used to post at moviejustice which went on a letter grade system. I know a few people here still use the letter such as Holden. Transfering it to a score out of 10 I'm guessing it would be around a five maybe? Not sure.

[mark f]

I'm a major wack job though because I give Total Recall one of those A-s, and I have no doubt that it's Arnie's best flick (well, most-entertaining by at least a planet).

[genesis_pig]

Total Recall is Arnie' best film IMO too.. followed by Commando.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

I'm a major wack job though because I give Total Recall one of those A-s, and I have no doubt that it's Arnie's best flick (well, most-entertaining by at least a planet).

It is an amazing film, and yes I would say it's close to be his best film with the first two Terminator films right up there.

[ZIAD00]

The best Movie of the decade ....deserves to hold #3 in Top IMDb 250

[mark f]

It won't hold it for long. The Dark Knight was up there too, and it's currently at #12.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

It won't hold it for long. The Dark Knight was up there too, and it's currently at #12.

I wonder how many more votes something like Inception and The Dark Knight have than the others in the top 50 or so.

[Yoda]

We don't have to wonder; they list the number of votes for each film (http://www.imdb.com/chart/top).

The Dark Knight has about as many votes as any other film, but Inception still has something like a third of most of the top films.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Article on Inception ending. (http://screenrant.com/inception-spoilers-discussion-kofi-68330/)

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/204/1/a/Inception_Infographic_by_dehahs.jpg

TDK has the second most votes on the entire list, next to Shawshank. I think the fact that Inception is in 6 digits now and is still in top 3 is a surprise. Toy Story has half of that and has fallen.

Time will be the factor though....oh and fanboys.

[planet news]

That's really cool, actually. Sorta unnecessary, but still really cool. :cool:

[Fiscal]

Pretty neat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkQ0C4qDvM&feature=player_embedded

[Fiscal]

No, he had it with him, and deliberately spun it on the table. He did the same thing three times earlier in the film, two of those times right after he'd woken up, to make sure he was in reality, and the third time while he was holding a gun, ready to shoot himself if the top didn't stop (this was right before he was on the phone with his children, early in the film).

Anyway, in the final scene he comes in, spins the top, but then sees his children's faces and walks away before seeing what happens to it. The top wobbling was the very last thing we see/hear; we don't see it correct itself again, which is one of several reasons I think the ending is reality.

After the opening scene, chronologically, he only spins it one other time, right? Saito spins it at the beginning of the movie, but that point in time takes place at the end of the story. After he spins it, they off themselves and come out of everything on the plane and the next time he spins it is at home before he sees his kids. Does that soung right? I am just trying to get it right in my head by typing it out...


EDIT: If this is true, then wouldn't the only determining real vs dream factor be whether or not the top stops spinning on the table during the last scene? It seems the real world leading up to the job really happened, but the question remains, did Cobb get out of the dream state? IMO, it should be determined that yes he did -- the top wobbled from it's spinning motion.

[Yoda]

After the opening scene, he attempts to spin it four times, but succeeds only three. The first time is right before he calls his kids; he's holding a gun. We don't know why then, of course, but it's to shoot himself with if it doesn't stop (it does). He does it again after waking up from one of the dream tutorials, I believe. I can't remember the specifics for some reason, but I remember that a) it was right after dreaming and b) it stopped.

The last two spins are different. The third time is right after he tries Yusef's special sedative for the first time. He's so shaken up by the experience that he struggles with the top and it drops to the floor just as Saito walks in -- so we never see if it stays upwards or topples. Then, the fourth time: the spin at the end of the film.

[Fiscal]

Right, but chronologically, being as the first scene takes place at the end of the story.

EDIT: Yeah, I guess I was just trying to figure out if a certain spin-o-the-top was more important. They are all relevant though...

[Yoda]

Right.

Chronologically, the first point at which someone could say "everything from this point on is a dream" without stretching like mad is that failed top spin right after using Yusef's sedative. Still don't think it makes any sense, narratively, to undermine the film's emotional climax by putting the ending in the dream world, but technically you could start making a case for it then.

[Fiscal]

Must say I agree with you there. Can't wait for the DVD release...

[planet news]

The best case for the post-test-sedation theory is Yusef's "dream dungeon" where all those people spend 40 hours at a time dreaming. It is still utterly stupid, but still.

[WBadger]

http://i.imgur.com/JiPqw.jpg

[Fiscal]

They all died on the plane and everything else was Purgatory.

[Yoda]

No way, it was a "place they created so they could find each other."

Also, Bruce Willis was Keyser Soze's dead sled.

[genesis_pig]

No way, it was a "place they created so they could find each other."

Also, Bruce Willis was Keyser Soze's dead sled.

LoL..

[planet news]

No way, it was a "place they created so they could find each other."
:mad: That was such a depressing night.

[The Prestige]

http://i.imgur.com/JiPqw.jpg


I'm pretty confident the feds would have been watching Cobb's movements very closely, and that includes his family. It's likely they were underwatch which means that they would have been followed almost everywhere.

[mark f]

If the kids fly over, then the Feds would have to kidnap Cobb out of France since they apparently couldn't extradite him. That could cause some problem with "Freedom", I mean French, -American relations.

[WBadger]

http://i.imgur.com/nXvFG.jpg

[Juno MacGuff]

I'd like to know how many times each of us have seen Inception and if you plan on seeing it even more before it exits the theaters.

I have seen it 2 times and I probably will just get it on Blu Ray when it is released.

[planet news]

HATERS GONNA HATE
Dude keep em' coming! :laugh:

[TheUsualSuspect]

They all died on the plane and everything else was Purgatory.

Inception is Lost?

[The Prestige]

Fiscal was just joking around..I think.

[planet news]

Off topic but obligatory...

They all died on the plane and everything else was Purgatory.
THIS IS ALMOST WHAT HAPPENED!!!!!!

God hamlet, that whole concept became somewhat of a joke after the first season and then... low and behold...

I mean, I went six years telling people off this way:

"So I thought maybe they were all dead and in purga---"
"NO! NO! The producers have denied it again and again you stupid fool!"
"Sheesh. Just sayin bro."

:bored:

[Yoda]

Take it here, my man: Lost (Possible Spoilers) (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=10937&highlight=lost). We've already gone over that statement and how it's misleading, but technically accurate, blah blah blah.

[DaMovieFreak]

I just loved this film!

And I don't want to speculate about the ending.. :P

[planet news]

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but I just wanted to share this really appropriate, Bassian film poster. Not even sure if it's official or not.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx205/planetnews/inception.jpg

[DenisW]

Thanks for the poster. The film was great though

[meatwadsprite]

Nah I prefer the poster.

[Juno MacGuff]

I really think the poster is awesome.

[Leo_Lover]

I freekin LOVE this movie. I've already seen it 3 times. :D

[nebbit]

I went to a friends place yesterday and, 4 yes 4 people there told be they hated Inception :eek: one said she had to fight to keep awake :sleep: :rolleyes:

[Leo_Lover]

What the? although I have to say that after seeing it, you do feel tired a bit after it because you have to think about a lot of things in the movie while watching it.

[Justin]

I freekin LOVE this movie. I've already seen it 3 times. :D

That's surprising coming from someone named Leo_Lover.

[christine]

I'd like to know how many times each of us have seen Inception and if you plan on seeing it even more before it exits the theaters.

I have seen it 2 times and I probably will just get it on Blu Ray when it is released.

I've seen it once and probably won't bother again.

[Leo_Lover]

That's surprising coming from someone named Leo_Lover.

:laugh: yeah but it's not only Leo. I love the storyline, The storyline is awesome.

[manwithnoname]

I just saw inception for the first time. What if the entire movie was about freeing leo of his guilt? The entire dreamworld and everyone within constructed by his father (michael caine) so that the japanese guy could plant the idea in leo's head (inception) that he was in control and that the final dream where he gets home to his kids is actually reality? what if ellen page was sent to leo by his father as the extractor so michael caine could then be the architect of this ellaborate dream within a dream within a dream?
First moment that sent me down this path was the japanese guy (sorry cant remember his name) in the helicopter at the start that says something like "if you do one last job i can get you home to your kids. dont ask how but i can" (in a dream maybe, but it would have to be incredibly ellaborate to "fool" leo.)
am i going too deep or is this exactly what nolan wanted? how ever you take inception, surface value or deeper, its a brilliant and original film and i have to go and see it again with new ideas in mind...

[Powdered Water]

Inception sucked because it wasn't in 3-D.

[Leo_Lover]

I read in an interview that it was going to be in 3D but the director, Christopher Nolan thought it would be to distracting to the storyline.

[Fiscal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLDSE7RHvno&feature=player_embedded

[Powdered Water]

Well, that was just, weird. But I liked it.

[WBadger]

You would be amazed at the number of results you get on YouTube for typing in "cat inception", or "catception".

[Leo_Lover]

I seriously can't wait until the Inception DVD comes out. :D

[Leo_Lover]

Inception’ DVD/Blu-ray Details Revealed

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd237/Leo-and-Titanic-Fan-4-Life/Leo%20DiCaprio/Leo/Leo%20in%20the%20movies%20he%20stars%20in/Leo%20in%20Inception/Inception-Limited-Edition-Briefcase-Blu-ray.jpg

Details of the upcoming ‘Inception’ DVD and Blu-ray release are popping up online. The Limited Edition Briefcase version caught our eye in particular.

As Christopher Nolan’s brainy blockbuster, Inception, approaches the $700 million mark in worldwide box office, details on the DVD and Blu-ray release have been unofficially announced.

I was thinking about this release just the other day and couldn’t help but hope for a special edition silver briefcase version. Just to prove my prediction, here is my psychic tweet. It looks like dreams do come true (see what I did there?) as the Triple Play Limited Edition Briefcase will house the movie and some extra gifts for the consumers.

Inside the silver suitcase, which replicates the one seen in the film, is a spinning top “totem,” movie art cards, a PASIV Device User Manual and three copies of Inception - DVD, Blu-ray and Digital Copy.

As for the bonus features, there are only a few, but they sound appealing enough. Director Christopher Nolan and Leonardo DiCaprio will host the Maximum Movie Mode, a unique Warner Bros. commentary that implements a more interactive behind-the-scenes look as you watch the film.

Included are “The Cobol Job” and “The Big Under,” two digital comics that serve as prologues to Inception and expand on Leonardo DiCaprio’s backstory leading up to the dream theft seen at the beginning of the film. There is also a documentary-style segment on dream research that should be similar to the viral clip released before the movie.

I definitely hope there is more than this in the behind-the-scenes department. Many fans will be supremely disappointed if there is no extensive footage of the creative process behind the creation of Inception. They released enough video before the film opened to suggest there is enough to fill up an entire 50GB BD disc. Nolan has graced fans with a healthy portion of behind-the-scenes features in previous home videos, so surely there is more to come.

Expect a more formal announcement on the home video release details soon, but this is the first explanation of what we can expect when one of the year’s best films hits shelves. No date has been announced, but rumors have started on a potential December release (in time for the holidays, of course).

Source: Play.com

[Justin]

That's awesome....but is the US version going to be getting the same treatment?

[The Prestige]

Looks like a damn good set to me too. More documentaries on lucid dreaming wouldn't hurt, too. :)