PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV Inception


Pages : [1] 2

Tribal Warfare
07-12-2010, 12:01 AM
Inception Rotten Tomatoes' Webpage (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inception/)

http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/inception_movie_poster.jpg

Consensus: Smart, innovative, and thrilling, Inception is that rare summer blockbuster that succeeds viscerally as well as intellectually.

Tribal Warfare
07-12-2010, 12:01 AM
17 in at 100%

Gravedigger
07-12-2010, 12:14 AM
This needed it's own thread with the other inception thread lagging behind two spots down.

Guru
07-12-2010, 12:15 AM
There are 3 threads now.

Tribal Warfare
07-12-2010, 12:19 AM
This needed it's own thread with the other inception thread lagging behind two spots down.

indeed it did with my own special eye for attention to detail :rockon:

Guru
07-12-2010, 12:23 AM
You know what? This movie deserves three threads!!!!

greg63
07-12-2010, 12:41 AM
You know what? This movie deserves three threads!!!!

I've not seen it.

Good????

JD10367
07-12-2010, 11:50 AM
It's only three threads because you're dreaming it that way in your head. Actually, in the real world, it's only one thread.

I think it would be funny if, in this film, there's a cameo by Keanu Reeves and he's dressed like Neo.

Sure-Oz
07-12-2010, 01:50 PM
95% now, 1 rotten you jinxed it!

KcMizzou
07-12-2010, 06:23 PM
95% now, 1 rotten you jinxed it!I read that the one bad review was from the guy who gave The Dark Knight it's first bad review. Guess he's not much of a fan of Nolan's work.

Sure-Oz
07-12-2010, 07:11 PM
I read that the one bad review was from the guy who gave The Dark Knight it's first bad review. Guess he's not much of a fan of Nolan's work.

Figures

JD10367
07-12-2010, 08:37 PM
Got my print today. Of course, I literally wound the first reel on when I spent the rest of the day dealing with the water pouring through my ceiling all over my "Eclipse" print. Thanks to that Mongolian clusterfuck, my "Inception" print won't be ready to screen probably until Thursday morning. (Unfortunately, the "Eclipse" print was not ruined.)

Red Brooklyn
07-13-2010, 10:12 AM
(Unfortunately, the "Eclipse" print was not ruined.)
:)

Tribal Warfare
07-13-2010, 06:56 PM
It has been certified fresh today at a 97% RT approval rating

JD10367
07-14-2010, 06:20 AM
Running it at midnight Eastern time. If anyone wants to see it for free in IMAX, hit the road now and you'll be here in time. :D

Sure-Oz
07-14-2010, 11:19 AM
Down to 89%

DMAC
07-14-2010, 11:34 AM
Down to 89%Must suck.

Red Brooklyn
07-14-2010, 11:40 AM
Must suck.

LMAO

Galileo Humpkins
07-14-2010, 04:36 PM
http://www.nypress.com/article-21420-despicable-inception.html

Motherfrack you, Armond White. Motherfrack you.

Sure-Oz
07-14-2010, 08:07 PM
Armond White is like getting a perfect score!

JD10367
07-14-2010, 09:15 PM
As soon as I'm done running this piece of shit "Eclipse" film I'll be testing my "Inception" print.

Deberg_1990
07-14-2010, 10:47 PM
As soon as I'm done running this piece of shit "Eclipse" film I'll be testing my "Inception" print.

Nice. I expect your full review by morning.

Guru
07-14-2010, 10:48 PM
http://www.nypress.com/article-21420-despicable-inception.html

Motherfrack you, Armond White. Motherfrack you.Damn, what a classless POS that "writer" is.

Miles
07-14-2010, 10:54 PM
Even though I rarely go to theaters, this is sounding like a must see with the combo of genre, Nolan and great early reviews.

Conveniently I already have most of the day off work on Friday so I will try to check it out before the crowds build up.

JD10367
07-15-2010, 12:09 AM
One hour in. Interesting. Confusing. Making me :spock: at the screen quite a bit. The following comment isn't really a spoiler, more a comment on the actual film construction, but I thought I'd "hide" it in case people don't want to see it.

The editing is very unusual, compromsing very short scenes with no transitions, resulting in a quick and monotonous--dare I say dreamlike?--quality which has made the hour go by very quickly.

There's something about Ellen Page that makes me want to :hump: her repeatedly and for a very long time. Not sure what. She's short, has a big head and a too-skinny body and limbs, and a big Janeane Garofalo forehead. But there's something about her.

Plot comment.

It seems too clear that there's something else going on in the film, that it's probably all a dream in the main character's head. So it'll be interesting to see where it ends up. His wife is dead, supposedly, but something fishy is going on there too. Either she's not, and this is all a dream, or she is, and he's going to choose to stay in a dream or something.

I think this film is going to be a lot like "Watchmen": a bit ambitious, not designed for the mainstream, cricitally acclaimed, but not make much money.

Miles
07-15-2010, 12:15 AM
I think this film is going to be a lot like "Watchmen": a bit ambitious, not designed for the mainstream, cricitally acclaimed, but not make much money.

Still quite interested from that review. I am hopeful this one allows him to break free of main stream comic book type projects but keep larger budgets.

JD10367
07-15-2010, 12:30 AM
Another 30 minutes in. Getting more complex (if that's possible). Fairly fascinating in a "WTF?" way. None of the themes in this film haven't been explored in other areas, from "The Matrix" to episodes of "Star Trek" ("The Menagerie", a/k/a the unaired pilot, as well as the "TNG" episode with Riker thinking he's going insane). But still intriguing to watch this and wonder what the hell is real and where it's going. The kind of film that, halfway through, I already know I'll have to watch it again to really understand it, LOL.

JD10367
07-15-2010, 12:51 AM
Okay, I think I should've smoked a joint before this film, because I don't even know which character's dream we're now in, or which level of dream-within-a-dream. It's like 'The Matrix" if directed by Stephen Hawking on crack. Instead of "Inception", should've been titled "OMGWTFBBQ".

JD10367
07-15-2010, 12:52 AM
Whoever storyboarded and edited this film must be insane, BTW. If not beforehand, certainly afterwards, LOL.

Ebolapox
07-15-2010, 12:54 AM
so, it has moments of memento in it?

JD10367
07-15-2010, 12:57 AM
so, it has moments of memento in it?

Well, it has to do with dreams-within-dreams, so there's simultaneous action happening in different mind-levels at different "places". It's pretty whacked, LOL. Really, they must've had an entire room full of storyboarding so they could keep the editing straight.

Deberg_1990
07-15-2010, 08:31 AM
I think this film is going to be a lot like "Watchmen": a bit ambitious, not designed for the mainstream, cricitally acclaimed, but not make much money.

Just as I suspected, this thing is gonna end up playing "too smart for the room"

But it looks fasinating, bizzare, all in one...i cant wait.

DMAC
07-15-2010, 08:36 AM
Well, it has to do with dreams-within-dreams, so there's simultaneous action happening in different mind-levels at different "places". It's pretty whacked, LOL. Really, they must've had an entire room full of storyboarding so they could keep the editing straight.So you are saying we all need to be stoney bologna for this one...

Dicky McElephant
07-15-2010, 10:39 AM
So what you're saying is that I should just wait and get it when it comes out on DVD.

Galileo Humpkins
07-15-2010, 11:10 AM
Aside from the film itself, the Inception soundtrack is that of auditory copulation. Hans Zimmer is a brilliant composer.

Fish
07-15-2010, 11:22 AM
It's gonna suck...

JD10367
07-15-2010, 11:46 AM
Okay, now that I've slept on it, here's my take on the film.

I think the film is going to lose a lot of John Q. Public in the first hour. It's not that it's exceptionally confusing; it's just that it's edited in a monotonous, continuous way, with a lot of subtle explanation and not much "happening". You have to be invested in the film (either in Nolan, in DiCaprio, or in the concept). You'll spend the first hour going, "Umm hmmm.... okay.... okay, I'm with you, Nolan..." It doesn't grab you by the adrenal gland as much as by the brainstem. But if you invest yourself in the film, I think it pays off in the second half both action-wise and thematically.

You're also invested in the character arcs not only of DiCaprio, but of Cillian Murphy (the "target" in the film). You're interested in seeing how both develop, where they end up, and ultimately deciding on if the transformations were good or bad (or, in DiCaprio's instance, even real... the ending is nice and ambiguous as to whether or not it was real or not and how you decide is probably up to your personality).

It's not as accessible as "Dark Knight". While Nolan's Bruce Wayne is dark and complicated, this film is not about a comic-book hero and is not full of action. "Dark Knight" was a loud rock song with a hook; this is more like an insidious symphony with an underlying monotonous beat that you begin to recognize as the symphony continues on. I think it'll open okay, tail off, then build word-of-mouth and do a steady but unspectacular business, probably finishing at around $150M in ticket sales (a loss financially, but a laudable effort critically, much like "Watchmen" IMO).

Also, I hate to harp on it and sound like an IMAX whore, but... you really DO have to see it on a giant screen. Yeah, I work for the film format, but still; the format helps films like this so much by immersing you into the impressive dreamscape and adding a level of realism and suspension-of-disbelief (which is sort of the whole point). It's also well filmed, with more mid-range shots and not as many "giant talking heads". Don't get me wrong: "Dark Knight" was filmed nowhere near as badly for the format as "The Matrix" sequels were. But Nolan has learned from working with the format for "Dark Knight". Nothing in this film makes you think "I'm gonna puke" or makes you realize you're watching it on a giant screen; it just pulls you into the world nicely.

I think this movie would've failed if not for the two lead actors (Cillian Murphy and Leonardo DiCaprio). Someone somewhere said DiCaprio is the best actor of his generation, and I scoffed; however, I think I'm changing my mind. He invests each role with a realism and full-scale emotional involvement. You don't think "I'm watching Leonardo DiCaprio"; you think, "I'm watching this character." (It's much like Tom Hanks, another actor who doesn't get enough credit IMO; he's played a large boy, a lawyer with AIDS, a simple Southern man, an Apollo astronaut, a castaway, and a platoon leader, and in each of them you might know you're watching Tom Hanks but he makes you believe in the character.) Ellen Page was also a good choice: she's young yet mature, pretty in a way yet not distracting from the film or story, and invests her (relatively lesser) scenes with her own subtle emotion and character drive.

I just watched the IMAX trailer again (it's on the head of "Eclipse") and, while the trailer's not misleading in any way, it's edited in a way that doesn't actually convey the film IMO. I have to ponder it some more, but the trailer leads you to think the film will be about many dream-insertions, or that DiCaprio is somehow trapped in a dream and wants to "get home" (which, actually, may or may not be the case, LOL), but the film is a lot simpler than that. It's plot is mainly about one man (Cillian Murphy) and one dream insertion, which takes the second half of the film (around 90 minutes); the first half (60 minutes) is pretty much set-up for the second half.

This film is like watching a gymastic/dance athlete try a daring new routine: there aren't many flaws in the performance, and it's not the usual performance, and you may or may not like it, but you applaud the attempt to do something off the beaten path. Bravo, Mr. Nolan: you're one of the smarter filmmakers in recent memory (pardon the unintended pun).

Red Brooklyn
07-15-2010, 12:32 PM
Well, I can't bloody wait.

Thanks for the review, JD.

Deberg_1990
07-15-2010, 12:36 PM
I loved Memento and Insomnia before Nolan ever got the Batman gig. I suspect ill love this.

DMAC
07-15-2010, 12:48 PM
I loved Memento and Insomnia before Nolan ever got the Batman gig. I suspect ill love this.Have you seen Following?

Red Brooklyn
07-15-2010, 01:00 PM
I loved Memento and Insomnia before Nolan ever got the Batman gig. I suspect ill love this.
Same here.
Have you seen Following?
Why yes, I have. Love that one too. Nolan has yet to let me down. He's just outstanding time and again.

Deberg_1990
07-15-2010, 01:01 PM
Have you seen Following?

never have...guess i need to see it. :)

DMAC
07-15-2010, 01:06 PM
I loved Memento and Insomnia before Nolan ever got the Batman gig. I suspect ill love this.I havent seen Insomnia in a long time and dont remember it.

Its next on nexflix if I can ever find the movie I owe em.

Great Expectations
07-15-2010, 02:41 PM
I don't know if there is a close second to DiCaprio in this generation of actors.

Red Brooklyn
07-15-2010, 03:01 PM
I don't know if there is a close second to DiCaprio in this generation of actors.
Who would you define as being in his generation?

DMAC
07-15-2010, 03:11 PM
Who would you define as being in his generation?Kirk Cameron

...and Boner :(

Dicky McElephant
07-15-2010, 03:38 PM
I havent seen Insomnia in a long time and dont remember it.

Its next on nexflix if I can ever find the movie I owe em.

Tell them it got lost in the mail when you sent it back. You're "allowed" so many a year before they get suspicious.

DMAC
07-15-2010, 04:03 PM
Tell them it got lost in the mail when you sent it back. You're "allowed" so many a year before they get suspicious.Nooooo shiiiittt

Great Expectations
07-15-2010, 04:22 PM
Who would you define as being in his generation?

Born in 1965 or after. I dunno, haven't put too much thought into it.

underEJ
07-15-2010, 06:33 PM
I can't wait. I have a reservation to see it sunday at one of those fancy recliner and booze theaters. This is the one I was waiting for this summer. It's such a great cast. Even Joseph Gordon-Levitt who doesn't carry big movies, makes a huge mark on the smaller films he's carried. I expect him to occupy whatever space they give him adeptly.

Sure-Oz
07-15-2010, 07:10 PM
JGL is always solid

BWillie
07-15-2010, 11:02 PM
Leo is in this movie. It can't fail. Leo doesn't make movies that fail. Guy is lazy though. He makes one movie ever two years. Nicolas Cage makes 22 movies every year. I think Leo should buy some dinosaur heads and castles so he will have incentive to make more movies. F*cking selfish prick

Ebolapox
07-15-2010, 11:04 PM
I'd rather have one quality leo movie than 22 nic cage movies.

unless nic cage went back to do 'raising arizona' type movies. then I'd take the 22 nic cage movies.

KcMizzou
07-15-2010, 11:54 PM
That "Bad Lieutenant" flick was pretty cool. Nick Cage is crazy. (bugshit crazy) That film kinda captured that. Best work he's done in years. Embrace the crazy, Nick.

Tribal Warfare
07-16-2010, 03:24 AM
This movie felt like a live action version of Ghost in the Shell, which is a compliment from me.

Reaper16
07-16-2010, 03:59 AM
Just got back from seeing it on IMAX.


Inception is a fun film. Pretty breezy and weightless, actually. But certainly fun. It isn't hard to follow at all, not for me anyway. It isn't "complex" as some people have been saying; certainly not intellectually complex. I mean, there is a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream with stuff happening in reality too, all at the same time, but you'd be surprised how simple it is to keep track of it all.

The direction is superb. The cast is packed with quality (DiCaprio! Marion Cotillard! Joseph Gordon-Levitt! Ken Watanabe! Ellen Page! Cillian Murphy! Tom Hardy! Tom Berenger! a Michael Cane cameo!), though only Leo, Cotillard and Murphy get to portray characters of any nuance.

If only all Summer blockbusters were as fun, visually imaginative and well-directed as Inception is.

Galileo Humpkins
07-16-2010, 10:51 AM
Even Joseph Gordon-Levitt who doesn't carry big movies, makes a huge mark on the smaller films he's carried. I expect him to occupy whatever space they give him adeptly.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the reason I wanted to see this film initially. He's transitioned into an intellectually admirable actor, but alas, he isn't recognized nor given the credit as such.

Hopefully Nolan piggybacks him for Batman III.

JD10367
07-16-2010, 11:19 AM
I'd rather have one quality leo movie than 22 nic cage movies.

unless nic cage went back to do 'raising arizona' type movies. then I'd take the 22 nic cage movies.

Not to thread hijack, but I'm in the minority that like Cage, ever since seeing him as a sleepy-eyed doped-up looking alt-goth in "Valley Girls". Yeah, he's over the top, but he's fun to watch. "The Rock", "Con Air", "National Treasure", even the piece of crap that was "Ghost Rider" and the chick-flick that was "City Of Angels". And I like it when he gets a little weird, like in the crime film with David Caruso where he played an asthmatic bad guy (can't remember the title, but I think I was one of five people who liked it). Hell, I'll go see "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" if only to watch him chew the scenery.

Priest31kc
07-16-2010, 11:35 AM
Not to thread hijack, but I'm in the minority that like Cage, ever since seeing him as a sleepy-eyed doped-up looking alt-goth in "Valley Girls". Yeah, he's over the top, but he's fun to watch. "The Rock", "Con Air", "National Treasure", even the piece of crap that was "Ghost Rider" and the chick-flick that was "City Of Angels". And I like it when he gets a little weird, like in the crime film with David Caruso where he played an asthmatic bad guy (can't remember the title, but I think I was one of five people who liked it). Hell, I'll go see "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" if only to watch him chew the scenery.

You forgot Face Off! Love that movie.

JD10367
07-16-2010, 11:38 AM
You forgot Face Off! Love that movie.

OH, yeah! Cage AND Travolta, BOTH chewing the scenery. :) And I like the way each one acted like the other one when they "switched faces".

Sully
07-16-2010, 01:20 PM
I think this is the best movie I've ever seen.

Sully
07-16-2010, 01:26 PM
One hour in. Interesting. Confusing. Making me :spock: at the screen quite a bit. The following comment isn't really a spoiler, more a comment on the actual film construction, but I thought I'd "hide" it in case people don't want to see it.

The editing is very unusual, compromsing very short scenes with no transitions, resulting in a quick and monotonous--dare I say dreamlike?--quality which has made the hour go by very quickly.

There's something about Ellen Page that makes me want to :hump: her repeatedly and for a very long time. Not sure what. She's short, has a big head and a too-skinny body and limbs, and a big Janeane Garofalo forehead. But there's something about her.

Plot comment.

It seems too clear that there's something else going on in the film, that it's probably all a dream in the main character's head. So it'll be interesting to see where it ends up. His wife is dead, supposedly, but something fishy is going on there too. Either she's not, and this is all a dream, or she is, and he's going to choose to stay in a dream or something.

I think this film is going to be a lot like "Watchmen": a bit ambitious, not designed for the mainstream, cricitally acclaimed, but not make much money.

As a response to your spoilers here, and a few other "spoilers" you have revealed in other posts...
After it was over I really believed I had it all figured out. But my FiL brought up a point about the totems that I think many will miss. I'm going to wait to post about it till more people see it... But it's really got me thinking.

Dicky McElephant
07-16-2010, 01:27 PM
As a response to your spoilers here, and a few other "spoilers" you have revealed in other posts...
After it was over I really believed I had it all figured out. But my FiL brought up a point about the totems that I think many will miss. I'm going to wait to post about it till more people see it... But it's really got me thinking.

Just put it in a Spoiler tag......and then people can look at it if they want too.

Sully
07-16-2010, 01:29 PM
What's it look like. The option doesn't present itself on my iPhone, so I'll have to type the tag by hand.

Dicky McElephant
07-16-2010, 01:30 PM
Put Spoiler tags around your text.


[ SPOILER ] [ /SPOILER ]


TEST

Just take out the spaces between the brackets and the text.

Sully
07-16-2010, 01:35 PM
Okay. Here are my thoughts... Unless I misunderstood something...


At the end, dicaprio's top continued to spin, which leads you to believe he's still in a dream. My FiL brought up, though, that when they discussed the totems, he mentioned that his wife used the top to make sure she wasn't in someone else's dream.
So I wonder... Is the real twist that it's not his dream at all?

Reaper16
07-16-2010, 01:42 PM
Okay. Here are my thoughts... Unless I misunderstood something...


At the end, dicaprio's top continued to spin, which leads you to believe he's still in a dream. My FiL brought up, though, that when they discussed the totems, he mentioned that his wife used the top to make sure she wasn't in someone else's dream.
So I wonder... Is the real twist that it's not his dream at all?

The top was about ready to stop spinning. It was doing that thing where it was swaying from side to side as it slows down, about ready for its side to hit the table and stop. If the film had shown the top fully stop then it would have been a big 'ol DUH moment. Besides, the idea that he's still in someone's dream is inconsistent with the times that his top did stop spinning earlier in the film.

Sully
07-16-2010, 01:59 PM
The top was about ready to stop spinning. It was doing that thing where it was swaying from side to side as it slows down, about ready for its side to hit the table and stop. If the film had shown the top fully stop then it would have been a big 'ol DUH moment. Besides, the idea that he's still in someone's dream is inconsistent with the times that his top did stop spinning earlier in the film.

I'm not as convinced about your first point as you are. But your second point kills my theory
... For now.

and I'm not convinced it's not all his dad's dream, being used to make him get over his guilt and grief for the kids.

Deberg_1990
07-16-2010, 02:04 PM
I think this is the best movie I've ever seen.

Overhype much?? Come on now...

Sully
07-16-2010, 02:19 PM
Overhype much?? Come on now...

As I typed that, I knew it would seem that way. But when I think of some of my favorites, as of now, I enjoyed this one much more. As I digest it more, and put some time between seeing it and get over the hugeness and depth of it, I may change my mind. But for now I honestly think that.

Deberg_1990
07-16-2010, 02:26 PM
As I typed that, I knew it would seem that way. But when I think of some of my favorites, as of now, I enjoyed this one much more. As I digest it more, and put some time between seeing it and get over the hugeness and depth of it, I may change my mind. But for now I honestly think that.

nice. im definately checking this out im IMAX this weekend. thanks.

Miles
07-16-2010, 09:12 PM
Loved it. It was complex yet straight forward at the same time making it easy to follow. Sharply written and great acting from an excellent cast. For a movie with a 148 minute running time it almost went by too quick.

I need to see it again but my initial take was that I got more out of it than the Dark Knight (disclaimer: sci-fi is much more my thing than superhero stuff).

Sure-Oz
07-16-2010, 10:29 PM
Going to see this sunday after the royals game, cant wait

KcMizzou
07-16-2010, 10:32 PM
I haven't seen the movie yet...

But I imagine it's a lot like when Pulp Fiction completely baffled some people because the time line jumped around.

Sully
07-16-2010, 10:53 PM
I haven't seen the movie yet...

But I imagine it's a lot like when Pulp Fiction completely baffled some people because the time line jumped around.

The timeline/dream jumps aren't all that baffling if you just buckle in and pay attention. There are other things that if you overthink it (as I tend to do) can become baffling, though. I'm going to see it again tomorrow.

keg in kc
07-17-2010, 02:22 AM
That was pretty incredible.

Huffmeister
07-17-2010, 09:42 AM
The timeline/dream jumps aren't all that baffling if you just buckle in and pay attention. There are other things that if you overthink it (as I tend to do) can become baffling, though. I'm going to see it again tomorrow.

Yeah, they did an excellent job of editing. There was a lot of jumping around, but they did it so seamlessly that I knew exactly which "layer" we were in at all times.

About 30 minutes into it, I said to myself "I'm going to need to see this again, soon." Excellent movie.

irishjayhawk
07-17-2010, 02:59 PM
In a word: awesome.

Going in, I read many reviews - not just here - that exclaimed this was the best movie they've ever seen. Yes, I know they're hyperbolic but I can't agree with even the remote sentiment that it comes anywhere close to being the best ever.

Really, though, Inception is almost a throw back to the original blockbuster era - the 70s. It's original, well executed and has some great effects. In fact, it may be the best summer blockbuster since the original Pirates of the Caribbean.

For those who thought it was hard to follow, I can't fathom an easier way to edit the movie. In fact, I think I've pinpointed the point at which you got lost: the beginning bookend. Going from bookend to dream (especially when the bookend is a dream) probably lost some viewers who took the next thirty minutes trying to get back to reality. I can't attest to that as I was never lost.

If there ever was a movie that defined the category of Best Director, this one made it most visible. I've never really gotten some of the yearly nominees in the category. I felt it was a pretty arbitrary category it seemed. However, for this not to win Best Director, we're going to have to see a fireworks show by someone else. Same goes for cinematography (I think I liked Wally's Dark Knight look better, though it was less diverse.).

If I had a complaint, I think they could have shortened the beginning-middle part a bit. It seemed to run a little long because of a drag somewhere in the second act. Nonetheless, everything came to a head in the third and finished nicely. It was pure fun.

I'm torn on Hans Zimmer's score. Some points of the film it fit perfectly and others it felt bombastic. Almost trying to be Dark Knight-ish - a score that fit the movie to a tee. I'd have to see it again (or listen to the soundtrack) to get more of a definitive opinion.

In all, Inception was well worth the money and well worth the big-screen. Further, it's the type of script that rekindles my desire to try and write one. I don't think it'll win Best Screenplay but it will be nominated solely for idea-to-paper. Dialog has never been Nolan's strong suit but he doesn't really need it to be well-written because it's always visually telling.

I think we should thank Mr. Nolan for giving us a summer blockbuster that returns us to the film industry's blockbuster - pardon the pun - inception.

Deberg_1990
07-18-2010, 01:24 AM
OK, just got back.......Still trying to figure out how i feel about it. Yes, overall its really great and might even be a masterpiece of some sort...

But it played kind of cold for me. I think why it did for me was that it didnt really have a central villian or threat to root against.

Its basically a heist/reverse heist film, so in my mind you need a central villian to root against.

The action was cool, but after awhile it became just a bunch of faceless, nameless dudes shooting, fighting and that gets boring and repetative after awhile.

Oh, and the ending......was great....brought a tear to my eye as a daddy...
But then came the final shot....a complete and cheap theatrical cheat. Hated it. YOu spend 2 1/2 hours invested in Cobb, then Nolan cant tell you if his final destination was a dream or reality?? Complete BS.


Ill have to see this thing again to get a full grasp. Overall, very well made.

AndChiefs
07-18-2010, 01:34 AM
Definitely one of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

mikeyis4dcats.
07-18-2010, 01:36 AM
excellent movie.

mikeyis4dcats.
07-18-2010, 01:38 AM
by the way

it wasn't a dream

Sully
07-18-2010, 08:09 AM
I think it was a dream...

Are we to believe that virtually no time passed between him leaving the country and returning? There was too much "deterioration" of his dreams due to guilt. Too much talk of it "getting worse." yet wen he returned, his children had not aged at all, and were in the same pose they had been in the entire time, until they turned around.

Deberg_1990
07-18-2010, 08:22 AM
I think it was a dream...

Are we to believe that virtually no time passed between him leaving the country and returning? There was too much "deterioration" of his dreams due to guilt. Too much talk of it "getting worse." yet wen he returned, his children had not aged at all, and were in the same pose they had been in the entire time, until they turned around.

:facepalm:


Good grief...why did Nolan have to go with the "Lost" ending?? Why?

He should have never included that last shot..the film would have ended perfectly without it.

Too ambigious and open ended....now the flick will be debated forever with about a hundred different right answers...

KcMizzou
07-18-2010, 08:56 AM
IMAX recommended for this one?

Sully
07-18-2010, 08:58 AM
:facepalm:


Good grief...why did Nolan have to go with the "Lost" ending?? Why?

He should have never included that last shot..the film would have ended perfectly without it.

Too ambigious and open ended....now the flick will be debated forever with about a hundred different right answers...

I love that about it. But I'm also one of the 18 people in the world that loved the end of the Sopranos.

Reaper16
07-18-2010, 09:56 AM
I think it was a dream...

Are we to believe that virtually no time passed between him leaving the country and returning? There was too much "deterioration" of his dreams due to guilt. Too much talk of it "getting worse." yet wen he returned, his children had not aged at all, and were in the same pose they had been in the entire time, until they turned around.

I guess then that there is tons of stuff that happened outside of the movie that affects the movie. Like, if the whole movie was a dream of Leo's then he hired people to do inception on him to make him think that he was with his kids?

Nzoner
07-18-2010, 10:14 AM
Saw it yesterday,liked it but nowhere near one of my favorites.

jiveturkey
07-18-2010, 10:31 AM
Blown away. I definitely need to see it again. And I loved the ending. It had our group talking non-stop at dinner.

Priest31kc
07-18-2010, 10:43 AM
Damn I wanna see this!

Deberg_1990
07-18-2010, 11:28 AM
I love that about it. But I'm also one of the 18 people in the world that loved the end of the Sopranos.

Thats cool. Obviously its going to work for some people..and not for others.

I just think if it would have ended without that last shot , it would have ended perfectly with a perfect story arc. But hey, thats my movie, not Nolans.

Deberg_1990
07-18-2010, 11:50 AM
Calling JD10367....



On a technical side, did anyone else have trouble making out Ken Watanabes dialogue?

I saw it in IMAX and thought the sound mix was extremely agressive and was drowing out several dialouge scenes. Loved Zimmers score though.

Miles
07-18-2010, 12:09 PM
IMAX recommended for this one?

I saw it in non-IMAX and kind of wish I had spent the extra money.

Lzen
07-18-2010, 12:41 PM
:facepalm:


Good grief...why did Nolan have to go with the "Lost" ending?? Why?

I haven't seen this yet, but I'm gonna guess that you answered your own question.

....now the flick will be debated forever...

the Talking Can
07-18-2010, 01:00 PM
OK, just got back.......Still trying to figure out how i feel about it. Yes, overall its really great and might even be a masterpiece of some sort...

But it played kind of cold for me. I think why it did for me was that it didnt really have a central villian or threat to root against.

Its basically a heist/reverse heist film, so in my mind you need a central villian to root against.

The action was cool, but after awhile it became just a bunch of faceless, nameless dudes shooting, fighting and that gets boring and repetative after awhile.

Oh, and the ending......was great....brought a tear to my eye as a daddy...
But then came the final shot....a complete and cheap theatrical cheat. Hated it. YOu spend 2 1/2 hours invested in Cobb, then Nolan cant tell you if his final destination was a dream or reality?? Complete BS.


Ill have to see this thing again to get a full grasp. Overall, very well made.

exactly how i felt

enjoyed the movie, respected the overall quality of every component, but never really felt drawn in as much as i hoped...it actually played out too literally, and the editing was so good at making it crystal clear where you were that i started to feel like nolan was dumbing it down a bit...i thought it could have used more ambiguity during the film, and skip the cheap ending...


i wish every hollywood film was that competent though

and honestly the whole 'what's real' idea is worn out for me right now (why i don't like the ending), which is why i'm glad most of the movie was action/caper mechanics...hell, dicaprios last flick was basically the same thing, just 1 level down in stead of 4...Shutter Island

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was a complete surprise to me...great choice, loved his demeanor, his dress, the way he kept a certain graceful stiffness (?) in all his movements...he managed to make floating around in zero gravity compelling...i think i cared more about his character than dicaprios in the last 20 minutes

Deberg_1990
07-18-2010, 01:27 PM
Heres a nice rundown of all the terminology and what they mean in the movie:





Totems - The purpose of a totem is to give you a way to make sure you're not being conned by someone else. In any dreamworld, one person is the host, and everyone else is a subject. The host's mind is responsible for creating the setting and objects in the dream world. The subjects then populate the world with their subconscious. As long as you keep something specific about your totem secret, such as its weight or feel, a host will never be able to recreate it right, and this you can always use your totem as a test to make sure you're not in a deeper level of reality than you think you are.

Kicks - A kick only brings you back to the reality in which it happened, it only reaches one reality deep, and it only affects you if you're conscious in the reality the kick is trying to pull you from. On top of that, it appears that a trained dreamer can resist the effect of a kick to a certain degree based on the severity of the kick and the strength of the sedative used. When layering multiple dreams, multiple kicks are needed to work backwards through the layers. For example, the crashing elevator in the hotel level would pull those in the ice fortress level back to the hotel. Once they were conscious in the hotel level, they would be susceptible to the kick of the van crashing into the water. There was no kick planned in the airplane, though, meaning that they would have to wait in the van level for the sedative in the airplane to wear off.

Hosts vs. Architects - The architect merely designs the level needed for a mission, but the architect is not necessarily the host. It is implied that the architect, likely through other shared dreams, is able to help the actual host prepare the level he will be hosting. In the mission shown in the movie, Ariadne is not the host to any of the levels. In fact, she wasn't even supposed to go along on the mission, and only insisted on going after seeing just how unstable Cobb was. Yusuf, the chemist, is the host to the van level. (His failure to go the bathroom before getting sedated on the plane is the reason why it is raining in his level.) Arthur, the point man, is the host of the hotel level. Eames, the forger, is the host of the ice fortress level. It is implied that in a layered dreamworld, the host can't go deeper than the world he is hosting. This is why Yusuf goes no deeper than van level, Arthur goes no deeper than the hotel level, and Eames goes no deeper than the ice fortress level. (Note: Arthur is able to use the stair paradox trick in the hotel level because he is that level's host.)

Guests vs. Marks - A guest's subconscious populates a host's dreamworld. Apparently a guest who knows what he or she is doing can control this to an extent, and thus only the mark's subconscious ends up making up the majority of the world's populous. However, if another guest, such as Cobb, has difficulty controlling his subconscious, parts of it, such as Mal, can start to enter the hosted world.

Forgers - A Forger has the ability to alter his or her projection within a level. Weather or not he can do this in a level he is hosting is unknown. What special skills allows a forger to do this is also unknown, but its possible that a forger has developed a very strong control over his subconscious's sense of self. (In the van level, Eames interrupts Arthur's firing of a sub machine gun by telling Arthur that he shouldn't be afraid to dream bigger. Eames then attacks the enemies with a grenade launcher. There are two possible explanations for this... 1. Eames' forger ability allow him to create not just new personae for himself, but also new tools. 2. The teamed worked with the architect to design the van level prior to the mission itself, and it was during this shared dream planning that the various members let the architect know which tools they wanted available in the level. Eame's remark to Arthur was then simply Eame's way of saying to Arthur that next to he plans for a mission, he shouldn't be afraid to tell the architect to give him some truly impressive tools.

Time - Time in a dreamworld moves faster than time in a level above it. In a multi layered dream, this effect compounds. It is stated that under normal circumstances, five minutes in the real world allows for 1 hour in the dream world below. This is a ratio of 1:12. It is also stated that a strong enough sedative can increase this ratio. For the mission, the ratio is said to be 1:20. Thus, one hour on the airplane would be 20 hours in the van level, which in turn would be almost 17 days in the hotel level, and close to one year in the ice fortress level.

Death - Getting killed in a dreamworld typically causes one to awake in the level above where you were killed. However, a strong enough sedative can suppress this feature, and will instead send the individual who died to limbo. During the mission, Saito is shot while in the van level and slowly begins to die. When he enters a lower level, the wound is no longer on his body, however he is still slowly dieing. (He is dying at 1/20th the rate at each subsequent level, due to the time compounding effect.) When Saito finally dies in the van level, his death propagates down through all the levels and he goes to limbo. Normally he would have returned to the airplane, but the strong nature of the sedative prevented that from happening. When Fischer is killed in the ice fortress level, he does not wake up back in the hotel level, because the same strong sedative was used between the hotel level and the ice fortress level.

Limbo - Limbo is an unconstructed dream state of pure subconsciousness. It is apparently very hard for a dreamer to maintain awareness of reality and even self awareness while in limbo. The rate of time in limbo is very unpredictable, and an unprepared dreamer in limbo could find himself stuck there for a near infinite period of time. The only way it is shown to exit limbo is to commit suicide there, or possibly to live long enough in limbo for the sedative to wear off. It is also not clear if someone else can kill you in limbo to set you free, or if you have to choose to kill yourself. It is also implied that limbo is not bound by the normal host/guest rules. Multiple dreamers are apparently able to share a limbo, and with practice are able to both shape limbo to be whatever they want. The movie doesn't give much info on what a truly uncontrolled limbo is like. Its possible that the limbo during the mission would have simply been a jumbled mess of the subconscious of all the members of the shared dream. Cobb, however, has extensive experience shaping and controlling limbo, and thus is able to host limbo, (or at least part of it), as another level beneath the ice fortress level. When he creates this new level, he connects Adaidne and Fischer to himself with a dream machine in the ice fortress level, thus allowing them to be guests in his hosted limbo, and proving the pathway by which to "kick" Fischer back to the ice fortress level. The kicker that Eames uses on Fischer is to shock him with the defibrillator. This apparently provides enough of a shock to the system to trigger a kick. However, since the only way to leave limbo is to die in limbo, Fischer has to jump from the skyscraper when he detects the kick happening. Ariadne in turn has to jump from the sky scraper when she detects that Eames triggers the second kick in the ice fortress level, by imploding the fortress on itself. (When Fischer is "kicked" back to the ice fortress world, his bullet wound is apparently gone. Why this happened it unexplained, however there are several possibilities. 1. The wound was merely a flesh wound that had an unlucky side effect of stopping his heart. 2. Eames, as the host of the level, was able to alter the nature of the wound while Fischer was in limbo. 3. Once Cobb made peace with Mal, the wound she had caused Fischer was undone. 4. The act of dying in Limbo resets Fischer's subconscious self awareness of life and death, and thus when he wakes up from limbo back in the ice fortress level, his subconscious projects a new, non-dead persona of himself. (Note: Cobb, by not committing suicide in limbo, avoided the kick in the ice fortress level. He then spent an unknown amount of time hunting for Saito in limbo. It is implied that this takes many decades since Saito is now an old man, however Cobb is not old, which leads to two possibilities. 1. Limbo moves at a different pace for each person. 2. Cobb, as an experienced dreamer in limbo knew that it was all still just limbo, and this his subconscious didn't age him.) When Cobb finally finds Saito, he hands him a gun and convinces Saito to commit suicide with him, setting them both free from limbo. It is unclear weather or not their subconscious minds cause this event to happen right as the sedative on the airplane is wearing off, or if the suicide sends them to some truly unconscious state that they both wait in unaware until such time as the sedative in the airplane wears off.

Bowser
07-18-2010, 06:16 PM
It was flawed, to be sure, but it was still one entertaining movie. Certainly better than 90-95% of all the other dreck that Hollywood drags us through.

Deberg_1990
07-18-2010, 06:20 PM
Did anyone else feel like they stole the snow mountain top sequence from a James Bond movie?

I half expected Bloefield to show up. :)

Bowser
07-18-2010, 06:21 PM
Did anyone else feel like they stole the snow mountain top sequence from a James Bond movie?

I half expected Bloefield to show up. :)Heh. Robert Butler of the KC Star said the exact same thing.....

KcMizzou
07-18-2010, 06:24 PM
I saw it this afternoon. I felt like it might be a tad over hyped, but it's still very, very good. It was certainly worth the price of admission, and worth seeing in a theater.

At this point, I'll basically see anything Nolan puts out there. The guy's on a roll.

(I was also surprised and impressed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He'll be carrying movies on his own before long.)

jiveturkey
07-18-2010, 06:28 PM
I heard a half assed rumor regarding Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the villain in the next Batman movie.

KcMizzou
07-18-2010, 06:37 PM
I heard a half assed rumor regarding Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the villain in the next Batman movie.Same here. Riddler supposedly. Who knows.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 06:45 PM
I saw it this afternoon. I felt like it might be a tad over hyped, but it's still very, very good. It was certainly worth the price of admission, and worth seeing in a theater.

At this point, I'll basically see anything Nolan puts out there. The guy's on a roll.

(I was also surprised and impressed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He'll be carrying movies on his own before long.)

I'm not so sure why everyone is surprised with Gordon-Levitt. I've had multiple friends say exactly what you guys are.

He's carried movies in the past and he's an awesome character actor.

KcMizzou
07-18-2010, 06:58 PM
I'm not so sure why everyone is surprised with Gordon-Levitt. I've had multiple friends say exactly what you guys are.

He's carried movies in the past and he's an awesome character actor.I just IMDB'd the guy. I'd forgotten all about The Lookout. That's a good example of what you're talking about.

Reaper16
07-18-2010, 07:01 PM
Anyone who has seen Brick or (500) Days of Summer knows that Gordon-Levitt has the charisma and presence to carry a film.

Regarding the Bondian nature of the snow mountain fortress scene: my mind was bringing up memories of playing the snow fortress level in Goldeneye 007 for the Nintendo 64.

Buehler445
07-18-2010, 07:03 PM
I saw it this afternoon. I felt like it might be a tad over hyped, but it's still very, very good. It was certainly worth the price of admission, and worth seeing in a theater.

At this point, I'll basically see anything Nolan puts out there. The guy's on a roll.

(I was also surprised and impressed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He'll be carrying movies on his own before long.)

I'm worried about this. Such good reviews might get my hopes up.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 07:04 PM
I just IMDB'd the guy. I'd forgotten all about The Lookout. That's a good example of what you're talking about.

I just happened to quote you, was speaking generally. :)


But yeah, the Lookout is what I was going to mention and then blanked on the name of.




On a related note, I decided Zimmer's score is really good, actually. But it took a standalone listen. I also had problems with the audio mix (dialogue vs music/effects), FWIW.

I will also add one last comment. Even though I view this as a one time see, I want to see it quickly again so I can take in some of the sweet visuals. After that, I have a hard time seeing myself watching it again for a long, long while.

DMAC
07-18-2010, 07:04 PM
Let me just chime in to say.....holy, fucking shit.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 07:06 PM
Anyone who has seen Brick or (500) Days of Summer knows that Gordon-Levitt has the charisma and presence to carry a film.

Regarding the Bondian nature of the snow mountain fortress scene: my mind was bringing up memories of playing the snow fortress level in Goldeneye 007 for the Nintendo 64.

I think I need to rewatch Brick. I couldn't get through it the first time I watched it. It bored me and I fell asleep.


The snow fortress had me both aching for a video game of that level and secondly to be an extra or stunt guy on that shoot. It also reminded me verbatim of Metal Gear Solid's opening level. It looked like they based the video game level off the schematics of the building used in the film.

KcMizzou
07-18-2010, 07:19 PM
I think I need to rewatch Brick. I couldn't get through it the first time I watched it. It bored me and I fell asleep.


The snow fortress had me both aching for a video game of that level and secondly to be an extra or stunt guy on that shoot. It also reminded me verbatim of Metal Gear Solid's opening level. It looked like they based the video game level off the schematics of the building used in the film.Bingo.

Deberg_1990
07-18-2010, 07:30 PM
I also had problems with the audio mix (dialogue vs music/effects), FWIW.



yea, thats what i mentioned earlier....the sound mix was so overly bombastic, in my theater it drowned out the dialouge a few times......plus someone needs to coach Wantabe to ellicit better English.

Guru
07-18-2010, 07:30 PM
BRILLIANT!!!!!!

By far the best movie I have ever seen in a theater.

it was a dream

Reaper16
07-18-2010, 07:56 PM
The more I think about this film the worse off it gets.

JD10367
07-18-2010, 07:56 PM
:facepalm:


Good grief...why did Nolan have to go with the "Lost" ending?? Why?

He should have never included that last shot..the film would have ended perfectly without it.

Too ambigious and open ended....now the flick will be debated forever with about a hundred different right answers...

Which is exactly why he did it.

I think it's nice that he left it a little ambiguous. If you're an optimist and say it was real, then you think the top falls. If you're a pessimist and think he's still in a dream, then you think the top keeps spinning. Personally, I think Nolan answered the question, by showing the top starting to wobble; if he'd shown it spinning smoothly as the film ended, that would be different.

JD10367
07-18-2010, 08:00 PM
Calling JD10367....



On a technical side, did anyone else have trouble making out Ken Watanabes dialogue?

I saw it in IMAX and thought the sound mix was extremely agressive and was drowing out several dialouge scenes. Loved Zimmers score though.

Well, I haven't heard it in the theater yet but, just from listening to the audio monitor in the booth, I can tell that it's a very hot mix. It comes close to overloading the system quite often. And there's not really a flat mix for IMAX theaters: they're supposed to be EQed the same but, ultimately, they're not (nor are they acoustically the same). So one theater might sound louder, and differently, than another. Not to mention some operators may either raise or lower the volume as they see it (for example, I lowered by "Tron" trailer because it's even louder and more distorted than "Inception").

I'll have to watch it in my theater this week. If I agree with you, I might have to bring the narration track up a hair and drop the sound effects/music channels.

KcMizzou
07-18-2010, 08:02 PM
I wonder if Nolan will use Guy Pearce again. I've always like him as an actor.

Great in Memento (obviously) and The Count Of Monte Cristo.

Guru
07-18-2010, 08:02 PM
Which is exactly why he did it.

I think it's nice that he left it a little ambiguous. If you're an optimist and say it was real, then you think the top falls. If you're a pessimist and think he's still in a dream, then you think the top keeps spinning. Personally, I think Nolan answered the question, by showing the top starting to wobble; if he'd shown it spinning smoothly as the film ended, that would be different.
I don't see how it would make you a pessimist if you think the top keeps spinning.

Personally, I am having a fun time arguing with my son about whether it stopped or not. Hell, the length of the film even fits for the 10 hour flight when you think about it.

Maybe it was a 4 layer dream and the protection was actually Cobb's training kicking in to protect his mind.

Guru
07-18-2010, 08:04 PM
Well, I haven't heard it in the theater yet but, just from listening to the audio monitor in the booth, I can tell that it's a very hot mix. It comes close to overloading the system quite often. And there's not really a flat mix for IMAX theaters: they're supposed to be EQed the same but, ultimately, they're not (nor are they acoustically the same). So one theater might sound louder, and differently, than another. Not to mention some operators may either raise or lower the volume as they see it (for example, I lowered by "Tron" trailer because it's even louder and more distorted than "Inception").

I'll have to watch it in my theater this week. If I agree with you, I might have to bring the narration track up a hair and drop the sound effects/music channels.I was so thrilled to see that Tron trailer finally. I agree that the mix in that trailer was distorted as hell.

Deberg_1990
07-18-2010, 08:10 PM
Well, I haven't heard it in the theater yet but, just from listening to the audio monitor in the booth, I can tell that it's a very hot mix. It comes close to overloading the system quite often. And there's not really a flat mix for IMAX theaters: they're supposed to be EQed the same but, ultimately, they're not (nor are they acoustically the same). So one theater might sound louder, and differently, than another. Not to mention some operators may either raise or lower the volume as they see it (for example, I lowered by "Tron" trailer because it's even louder and more distorted than "Inception").

I'll have to watch it in my theater this week. If I agree with you, I might have to bring the narration track up a hair and drop the sound effects/music channels.

kewl..ya let me know what you find..im curious. Maybe its the mix of the film and not the theater sound?

I read a few other reviews last night that mentioned the same thing about Wantabe.

Deberg_1990
07-18-2010, 08:12 PM
I wonder if Nolan will use Guy Pearce again.

Ive always wondered that myself.....Dont forget about LA Confidential.

JD10367
07-18-2010, 08:52 PM
kewl..ya let me know what you find..im curious. Maybe its the mix of the film and not the theater sound?

I read a few other reviews last night that mentioned the same thing about Wantabe.

The mix doesn't pin any of the amps or EQs so I know it's not outright overloading anything. So, if I hear any issues in my theater, it will leave me to believe that it's in the mix.

The "Tron" trailer is deliberately distorted, because I think they wanted the sound to hearken back to the early 80s, that whole time of films like "Terminator" with their synthesized analog sound. Notice how the "Tron" logo in the end credits looks like flickering neon; another nod to that time.

(And, not to hijack an "Inception" thread into a "Tron" thread, but... the original film was around 1982 IIRC. In this trailer, his kid says, "He's been gone for 20 years." Does this mean the film will take place in 2002? Or will it set up the premise, in the first few minutes, that 8 years after the happenings of the first film his dad vanished back into the computer world?)

Guru
07-18-2010, 08:55 PM
The mix doesn't pin any of the amps or EQs so I know it's not outright overloading anything. So, if I hear any issues in my theater, it will leave me to believe that it's in the mix.

The "Tron" trailer is deliberately distorted, because I think they wanted the sound to hearken back to the early 80s, that whole time of films like "Terminator" with their synthesized analog sound. Notice how the "Tron" logo in the end credits looks like flickering neon; another nod to that time.

(And, not to hijack an "Inception" thread into a "Tron" thread, but... the original film was around 1982 IIRC. In this trailer, his kid says, "He's been gone for 20 years." Does this mean the film will take place in 2002? Or will it set up the premise, in the first few minutes, that 8 years after the happenings of the first film his dad vanished back into the computer world?)
Based on what I saw, I would imagine he probably went back into the computer world 8 years later.

mikeyis4dcats.
07-18-2010, 08:59 PM
BRILLIANT!!!!!!

By far the best movie I have ever seen in a theater.

it was a dream

nope Cobb wears a wedding ring in his dreams, but not in real life. He wears no ring at the end. (So I read)

Guru
07-18-2010, 09:01 PM
nope Cobb wears a wedding ring in his dreams, but not in real life. He wears no ring at the end. (So I read)

I'm just fanning the flames. :evil:

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 10:01 PM
The more I think about this film the worse off it gets.

I have the opposite feeling. Except mine is mainly based on the visuals rather than story/plot/ending argument.

Reaper16
07-18-2010, 10:05 PM
I have the opposite feeling. Except mine is mainly based on the visuals rather than story/plot/ending argument.
I can't deny the technical achievements of the film. But the more I discuss the film w/ various people the more I come to see it as devoid of any real emotional stakes, lacking in thematic relevancy, and as not measuring up to, say, Mulholland Drive as a film about dreams or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (or a number of Hitchcock films or, Hell, even Shutter Island) as a film about dangerous obsession compromising one's mental state.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 10:06 PM
Bingo.

I want - more than anything video game wise - Hideo to rerelease MGS for the PS3 with updated graphics. Don't change the story just update the graphics. I'd buy it again at $60. It's my all time favorite video game.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 10:07 PM
I can't deny the technical achievements of the film. But the more I discuss the film w/ various people the more I come to see it as devoid of any real emotional stakes, lacking in thematic relevancy, and as not measuring up to, say, Mulholland Drive as a film about dreams or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (or a number of Hitchcock films or, Hell, even Shutter Island) as a film about dangerous obsession compromising one's mental state.

Oh, completely agree. It's not really even disagreeable, is it?

Reaper16
07-18-2010, 10:09 PM
I want - more than anything video game wise - Hideo to rerelease MGS for the PS3 with updated graphics. Don't change the story just update the graphics. I'd buy it again at $60. It's my all time favorite video game.
You want MGS to be rereleased again? The Gamecube graphical update (http://www.amazon.com/Metal-Gear-Solid-Snakes-game-cube/dp/B0000A09EN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1279508890&sr=8-1) wasn't good enough for you?

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 10:09 PM
You want MGS to be rereleased again? The Gamecube graphical update (http://www.amazon.com/Metal-Gear-Solid-Snakes-game-cube/dp/B0000A09EN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1279508890&sr=8-1) wasn't good enough for you?

Different game isn't it?

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 10:12 PM
I can't deny the technical achievements of the film. But the more I discuss the film w/ various people the more I come to see it as devoid of any real emotional stakes, lacking in thematic relevancy, and as not measuring up to, say, Mulholland Drive as a film about dreams or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (or a number of Hitchcock films or, Hell, even Shutter Island) as a film about dangerous obsession compromising one's mental state.

Come to think of it in these terms, I thought one of the most interesting parts of the film was skipped. But the metaphor and construction of the scene was flawless. I'm talking, of course, about the elevator and Ellen Page's likening to a prison.

A whole movie (much like a whole season of LOST could revolve around Desmond's parallel timeline mission) could explore that idea. Keeping a person in the prison of memory is fascinating to me.

Reaper16
07-18-2010, 10:14 PM
Oh, completely agree. It's not really even disagreeable, is it?
I'd like to see someone try. The hyperbole out there is insane.

The movie left me cold in many ways but I'd still say that it is a must-see, especially if you've enjoyed a previous Christopher Nolan film. If you can get past that the film isn't really about anything, or what it is about is about it in such a silly-yet-serious way (an elevator taking you to different levels of subconscious? Geez) then you can appreciate the simple movie-making fun that the film delivers.

It is a very well made heist film that has been made clever for the sake of being clever -- nothing more.

Reaper16
07-18-2010, 10:15 PM
Different game isn't it?
Nope. It is a remake of the first MGS with graphics, cutscenes and gameplay on the level of MGS2.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 10:17 PM
I'd like to see someone try. The hyperbole out there is insane.

The movie left me cold in many ways but I'd still say that it is a must-see, especially if you've enjoyed a previous Christopher Nolan film. If you can get past that the film isn't really about anything, or what it is about is about it in such a silly-yet-serious way (an elevator taking you to different levels of subconscious? Geez) then you can appreciate the simple movie-making fun that the film delivers.

It is a very well made heist film that has been made clever for the sake of being clever -- nothing more.

Wow, we apparently differ on the elevator metaphor. I thought it was a perfect analogy but I can see how you'd find it cheap.

Nope. It is a remake of the first MGS with graphics, cutscenes and gameplay on the level of MGS2.

but.................It's for gamecube. Teh suck.

Reaper16
07-18-2010, 10:17 PM
Come to think of it in these terms, I thought one of the most interesting parts of the film was skipped. But the metaphor and construction of the scene was flawless. I'm talking, of course, about the elevator and Ellen Page's likening to a prison.

A whole movie (much like a whole season of LOST could revolve around Desmond's parallel timeline mission) could explore that idea. Keeping a person in the prison of memory is fascinating to me.
Keeping a idealized memory of a person trapped in a compartmentalized section of one's subconscious is pretty cool. Accessing those compartments via an elevator is so silly that I chuckled aloud in the theater when I saw it.

Reaper16
07-18-2010, 10:18 PM
but.................It's for gamecube. Teh suck.
I still use my Gamecube from time to time.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 10:20 PM
Keeping a idealized memory of a person trapped in a compartmentalized section of one's subconscious is pretty cool. Accessing those compartments via an elevator is so silly that I chuckled aloud in the theater when I saw it.

I might agree if they'd used that for all of the subconscious. If every level they had to take an elevator. Or they had to take an elevator down each time they dreamed.

But I thought the one-time use, especially with the prison element, was perfect. Especially the shot where the old elevator doors shut, which complements the prison metaphor.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 10:20 PM
I still use my Gamecube from time to time.

It's no PS3/360.

Guru
07-18-2010, 10:47 PM
Keeping a idealized memory of a person trapped in a compartmentalized section of one's subconscious is pretty cool. Accessing those compartments via an elevator is so silly that I chuckled aloud in the theater when I saw it.

But that was how he built his dream. I don't think it was their way of saying this is the way the mind works. Just the way his worked.

Deberg_1990
07-18-2010, 10:50 PM
I'm not so sure why everyone is surprised with Gordon-Levitt.

heh

Guru
07-18-2010, 10:52 PM
heh

I thought that was who he was.

SithCeNtZ
07-18-2010, 10:55 PM
The snow fortress had me both aching for a video game of that level and secondly to be an extra or stunt guy on that shoot. It also reminded me verbatim of Metal Gear Solid's opening level. It looked like they based the video game level off the schematics of the building used in the film.

Yes. I'm kind of surprised more people aren't talking about how boring the dream sets ended up being. When Paige is shown the dream world for the first time she does actual interesting things to the environment and I was hoping for some more of that when the plot began to unfold but it never happened. I mean if you are the film maker you can literally make the environments anything you want, and yet all we get is a boring city, a boring hotel, and a snow fort built straight out of any video game. Since he didn't chose anything interesting I thought along the same lines as some other people in this thread did: that the action sequences were pretty bland, especially when they are fighting an enemy that has no face.

Guru
07-18-2010, 10:57 PM
Yes. I'm kind of surprised more people aren't talking about how boring the dream sets ended up being. When Paige is shown the dream world for the first time she does actual interesting things to the environment and I was hoping for some more of that when the plot began to unfold but it never happened. I mean if you are the film maker you can literally make the environments anything you want, and yet all we get is a boring city, a boring hotel, and a snow fort built straight out of any video game. Since he didn't chose anything interesting I thought along the same lines as some other people in this thread did: that the action sequences were pretty bland, especially when they are fighting an enemy that has no face.
It was explained why they couldn't do that though.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 10:59 PM
Yes. I'm kind of surprised more people aren't talking about how boring the dream sets ended up being. When Paige is shown the dream world for the first time she does actual interesting things to the environment and I was hoping for some more of that when the plot began to unfold but it never happened. I mean if you are the film maker you can literally make the environments anything you want, and yet all we get is a boring city, a boring hotel, and a snow fort built straight out of any video game. Since he didn't chose anything interesting I thought along the same lines as some other people in this thread did: that the action sequences were pretty bland, especially when they are fighting an enemy that has no face.

Guru mentioned it's explained. And it is.

Plus, I'm betting if he would have gone Burton on us, we'd be complaining it got too surreal.

SithCeNtZ
07-18-2010, 11:03 PM
It was explained why they couldn't do that though.

Why they couldn't do what? Maybe I missed something.

Bowser
07-18-2010, 11:07 PM
Why they couldn't do what? Maybe I missed something.Why they couldn't manipulate the environment of the dream. If they would have gotten too crazy in reconstructing things, the host's subconcious would rebel and destroy them.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 11:09 PM
Why they couldn't manipulate the environment of the dream. If they would have gotten too crazy in reconstructing things, the host's subconcious would rebel and destroy them.

Exactly. Typically when trying to steal something, you try to be stealthy. Making mirrors everywhere would spook the projections that fill it. Can't get too out there or the host will know.

SithCeNtZ
07-18-2010, 11:27 PM
Why they couldn't manipulate the environment of the dream. If they would have gotten too crazy in reconstructing things, the host's subconcious would rebel and destroy them.

Well I was referring more to the design of the dream initially. I find it hard to believe that the best thing someone could come up with was a snow fort out of golden eye 64 or timesplitters. Was there nothing more interesting than that? I just think it's kind of funny that they "recruited" Paige to be an architect, and yet everything that you see is pretty uninspired.

As another point going along with the dreams it seemed like none of the rules even applied for the second half of the movie. Why did they make it a big deal to say that the dreams had to be "mazes" so that they could hide from guys and yet you base a dream out of a....hotel? Lots of places to run when they find you in a hotel, that's for sure. As far as the rule that you can't go changing everything, it didn't say you couldn't change anything. I understand that the rule is there so the movie doesn't go crazy with special effects, but surely there could have been something right? I mean the first dream scene starts off well enough with a train plowing through a downtown city and yet that didn't seem to effect anything, nor does apparently killing a bunch of guys and wrecking cars all over the place and firing granade launchers. We couldn't get anything interesting like that anywhere else? I'm not saying it ruined the movie for me or anything, but it seemed like a waste of a pretty good premise.

irishjayhawk
07-19-2010, 03:19 PM
So, after thinking about it and talking it out with people who have seen it, I don't think the ending is ambiguous whatsoever. As evidence, I point to a shot earlier in the film where they show the top spin and spin and spin without ever wavering. In the final shot, the top wobbles, which indicates what's actually happened.

DMAC
07-19-2010, 03:24 PM
So, after thinking about it and talking it out with people who have seen it, I don't think the ending is ambiguous whatsoever. As evidence, I point to a shot earlier in the film where they show the top spin and spin and spin without ever wavering. In the final shot, the top wobbles, which indicates what's actually happened.I knew that walking out. ppffttt sniff

Gravedigger
07-19-2010, 03:25 PM
Alls I know is that I don't think I've ever left a movie theater that utterly blown away by what I just saw. There is no overhyping this movie, it focuses on such a deep level of human cognizance that I've never seen anything like it. The story builds from the get go and about midway through you start to see the pieces fall into place and it all concludes with a climax at the end that makes you understand that you got the best possible bang for your buck.

Sure the ending left a huge cliffhanger, but why not? It gets you guessing, it makes you think you know, but then you say "Wait a minute, I thought I knew." Personally I think the top was stopping before credits but that's just me, but my sister who saw it with me disputes otherwise. This film exceeded my expectations in every way, the action, the directing, the casting, the dialogue, the plot, every single aspect impressed me. Kudos Mr. Nolan, you are the filmmaker that others should aspire to be.

irishjayhawk
07-19-2010, 03:25 PM
I knew that walking out. ppffttt sniff

I had the same impression from walking out but talking to people solidified it to rock solid nature. So much so that I don't think there's ANY room for interpretation.

DMAC
07-19-2010, 03:27 PM
I had the same impression from walking out but talking to people solidified it to rock solid nature. So much so that I don't think there's ANY room for interpretation.Agreed...none.

Guru
07-19-2010, 03:32 PM
Yeah, but it is fun trying to talk them into the possibility that it WAS all another dream.:evil:

Heather
07-19-2010, 04:38 PM
I'm trying to decide whether I will go see this soon, or wait on it. So here's my question, did you like the movie? What are some of your favorite movies?
I don't really go to the movies much, but when I do, I really want to like what I'm seeing.

Thanks!

Taco John
07-19-2010, 04:49 PM
I think understanding Michael Caine's character could be the key to the story.

Where is he when Cobb first meets him? In the states? How can that be? But yet, he's the one who welcomes him home? Is it a mistake? I don't think so. I think there's another layer here.

Taco John
07-19-2010, 04:50 PM
I'm trying to decide whether I will go see this soon, or wait on it. So here's my question, did you like the movie? What are some of your favorite movies?
I don't really go to the movies much, but when I do, I really want to like what I'm seeing.

Thanks!


Let me put it like this:

GO SEE THIS MOVIE.

Huffmeister
07-19-2010, 04:54 PM
I had the same impression from walking out but talking to people solidified it to rock solid nature. So much so that I don't think there's ANY room for interpretation.

If the ending was meant to have NO room for interpretation...
...then why not just show the top falling over?

Reaper16
07-19-2010, 05:08 PM
I don't think that I agree with this take, but it is certainly interesting:

Every single moment of Inception is a dream. I think that in a couple of years this will become the accepted reading of the film, and differing interpretations will have to be skillfully argued to be even remotely considered. The film makes this clear, and it never holds back the truth from audiences. Some find this idea to be narratively repugnant, since they think that a movie where everything is a dream is a movie without stakes, a movie where the audience is wasting their time.
Except that this is exactly what Nolan is arguing against. The film is a metaphor for the way that Nolan as a director works, and what he's ultimately saying is that the catharsis found in a dream is as real as the catharsis found in a movie is as real as the catharsis found in life. Inception is about making movies, and cinema is the shared dream that truly interests the director.
I believe that Inception is a dream to the point where even the dream-sharing stuff is a dream. Dom Cobb isn't an extractor. He can't go into other people's dreams. He isn't on the run from the Cobol Corporation. At one point he tells himself this, through the voice of Mal, who is a projection of his own subconscious. She asks him how real he thinks his world is, where he's being chased across the globe by faceless corporate goons.

She asks him that in a scene that we all know is a dream, but Inception lets us in on this elsewhere. Michael Caine's character implores Cobb to return to reality, to wake up. During the chase in Mombasa, Cobb tries to escape down an alleyway, and the two buildings between which he's running begin closing in on him - a classic anxiety dream moment. When he finally pulls himself free he finds Ken Watanabe's character waiting for him, against all logic. Except dream logic.

Much is made in the film about totems, items unique to dreamers that can be used to tell when someone is actually awake or asleep. Cobb's totem is a top, which spins endlessly when he's asleep, and the fact that the top stops spinning at many points in the film is claimed by some to be evidence that Cobb is awake during those scenes. The problem here is that the top wasn't always Cobb's totem - he got it from his wife, who killed herself because she believed that they were still living in a dream. There's more than a slim chance that she's right - note that when Cobb remembers her suicide she is, bizarrely, sitting on a ledge opposite the room they rented. You could do the logical gymnastics required to claim that Mal simply rented another room across the alleyway, but the more realistic notion here is that it's a dream, with the gap between the two lovers being a metaphorical one made literal. When Mal jumps she leaves behind the top, and if she was right about the world being a dream, the fact that it spins or doesn't spin is meaningless. It's a dream construct anyway. There's no way to use the top as a proof of reality.

Watching the film with this eye you can see the dream logic unfolding. As is said in the movie, dreams seem real in the moment and it's only when you've woken up that things seem strange. The film's 'reality' sequences are filled with moments that, on retrospect, seem strange or unlikely or unexplained. Even the basics of the dream sharing technology is unbelievably vague, and I don't think that's just because Nolan wants to keep things streamlined. It's because Cobb's unconscious mind is filling it in as he goes along.

There's more, but I would have to watch the film again with a notebook to get all the evidence (all of it in plain sight). The end seems without a doubt to be a dream - from the dreamy way the film is shot and edited once Cobb wakes up on the plane all the way through to him coming home to find his two kids in the exact position and in the exact same clothes that he kept remembering them, it doesn't matter if the top falls, Cobb is dreaming.

That Cobb is dreaming and still finds his catharsis (that he can now look at the face of his kids) is the point. It's important to realize that Inception is a not very thinly-veiled autobiographical look at how Nolan works. In a recent red carpet interview, Leonardo DiCaprio - who was important in helping Nolan get the script to the final stages - compares the movie not to The Matrix or some other mindfuck movie but Fellini's 8 1/2. This is probably the second most telling thing DiCaprio said during the publicity tour for the film, with the first being that he based Cobb on Nolan. 8 1/2 is totally autobiographical for Fellini, and it's all about an Italian director trying to overcome his block and make a movie (a science fiction movie, even). It's a film about filmmaking, and so is Inception.
The heist team quite neatly maps to major players in a film production. Cobb is the director while Arthur, the guy who does the research and who sets up the places to sleep, is the producer. Ariadne, the dream architect, is the screenwriter - she creates the world that will be entered. Eames is the actor (this is so obvious that the character sits at an old fashioned mirrored vanity, the type which stage actors would use). Yusuf is the technical guy; remember, the Oscar come from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and it requires a good number of technically minded people to get a movie off the ground. Nolan himself more or less explains this in the latest issue of Film Comment, saying 'There are a lot of striking similarities . When for instance the team is out on the street they've created, surveying it, that's really identical with what we do on tech scouts before we shoot.'

That leaves two key figures. Saito is the money guy, the big corporate suit who fancies himself a part of the game. And Fischer, the mark, is the audience. Cobb, as a director, takes Fischer through an engaging, stimulating and exciting journey, one that leads him to an understanding about himself. Cobb is the big time movie director (or rather the best version of that - certainly not a Michael Bay) who brings the action, who brings the spectacle, but who also brings the meaning and the humanity and the emotion.
The movies-as-dreams aspect is part of why Inception keeps the dreams so grounded. In the film it's explained that playing with the dream too much alerts the dreamer to the falseness around him; this is just another version of the suspension of disbelief upon which all films hinge. As soon as the audience is pulled out of the movie by some element - an implausible scene, a ludicrous line, a poor performance - it's possible that the cinematic dream spell is broken completely, and they're lost. As a great director, Cobb is also a great artist, which means that even when he's creating a dream about snowmobile chases, he's bringing something of himself into it. That's Mal. It's the auterist impulse, the need to bring your own interests, obsessions and issues into a movie. It's what the best directors do. It's very telling that Nolan sees this as kind of a problem; I suspect another filmmaker might have cast Mal as the special element that makes Cobb so successful.

Inception is such a big deal because it's what great movies strive to do. You walk out of a great film changed, with new ideas planted in your head, with your neural networks subtly rewired by what you've just seen. On a meta level [B]Inception itself does this, with audiences leaving the theater buzzing about the way it made them feel and perceive. New ideas, new thoughts, new points of view are more lasting a souvenir of a great movie than a ticket stub.
It's possible to view Fischer, the mark, as not the audience but just as the character that is being put through the movie that is the dream. To be honest, I haven't quite solidified my thought on Fischer's place in the allegorical web, but what's important is that the breakthrough that Fischer has in the ski fortress is real. Despite the fact that his father is not there, despite the fact that the pinwheel was never by his father's bedside, the emotions that Fischer experiences are 100 percent genuine. It doesn't matter that the movie you're watching isn't a real story, that it's just highly paid people putting on a show - when a movie moves you, it truly moves you. The tears you cry during Up are totally real, even if absolutely nothing that you see on screen has ever existed in the physical world.
For Cobb there's a deeper meaning to it all. While Cobb doesn't have daddy issues (that we know of), he, like Fischer, is dealing with a loss. He's trying to come to grips with the death of his wife*; Fischer's journey reflects Cobb's while not being a complete point for point reflection. That's important for Nolan, who is making films that have personal components - that talk about things that obviously interest or concern him - but that aren't actually about him. Other filmmakers (Fellini) may make movies that are thinly veiled autobiography, but that's not what Nolan or Cobb are doing. The movies (or dreams) they're putting together reflect what they're going through but aren't easily mapped on to them. Talking to Film Comment, Nolan says he has never been to psychoanalysis. 'I think I use filmmaking for that purpose. I have a passionate relationship to what I do.'

In a lot of ways Inception is a bookend to last summer's Inglorious Basterds. In that film Quentin Tarantino celebrated the ways that cinema could change the world, while in Inception Nolan is examining the ways that cinema, the ultimate shared dream, can change an individual. The entire film is a dream, within the confines of the movie itself, but in a more meta sense it's Nolan's dream. He's dreaming Cobb, and finding his own moments of revelation and resolution, just as Cobb is dreaming Fischer and finding his own catharsis and change.
The whole film being a dream isn't a cop out or a waste of time, but an ultimate expression of the film's themes and meaning. It's all fake. But it's all very, very real. And that's something every single movie lover understands implicitly and completely.
* it's really worth noting that if you accept that the whole movie is a dream that Mal may not be dead. She could have just left Cobb. The mourning that he is experiencing deep inside his mind is no less real if she's alive or dead - he has still lost her.
<!-- This uses the GoogleAdsense468x60.html snippet -->

the Talking Can
07-19-2010, 05:21 PM
made 60 mil

KcMizzou
07-19-2010, 05:38 PM
Interesting take from another board...

By the way, here's my meta-answer for why it was not all a dream:

"It's all a dream" is to the audience what "your world is not real" is to Mal.

Nolan implants this idea in us. He implants this notion that whatever we're watching is a dream. We are being trained to search for hints. Search for reasons to doubt the reality of what were watching. Christopher Nolan's movie is an act of inception on the audience. And more than that, like Cobb in the movie, he does it in such a way as to make us think it's *our* idea. We pride ourselves on finding clues, finding reasons. We think we've figured it out.

But just like Mal, the idea has grown too large. We are letting it gnaw at us even when we shouldn't. Just like Mal's world *was* real, so too was the movie's. But the inception makes her and us doubt that. But don't let that virus dominate you. Accept things as they are.

the Talking Can
07-19-2010, 05:40 PM
Interesting take from another board...

By the way, here's my meta-answer for why it was not all a dream:

"It's all a dream" is to the audience what "your world is not real" is to Mal.

Nolan implants this idea in us. He implants this notion that whatever we're watching is a dream. We are being trained to search for hints. Search for reasons to doubt the reality of what were watching. Christopher Nolan's movie is an act of inception on the audience. And more than that, like Cobb in the movie, he does it in such a way as to make us think it's *our* idea. We pride ourselves on finding clues, finding reasons. We think we've figured it out.

But just like Mal, the idea has grown too large. We are letting it gnaw at us even when we shouldn't. Just like Mal's world *was* real, so too was the movie's. But the inception makes her and us doubt that. But don't let that virus dominate you. Accept things as they are.

i find that a much more compelling and elegant explanation...trying to determine 'where' the meta- ends is impossible...

Jenson71
07-19-2010, 06:23 PM
I liked it, and I would watch it again. I think there's a lot I'm still missing from it (detasseling for 11 hours before hand doesn't help concentration).

But the most compelling parts were not the action-packed, fighting in zero gravity, going down the snow mountain scenes. In fact, that stuff seemed to drag on a little too long. It was the wife and children subplot that I enjoyed most. Not that there was much romance between the two, but it was really intriguing for me to see that drama unfold and be shown to us.

Deberg_1990
07-19-2010, 08:46 PM
I liked it, and I would watch it again. I think there's a lot I'm still missing from it (detasseling for 11 hours before hand doesn't help concentration).

But the most compelling parts were not the action-packed, fighting in zero gravity, going down the snow mountain scenes. In fact, that stuff seemed to drag on a little too long. It was the wife and children subplot that I enjoyed most. Not that there was much romance between the two, but it was really intriguing for me to see that drama unfold and be shown to us.

I agree...the first hour of setup was more interesting to me than the endless gunfighting of random dudes. I mentioned earlier that the film needed a central villian to be more effective...and I stand by that.
Posted via Mobile Device

Taco John
07-19-2010, 09:01 PM
I agree...the first hour of setup was more interesting to me than the endless gunfighting of random dudes. I mentioned earlier that the film needed a central villian to be more effective...and I stand by that.
Posted via Mobile Device


Cobb was that villain. Anything more than that would have destroyed the film, IMO.

Guru
07-19-2010, 11:46 PM
I don't think that I agree with this take, but it is certainly interesting:
[/i]
<!-- This uses the GoogleAdsense468x60.html snippet -->That was a great read!!!:clap:

Deberg_1990
07-20-2010, 11:44 AM
Cobb was that villain. Anything more than that would have destroyed the film, IMO.

ok sure.......but its like Nolan wanted two films. The intellectual mind games with the dreams and Cobb story.....and then the action/heist film.

Its not a bad movie by any means and very well made, but im not entirely sure he was successful in melding the two movies together. ill need to see this thing again to get a better perspective i think.

DMAC
07-20-2010, 04:32 PM
ok sure.......but its like Nolan wanted two films. The intellectual mind games with the dreams and Cobb story.....and then the action/heist film.

Its not a bad movie by any means and very well made, but im not entirely sure he was successful in melding the two movies together. ill need to see this thing again to get a better perspective i think.Nolan made a movie that most people NEED to see again. Thats a mastermind right there.

Red Brooklyn
07-21-2010, 09:42 AM
I absolutely loved Inception. The cast is outstanding all the way around, not a bad performance among them. The direction is superb. The plot is so well designed and executed that it makes me want to make movies. Nolan is an inspiration. There's just no one out there with his sense of plot, structure and story.

The dialogue is a little weak at times, but the actors usually make up for it. It is colder than something like Eternal Sunshine... but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The two films are trying to do different things.

Inception succeeds across the board. The last film I saw more than once in a theatre was The Dark Knight. The next one will be Inception. I can't wait to take this trip again.

... and yeah, the totem falls.

Sully
07-21-2010, 10:14 PM
I've now seen it three times and come to these conclusions...

It doesn't matter whether the totem falls or not.
The entire movie is a dream. At no point is it not within a dream.
Though it's most probably Cobb's dream, there's no way to tell, and it really doesn't matter.

noa
07-21-2010, 10:29 PM
Logically speaking, Nolan had to make the totem teeter a bit. If he just showed it to us spinning ad inifitum, he would have answered the question for us. And even showing it wobble a bit answers it for some. But he cuts it off before making it definitive, which in my mind is a pretty clear sign he wants it to be ambiguous. Like others have said, he wanted an idea to be implanted in your mind, whichever idea it was. So that shot was the only way to pull it off, even though some might interpret it as a definitive sign.

KcMizzou
07-21-2010, 10:48 PM
Logically speaking, Nolan had to make the totem teeter a bit. If he just showed it to us spinning ad inifitum, he would have answered the question for us. And even showing it wobble a bit answers it for some. But he cuts it off before making it definitive, which in my mind is a pretty clear sign he wants it to be ambiguous. Like others have said, he wanted an idea to be implanted in your mind, whichever idea it was. So that shot was the only way to pull it off, even though some might interpret it as a definitive sign.Repost of my own post. I know that's bad form but still, I like it, and I agree with it...


By the way, here's my meta-answer for why it was not all a dream:

"It's all a dream" is to the audience what "your world is not real" is to Mal.

Nolan implants this idea in us. He implants this notion that whatever we're watching is a dream. We are being trained to search for hints. Search for reasons to doubt the reality of what were watching. Christopher Nolan's movie is an act of inception on the audience. And more than that, like Cobb in the movie, he does it in such a way as to make us think it's *our* idea. We pride ourselves on finding clues, finding reasons. We think we've figured it out.

But just like Mal, the idea has grown too large. We are letting it gnaw at us even when we shouldn't. Just like Mal's world *was* real, so too was the movie's. But the inception makes her and us doubt that. But don't let that virus dominate you. Accept things as they are.

Huffmeister
07-22-2010, 09:02 AM
I saw it again last night. Here's my take:

The top-level 'real world' is not a dream.

Going down into the first dream (Yusuf's dream, on the plane) required heavy sedation. Therefore, death in any of these worlds causes you to move down instead of up.

Death in the 3rd world (snow fortress) caused Fischer and Saito to move DOWN into limbo.

Cobb and Juno (or whatever her name is), follow Fischer and Saito down into Limbo.

Fischer and Juno ride the kick from Limbo back up to the first dream.

Cobb searches for Saito in Limbo (possibly for years or decades). When he finds him at the end, we assume that they both killed themselves because that is how Cobb and Mal escaped Limbo before (but they were not under heavy sedation).

The ambiguity of the last shot isn't asking "was the whole thing real or a dream?". It's asking "Did killing themselves in Limbo under heavy sedation send them UP to the plane, or DOWN into a further Limbo?" Did Cobb create his own world where he was with his children, and will actually wake up on the plane with a scrambled brain?

Red Brooklyn
07-22-2010, 09:06 AM
Logically speaking, Nolan had to make the totem teeter a bit. If he just showed it to us spinning ad inifitum, he would have answered the question for us. And even showing it wobble a bit answers it for some. But he cuts it off before making it definitive, which in my mind is a pretty clear sign he wants it to be ambiguous. Like others have said, he wanted an idea to be implanted in your mind, whichever idea it was. So that shot was the only way to pull it off, even though some might interpret it as a definitive sign.

nice post.

Pants
07-22-2010, 10:31 AM
...

Holy shit, did no one else find it interesting that when Cobb finally comes home, his kids are EXACTLY like his last memory before he went into exile? I mean, it's the same fucking shot except they actually turn around to greet him. They're wearing the same clothes, they're sitting in the exact same position and they never aged. How long was he gone from the US?

Red Brooklyn
07-22-2010, 10:39 AM
...

Holy shit, did no one else find it interesting that when Cobb finally comes home, his kids are EXACTLY like his last memory before he went into exile? I mean, it's the same ****ing shot except they actually turn around to greet him. They're wearing the same clothes, they're sitting in the exact same position and they never aged. How long was he gone from the US?

I need to see it again... but are they really "sitting in the exact same position"? I thought the shot was purposefully different - like the kids switched sides, or something like that. Could be wrong. Again, I only saw it once.

They don't look as though they've aged, but that's okay. To me that was to avoid confusion (or to create it :evil:). Besides, as you said, I don't believe we know how long he's been in exile.

Pants
07-22-2010, 10:44 AM
....

My other question is why was the 4th level of Fisher's subconscious (i.e. his limbo after he got shot in level 3 by the vault) the world that Cobb and Mal had created for themselves? Shouldn't it have been Fisher's uncreated, blank world or subconscious barren infinity?

Red Brooklyn
07-22-2010, 10:47 AM
....

My other question is why was the 4th level of Fisher's subconscious (i.e. his limbo after he got shot in level 3 by the vault) the world that Cobb and Mal had created for themselves? Shouldn't it have been Fisher's uncreated, blank world or subconscious barren infinity?

Again, only saw it once... but I think the limbo is shared by all. It is a blank world for everyone. Cobb and Mal built it up and it stayed that way for everyone. Others can enter and add and subtract as they wish.

Pants
07-22-2010, 10:50 AM
Again, only saw it once... but I think the limbo is shared by all. It is a blank world for everyone. Cobb and Mal built it up and it stayed that way for everyone. Others can enter and add and subtract as they wish.

Wow, that's a pretty radical idea. I'm not willing to accept it either, creates too many questions. :p

Red Brooklyn
07-22-2010, 11:48 AM
Wow, that's a pretty radical idea. I'm not willing to accept it either, creates too many questions. :p
:)

Yeah, I'm not certain that's the answer... just what I took away from it after the first go-round. I'm sure I'll have a different idea and/or better understanding of it once I've seen it again.

sedated
07-22-2010, 12:11 PM
...

Holy shit, did no one else find it interesting that when Cobb finally comes home, his kids are EXACTLY like his last memory before he went into exile? I mean, it's the same ****ing shot except they actually turn around to greet him. They're wearing the same clothes, they're sitting in the exact same position and they never aged. How long was he gone from the US?

not sure if it means anything, but the credits had different actors listed for the kids at different ages (3 and 5 IIRC)

Pants
07-22-2010, 12:14 PM
not sure if it means anything, but the credits had different actors listed for the kids at different ages (3 and 5 IIRC)

Oh, that would make me totally wrong and pretty much close the case in my mind. It would definitely have to be the real world, then.

EDIT: Just checked IMDB: they only used 2 actors to play the kids. So they were the same when he came back, just like I though.

Reaper16
07-22-2010, 12:17 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it doesn't matter whether it was a dream or reality? The film never gave me enough reason to give a shit about whether Cobb is reunited with his kids.

Huffmeister
07-22-2010, 12:20 PM
Again, only saw it once... but I think the limbo is shared by all. It is a blank world for everyone. Cobb and Mal built it up and it stayed that way for everyone. Others can enter and add and subtract as they wish.

That's the way I understood it.

If Cobb had not been part of the shared dream, and Fischer ended up in Limbo, he would have ended up on an empty beach (or worse). But since Cobb was part of the shared dream, his built-up Limbo was there for Fischer to fall into. And since Mal (or rather, the manifestation of Cobb's guilt) was there, she grabbed Fischer, thus drawing Cobb to her.

Red Brooklyn
07-22-2010, 12:54 PM
That's the way I understood it.

If Cobb had not been part of the shared dream, and Fischer ended up in Limbo, he would have ended up on an empty beach (or worse). But since Cobb was part of the shared dream, his built-up Limbo was there for Fischer to fall into. And since Mal (or rather, the manifestation of Cobb's guilt) was there, she grabbed Fischer, thus drawing Cobb to her.
Yes! That makes total sense. I think you're dead on. Excellent post.
Oh, that would make me totally wrong and pretty much close the case in my mind. It would definitely have to be the real world, then.

EDIT: Just checked IMDB: they only used 2 actors to play the kids. So they were the same when he came back, just like I though.
Yes, the same actors were used, but they are listed at two different ages:
Claire Geare - Phillipa (3 years); Phillipa (5 years).
Jonathan Geare - James (20 months); James (3 years).

Am I the only one who thinks it doesn't matter whether it was a dream or reality? The film never gave me enough reason to give a shit about whether Cobb is reunited with his kids.
I don't know that it ultimately matters in terms of enjoyment (as an audience memeber). But it certainly matters to the story.

And I was very invested in Cobb's journey. In fact, my need to have Cobb reunited with his kids is what gave me my initial interpretation of the film's ending. And is the main reason I stick by it.

Pants
07-22-2010, 01:05 PM
Yes! That makes total sense. I think you're dead on. Excellent post.



The only way it makes sense, IMO, is if all humans share a common consciousness at the deepest level, which is a crazy freaking thing to imply (not saying it's impossible, but at that point, we're talking about God). The architect never built the 4th level, she only built the 3. And even if the 4th level was built, it wasn't built by Cobb because that wasn't his job. The main reason Cobb couldn't build anything is because it would mean that Mal would know her way around the maze and promptly **** things up. The 4th level should've been purely Fisher's and in no way should have even remotely resembled the world Cobb and Mal built for themselves.

Red Brooklyn
07-22-2010, 01:14 PM
The only way it makes sense, IMO, is if all humans share a common consciousness at the deepest level, which is a crazy freaking thing to imply (not saying it's impossible, but at that point, we're talking about God). The architect never built the 4th level, she only built the 3. And even if the 4th level was built, it wasn't built by Cobb because that wasn't his job. The main reason Cobb couldn't build anything is because it would mean that Mal would know her way around the maze and promptly **** things up. The 4th level should've been purely Fisher's and in no way should have even remotely resembled the world Cobb and Mal built for themselves.
But they talk about the risks/dangers of shared consciousness. I think it makes perfect sense in the wold Nolan created.

Kraus
07-22-2010, 01:16 PM
The only way it makes sense, IMO, is if all humans share a common consciousness at the deepest level, which is a crazy freaking thing to imply (not saying it's impossible, but at that point, we're talking about God). The architect never built the 4th level, she only built the 3. And even if the 4th level was built, it wasn't built by Cobb because that wasn't his job. The main reason Cobb couldn't build anything is because it would mean that Mal would know her way around the maze and promptly **** things up. The 4th level should've been purely Fisher's and in no way should have even remotely resembled the world Cobb and Mal built for themselves.


Wasn't Cobb host of the 4th world? He hooked up the machine in the snow fortress to himself, Aryadne, and Fischer.

Reaper16
07-22-2010, 01:20 PM
And I was very invested in Cobb's journey. In fact, my need to have Cobb reunited with his kids is what gave me my initial interpretation of the film's ending. And is the main reason I stick by it.
Really? I guess my standards for engagement are more strict. We never see what Cobb's life is like before he was wanted in the U.S. We don't even know if his kids are real. I suppose that "is a parent" is enough characterization for some people to get emotionally invested in but that's too shallow for me. Cobb's only appeal to me as a character is his tenuous grasp on his perception of reality and the obsessions therein; apart from that psychological element he's just a guy performing mindcrime on an energy company executive for the benefit of another energy company executive.

Inception is like Duplicity, only less fun.

Pants
07-22-2010, 01:23 PM
Wasn't Cobb host of the 4th world? He hooked up the machine in the snow fortress to himself, Aryadne, and Fischer.

I don't know man, Fisher was shot and dead in the dream and descended into his limbo state. Cobb had to go chase him down in that limbo and Fisher would have to be revived as the last kick was taking place.

noa
07-22-2010, 01:30 PM
Really? I guess my standards for engagement are more strict. We never see what Cobb's life is like before he was wanted in the U.S. We don't even know if his kids are real. I suppose that "is a parent" is enough characterization for some people to get emotionally invested in but that's too shallow for me. Cobb's only appeal to me as a character is his tenuous grasp on his perception of reality and the obsessions therein; apart from that psychological element he's just a guy performing mindcrime on an energy company executive for the benefit of another energy company executive.

Inception is like Duplicity, only less fun.

If you only care about his grasp on his perception of reality and his obsessions, wouldn't that opinion be informed by whether or not that final scene was actual "reality," or whether it was just another dream within a dream within a dream within a dream, etc. I'm not saying I believe this, or even care that much, but I think one way to view the movie is that Cobb was in a dream level the entire movie, and that he became very attached to it. Mal was right in recognizing that something was off, but Cobb insisted it was "reality," even though events hint at it being a dream level (like the guys in Africa chasing him much the way that projections chase the protagonists in other dream levels, as Mal says later on). So if Cobb goes through all the events of the movie just to make it back to his children, and yet this is all part of a dream-state, then I think it demonstrates just how tenuous his grasp on reality is. He is unwilling to see the flaws in the so-called reality at the end because he has become so attached to it.

At least, that's one way I think you can look at it, and one way that even for those who weren't emotionally invested, it might be a reason to at least wonder whether the last scene was a dream or real.

noa
07-22-2010, 01:37 PM
I guess to me, even if that movie is not that intellectually nourishing, or you're not emotionally invested in the characters, it still raises some interesting questions depending on your perspective of the ending.

If you take the view that KcMizzou said in his response to my first post in this thread: Are we looking for signs or meaning when it isn't really there? Are we ignoring the obvious reality that things just are as they are and searching in vain for a deeper meaning?

If you take the perspective that maybe it was a dream:
Are we ignoring signs that things aren't as they seem to be and clinging to our belief that everything is normal and fine and there are no deeper meanings to be found?

And the fact that the movie raises those questions made it worth it, even if it was in a breezy, summery, crime flick.

Reaper16
07-22-2010, 01:43 PM
If you only care about his grasp on his perception of reality and his obsessions, wouldn't that opinion be informed by whether or not that final scene was actual "reality," or whether it was just another dream within a dream within a dream within a dream, etc. I'm not saying I believe this, or even care that much, but I think one way to view the movie is that Cobb was in a dream level the entire movie, and that he became very attached to it. Mal was right in recognizing that something was off, but Cobb insisted it was "reality," even though events hint at it being a dream level (like the guys in Africa chasing him much the way that projections chase the protagonists in other dream levels, as Mal says later on). So if Cobb goes through all the events of the movie just to make it back to his children, and yet this is all part of a dream-state, then I think it demonstrates just how tenuous his grasp on reality is. He is unwilling to see the flaws in the so-called reality at the end because he has become so attached to it.

At least, that's one way I think you can look at it, and one way that even for those who weren't emotionally invested, it might be a reason to at least wonder whether the last scene was a dream or real.
Yes and no. I don't think that it matters in the sense that the film doesn't resonate more strongly with me either way. If the whole film is a dream then we don't have any stakes at all in anything - exactly the reason my theater groaned and/or laughed at the end. We wouldn't have any understanding of what the "real" Cobb is like and, moreover, don't know at all who has Cobb asleep and who is behind the inception on him. If the last scene is reality then, whoopdeedo, Cobb is reunited with these kids I wasn't compelled to care about in a home life that I had no stake in; a shallow, feel-good Hollywood ending.

The film is emotionally stunted to me either way.

Reaper16
07-22-2010, 01:50 PM
I guess to me, even if that movie is not that intellectually nourishing, or you're not emotionally invested in the characters, it still raises some interesting questions depending on your perspective of the ending.

If you take the view that KcMizzou said in his response to my first post in this thread: Are we looking for signs or meaning when it isn't really there? Are we ignoring the obvious reality that things just are as they are and searching in vain for a deeper meaning?

If you take the perspective that maybe it was a dream:
Are we ignoring signs that things aren't as they seem to be and clinging to our belief that everything is normal and fine and there are no deeper meanings to be found?

And the fact that the movie raises those questions made it worth it, even if it was in a breezy, summery, crime flick.
I agree that it was worth it. A good three stars in my book. It needs emotional resonance because it sets up a need for it. I greatly appreciate the way it fucks with the audience - something that last year's Inglorious Basterds did so well while getting away with the emotional resonance by way of ironic detachment from emotional investment - but since Inception relies in part on caring a little bit about what is going on it can be said to have some missteps.

Red Brooklyn
07-22-2010, 01:51 PM
Really? I guess my standards for engagement are more strict. We never see what Cobb's life is like before he was wanted in the U.S. We don't even know if his kids are real....

Inception is like Duplicity, only less fun.
Maybe. Or maybe your capacity for empathy is lower. I'm not sure we need to see more of Cobb's life before than Nolan gives us. And DiCaprio's performance is engaging enough. Even if the writing is a little weak or barren at at times, DiCaprio sells it. He makes you (or at least me) care.

The dichotomy (and brilliance) of the movie is that he (DiCaprio) is also the primary antagonist of the film. Which is just remarkable to me. Of course, the movie is still more intellectually satisfying than it is emotionally. but there's still something to root for emotionally. There's still a desire for the team to succeed, for Cobb to be right.

You're dead on about the kids - we don't know if they're real. But that's why I believe the end must be real. If the final scene isn't real, if the kids aren't real, what's the point? It's a 2.5 hour intense mindfuck with no orgasm, no release. It's cinematic blue balls. Sex can certainly be rewarding and satisfying without that final release... but I'm not sure the same is true of Inception.

And I didn't see Duplicity. I'll have to check it out. It looked a cool little flick. But it's hard for me to imagine it's have as intellecutally satisfying or fun as Inception. I'll give it a fair shot none-the-less.

BigMeatballDave
07-22-2010, 01:55 PM
I think I'm gonna check this out Saturday.

Reaper16
07-22-2010, 02:09 PM
Maybe. Or maybe your capacity for empathy is lower. I'm not sure we need to see more of Cobb's life before than Nolan gives us. And DiCaprio's performance is engaging enough. Even if the writing is a little weak or barren at at times, DiCaprio sells it. He makes you (or at least me) care.

The dichotomy (and brilliance) of the movie is that he (DiCaprio) is also the primary antagonist of the film. Which is just remarkable to me. Of course, the movie is still more intellectually satisfying than it is emotionally. but there's still something to root for emotionally. There's still a desire for the team to succeed, for Cobb to be right.

You're dead on about the kids - we don't know if they're real. But that's why I believe the end must be real. If the final scene isn't real, if the kids aren't real, what's the point? It's a 2.5 hour intense mindfuck with no orgasm, no release. It's cinematic blue balls. Sex can certainly be rewarding and satisfying without that final release... but I'm not sure the same is true of Inception.

And I didn't see Duplicity. I'll have to check it out. It looked a cool little flick. But it's hard for me to imagine it's have as intellecutally satisfying or fun as Inception. I'll give it a fair shot none-the-less.

Inception is only fun in the sense of enjoyment from the technical aspects (I'll grant the attempt to ride the kicks all the way back up to maybe-reality as fun too in a heist movie way). The story is so self-serious as to be dour.

Red Brooklyn
07-22-2010, 02:26 PM
Inception is only fun in the sense of enjoyment from the technical aspects (I'll grant the attempt to ride the kicks all the way back up to maybe-reality as fun too in a heist movie way). The story is so self-serious as to be dour.
And in the conversation and debate it sparks as well as the feeling of exhilaration one feels once it's over.

I wouldn't call the story dour. It's serious, yes. It's not The A-Team. But I'd call the overall experience fun. Heady. But fun.

Reaper16
07-22-2010, 02:45 PM
I think my favorite part of the film - a film that mostly values spectacle and cleverness - is the elegance of the human body at times. Seeing sleeping bodies move in graceful slow motion in the van or especially watching Joseph Gordon-Levitt negotiate a twisting, tumbling hallway or elevator shaft is gorgeous.

Red Brooklyn
07-22-2010, 03:03 PM
I think my favorite part of the film - a film that mostly values spectacle and cleverness - is the elegance of the human body at times. Seeing sleeping bodies move in graceful slow motion in the van or especially watching Joseph Gordon-Levitt negotiate a twisting, tumbling hallway or elevator shaft is gorgeous.
Oh, I completely agree.

keg in kc
07-22-2010, 04:30 PM
I've only seen it the one time so far, but I walked out of the theater thinking the entire film was Cobb's dream. Be interesting to see what I catch the second time.

Pants
07-22-2010, 04:40 PM
I've only seen it the one time so far, but I walked out of the theater thinking the entire film was Cobb's dream. Be interesting to see what I catch the second time.

Why do you think his totem was what he found in Mal's vault and why was it hidden so deep inside her?

sedated
07-22-2010, 04:56 PM
Yes, the same actors were used, but they are listed at two different ages:
Claire Geare - Phillipa (3 years); Phillipa (5 years).
Jonathan Geare - James (20 months); James (3 years).

why?

JD10367
07-22-2010, 06:22 PM
The next-to-last shot of the kids is indeed exactly the same shot as earlier in the film. And, like the teetering totem, Nolan did that on purpose to fuck with you some more, IMO.

Red Brooklyn
07-22-2010, 06:38 PM
why?
To indicate the passage of time. Nolan's telling you two years have passed since DiCaprio left.
The next-to-last shot of the kids is indeed exactly the same shot as earlier in the film. And, like the teetering totem, Nolan did that on purpose to **** with you some more, IMO.

Cool. Thanks, man. I remembered it being slightly different, but I wasn't sure.

JD10367
07-22-2010, 07:09 PM
Cool. Thanks, man. I remembered it being slightly different, but I wasn't sure.

The earlier shot is of the two kids, bending down, facing right, playing in the grass.

That shot is repeated a couple of times in the film.

At the end, that shot is then followed by a reaction shot of Cobb, then a shot of the kids in the grass again--same clothes--but this time they look up and at Cobb, then they cut back to Cobb, then they show him picking them up outside on the deck.

I think. I've only seen it six times. I'll be watching it eight more times in the next two days, so I'll get a better look. :)

Rausch
07-22-2010, 08:03 PM
I need to see it again... but are they really "sitting in the exact same position"? I thought the shot was purposefully different - like the kids switched sides, or something like that. Could be wrong. Again, I only saw it once.

They don't look as though they've aged, but that's okay. To me that was to avoid confusion (or to create it :evil:). Besides, as you said, I don't believe we know how long he's been in exile.

On the phone when he talked to his kids one of them sounded much older (pre-teen or so...)

Taco John
07-22-2010, 09:31 PM
I wonder if someone was trying inception on Cobb...

Reaper16
07-22-2010, 09:45 PM
I wonder if someone was trying inception on Cobb...
That is the exact implication of the "it was all a dream" scenario. It's certainly a viable argument.

Fish
07-22-2010, 09:57 PM
Inception’s Dileep Rao Answers All Your Questions About Inception (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inceptions_dileep_rao_answers.html)

irishjayhawk
07-22-2010, 10:22 PM
That is the exact implication of the "it was all a dream" scenario. It's certainly a viable argument.

I don't think it's viable at all.

For one, we don't have any indication of who it would be or why. Two, if it wasn't for the top at the end of the movie, no one would be having this discussion.

Reaper16
07-22-2010, 10:36 PM
I don't think it's viable at all.

For one, we don't have any indication of who it would be or why. Two, if it wasn't for the top at the end of the movie, no one would be having this discussion.
I think it is viable - as viable as the non-dream interpretation - and multiple, thoughtful reviews have argued nicely in favor of the dream interpretation.

But, then, I don't think it matters which interpretation is correct. I don't think there is a correct interpretation.

irishjayhawk
07-22-2010, 10:45 PM
I think it is viable - as viable as the non-dream interpretation - and multiple, thoughtful reviews have argued nicely in favor of the dream interpretation.

But, then, I don't think it matters which interpretation is correct. I don't think there is a correct interpretation.

The main problem I have with any dream interpretation is that his wife would be there with the kids at the end.

Unless, of course, you argue she killed herself anyway and isn't the one performing inception to bring him back to "reality". Of course, this requires someone to supply the answer to who would be performing the inception. That is a crucial point because if you don't supply an answer what the hell was the point of the movie?

Reaper16
07-22-2010, 11:31 PM
The main problem I have with any dream interpretation is that his wife would be there with the kids at the end.

Unless, of course, you argue she killed herself anyway and isn't the one performing inception to bring him back to "reality". Of course, this requires someone to supply the answer to who would be performing the inception. That is a crucial point because if you don't supply an answer what the hell was the point of the movie?
My thinking is that Michael Cane's character is behind the inception. But as to your point about "what is the point of the movie then" I would share that sentiment. It is one of the major reasons that makes the film really flawed for me. That dream interpretation is viable based on stuff in the film; yet such an interpretation would leave the film utterly devoid of meaning outside of intellectual appeals.

Taco John
07-23-2010, 12:27 AM
I don't buy all the "but what would be the point of the movie" conclusions that so many people offer up. The point of the movie is the experience of it, just like the point of any of the dreams - or reality itself for that matter. The entire movie calls for people to question what is real during the entire feature, but in the end, the only thing that is real is the experience that the person had during the movie. I don't think it's out of the question that this is the point Nolan is making, especially if you buy into the film making metaphor.

Sully
07-23-2010, 12:46 AM
I don't think it's viable at all.

For one, we don't have any indication of who it would be or why. Two, if it wasn't for the top at the end of the movie, no one would be having this discussion.

I would agree that, initially the top is what makes you wonder.
But ultmately, there is so much evidence that it's all a dream, and when you take into account the entire journey and "rules" of the totem, it really has no bearing on whether it's a dream or not.

the Talking Can
07-23-2010, 06:10 AM
Inception’s Dileep Rao Answers All Your Questions About Inception (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inceptions_dileep_rao_answers.html)

thanks...he's smarter than your average actor, people should definitely read it

his take, which i agree with:


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 onscreen. And I mean on one hand, it's awesome that this movie can sustain that kind of discussion. It shows you just how well-thought-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.

Deberg_1990
07-23-2010, 08:17 AM
I'm just tired of the "Lost" ending. Nolan needed to reward his audience with a more definitive conclusion.
Posted via Mobile Device

JD10367
07-23-2010, 08:19 AM
thanks...he's smarter than your average actor, people should definitely read it

his take, which i agree with:

I agree with everything he said.

Occam's razor, people. The reason the kids have the same clothes is because it's a mindfuck and it's cheap (he used the same shot). The reason the top wobbles slightly but isn't shown falling is to implant a little doubt and make you think and not make it a neat wrapup. Everything that was supposed to be happening in dreams, happened in dreams, and everything that was supposed to be happening in real life, happened in real life (i.e. the train in the opening, the helicopter scene, the scene where he meets Michael Caine and Ellen Page, the scenes of them tutoring her in the empty warehousey building, the run through the streets as the guys are shooting at Leo, the airplane where they go into Cillian Murphy's head, the subesquent landing and return home).

Huffmeister
07-23-2010, 08:52 AM
Occam's razor, people. The reason the kids have the same clothes is because it's a mind**** and it's cheap (he used the same shot). The reason the top wobbles slightly but isn't shown falling is to implant a little doubt and make you think and not make it a neat wrapup. Everything that was supposed to be happening in dreams, happened in dreams, and everything that was supposed to be happening in real life, happened in real life (i.e. the train in the opening, the helicopter scene, the scene where he meets Michael Caine and Ellen Page, the scenes of them tutoring her in the empty warehousey building, the run through the streets as the guys are shooting at Leo, the airplane where they go into Cillian Murphy's head, the subesquent landing and return home).

Bingo. Nolan is implanting an idea of doubt into our heads. Just like Cobb implanted the doubt into Mal's head. It sounds corny when I say it, but I think it's pretty damn cool.

And I agree that what was presented as a dream was a dream, and what was presented as real was real, except for the 'reality' from the time he wakes up on the plane. I think that it's 50/50 as to whether it's real or a further dream (the result of killing himself in Limbo under heavy sedation).

Pants
07-23-2010, 09:51 AM
I agree with everything he said.

Occam's razor, people. The reason the kids have the same clothes is because it's a mind**** and it's cheap (he used the same shot). The reason the top wobbles slightly but isn't shown falling is to implant a little doubt and make you think and not make it a neat wrapup. Everything that was supposed to be happening in dreams, happened in dreams, and everything that was supposed to be happening in real life, happened in real life (i.e. the train in the opening, the helicopter scene, the scene where he meets Michael Caine and Ellen Page, the scenes of them tutoring her in the empty warehousey building, the run through the streets as the guys are shooting at Leo, the airplane where they go into Cillian Murphy's head, the subesquent landing and return home).

Remember how Cobb tells Ariadne the story about how he went into Mal's deepest most secret place to find something she was trying to hide so hard? Remember how they showed the house she grew up in and finally the safe? Now do you remember what was in that safe? Explain that to me please, Mr. Occam's Razor. :)

And do you really think Nolan would reuse the shot in the end because it was "cheaper"?

I really want to think that the "airplane" was the reality, that would make everything nice and squared away. A few things are standing in the way, though. The 4th level plot-hole I talked about earlier is also a little disappointing.

Red Brooklyn
07-23-2010, 09:53 AM
Inceptionís Dileep Rao Answers All Your Questions About Inception (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/07/inceptions_dileep_rao_answers.html)

Great read. Thanks for posting it.

I think he's dead on. I love that the movie provokes this kind of debate, but there is no doubt in my mind whether or not it was all a dream.

Red Brooklyn
07-23-2010, 09:55 AM
Remember how Cobb tells Ariadne the story about how he went into Mal's deepest most secret place to find something she was trying to hide so hard? Remember how they showed the house she grew up in and finally the safe? Now do you remember what was in that safe? Explain that to me please, Mr. Occam's Razor. :)
You keep asking about the totem in cryptic ways. What is your theory and subsequent question regarding Mal's totem?

Pants
07-23-2010, 09:57 AM
You keep asking about the totem in cryptic ways. What is your theory and subsequent question regarding Mal's totem?

I don't know, dude. The fact that Cobb's totem is actually something that was hidden in the deepest of places in Mal's conscience somehow sits uneasy with me. Is that thing even real?

Red Brooklyn
07-23-2010, 10:08 AM
I don't know, dude. The fact that Cobb's totem is actually something that was hidden in the deepest of places in Mal's conscience somehow sits uneasy with me. Is that thing even real?
Ah! I see what you're getting at... good question.

I think it has to be real. I think Mal locks it away to further lie to herself. She knows as long as she can spin that totem she can prove to herself that she's dreaming. She hides the totem away, in the deepest part of her, so that she can continue to believe in the world she and her husband have made.

I think it's Cobb's finding the totem locked away that makes him realize how far gone she is and how desperately he needs to get her out of there. The totem inspires the inception.

Which is also why Cobb clings to it so dearly. He doesn't want the same thing to happen to him.

Anyway, that's my best shot having only seen it once. :D

Pants
07-23-2010, 10:13 AM
Ah! I see what you're getting at... good question.

I think it has to be real. I think Mal locks it away to further lie to herself. She knows as long as she can spin that totem she can prove to herself that she's dreaming. She hides the totem away, in the deepest part of her, so that she can continue to believe in the world she and her husband have made.

I think it's Cobb's finding the totem locked away that makes him realize how far gone she is and how desperately he needs to get her out of there. The totem inspires the inception.

Which is also why Cobb clings to it so dearly. He doesn't want the same thing to happen to him.

Anyway, that's my best shot having only seen it once. :D

Yeah, that is a very good theory, dude. So the next question is: did Cobb let her have the totem? I thought the ONE absolute rule of any dreamer was to never let anyone touch the totem lest it be recreated and completely mess up your perception of reality. Does he give Mal the totem willingly so she can hide it in the deepest of deep? If that's the case, he should've known what was in that safe and wouldn't have been trying to get there so hard to see what was in it.

Maybe it was Mal's totem to begin with and she hid it for the reason you described above (pretty much denial)? And once she killed herself he made it his totem?

Huffmeister
07-23-2010, 10:18 AM
Maybe it was Mal's totem to begin with and she hid it for the reason you described above (pretty much denial)? And once she killed herself he made it his totem?
That's my take. When he first walks into the hotel room, he steps on the glass, looks down, sees the top, and picks it up. I'm sure at some point in the real world, she had spun the top and observed it fall down, but Cobb's inception of the 'this is all a dream' idea was so strong that she didn't believe in the totem any more, and killed herself any way.

Red Brooklyn
07-23-2010, 10:19 AM
Yes.

I think it was originally Mal's totem. After she died, he took it as his totem as a reminder and a way to keep her close.

He could use her totem as much as he wanted after she died. Cobb just couldn't let anyone else mess with it after he adopted it for the reasons you described.

sedated
07-23-2010, 01:29 PM
I haven't paid much attention to this thread and its theories, and have only seen the movie once, but my initial impression was just that he found the totem locked away and took it so that he could manipulate Mal and plant the "incpetion".

They explained very early in the movie about safes in a person's dream - they will automatically place what is most secret and important to them in that safe in the dream, and that's what they need to find.

I may be way off here.

Red Brooklyn
07-23-2010, 01:32 PM
I don't think you're way off. Sounds about right from what I remember.

JD10367
07-23-2010, 11:05 PM
Someone on PatriotsPlanet brought up this excellent point:

The scene with the train tracks - this is suppossed to be at the end of the fifty-something years spent in Limbo - why weren't they depicted as old like they were in some of the other flashbacks? They should have been old at this point, no? Was it a dramatic effect, or perhaps an oversight? Or am I missing something?

Reaper16
07-23-2010, 11:09 PM
Someone on PatriotsPlanet brought up this excellent point:
That's seems like a good point. I thought of that myself but wasn't going to mention it until I saw the film for a second time. Then I became less enthused about seeing it a second time so I never did.

Red Brooklyn
07-24-2010, 09:01 AM
Hmmm.... yeah, I'll have to see it again. Could just be a flub. Or it could just be Nolan trying to depict the way Cobb remembers it.

BWillie
07-24-2010, 11:40 AM
I must be the only one who didn't like this movie.

Red Brooklyn
07-24-2010, 11:46 AM
I must be the only one who didn't like this movie.
Probably. :D

JD10367
07-24-2010, 03:38 PM
Hmmm.... yeah, I'll have to see it again. Could just be a flub. Or it could just be Nolan trying to depict the way Cobb remembers it.

Well, here's the thing. Cobb's wife (at least his memory of her) says something like, "You promised we'd grow old together," and he replies, "We did," and they show two old people walking down the street in the city they made. Coupled with the fact that they were supposedly in their shared dream for what seemed like 50 years, and the fact that his wife was so deluded she'd supposedly forgotten that they were in a dream, and the fact that Saito (sp?) ages in HIS dream... it seems like they just screwed up by showing the young Cobb and the young Cobb's Wife with their heads on the train tracks... for authenticity, they should've been in "old people" makeup.

Guru
07-24-2010, 03:54 PM
Unless, she didn't see themselves as old and we were seeing it from her viewpoint. Who knows. I have no doubt in my mind that Nolan did that for a reason though. He isn't one of those directors that would allow such a huge oversight.

Red Brooklyn
07-24-2010, 04:02 PM
Right. I think the key is that we are deep inside Cobb's subconscious when we see it. We are not seeing them in the moment, as it were. It's all Cobb's memory. It's not really Mal, it's Cobb's memory, his projection of Mal. So, perhaps that's why the still look young. Because that's how Cobb remembers himself and Mal. That's the image his mind chooses to hold onto. Maybe.

KcMizzou
07-24-2010, 04:30 PM
I must be the only one who didn't like this movie.You and Armond White.

Gravedigger
07-24-2010, 04:57 PM
Well, here's the thing. Cobb's wife (at least his memory of her) says something like, "You promised we'd grow old together," and he replies, "We did," and they show two old people walking down the street in the city they made. Coupled with the fact that they were supposedly in their shared dream for what seemed like 50 years, and the fact that his wife was so deluded she'd supposedly forgotten that they were in a dream, and the fact that Saito (sp?) ages in HIS dream... it seems like they just screwed up by showing the young Cobb and the young Cobb's Wife with their heads on the train tracks... for authenticity, they should've been in "old people" makeup.

Well when you see them walking along side that building they're old and they hold hands, but right after that you see two pairs of old hands locked within one another and behind the hands are the train tracks. I don't think it was an oversight, I believe it was told from Mal's youthful viewpoint. When the train scene comes and they lay down it keeps going back and forth to Mal's face at the table. But when Leo says "We did." it shows them old from his perspective.

Taco John
07-24-2010, 06:32 PM
Going again tonight. Paying special attention to Michael Caine, Saito, and Leo's Totem - and I'm not talking about the top.

Thig Lyfe
07-24-2010, 09:40 PM
I haven't seen another film that can twist your mind and have you questioning yourself for days afterward to quite the same extent as Inception. It's just so dense, yet at the same time so elegant, so artful. I've seen it twice and still struggle to process it, to figure out quite how to put into words what I've seen. But even if I never manage to find the right words, or come to the "right" conclusion, the experience itself is so immensely satisfying that it hardly matters. The film has done its job.

The way it fucks with our minds -- genuinely, meaningfully, not cheaply -- is an accomplishment in and of itself. A huge accomplishment.

googlegoogle
07-25-2010, 12:24 AM
so, it has moments of memento in it?

When i see a comment like this then i know there are fans(fanatics) that aren't going to look at anything objectively.

Pretty sure the Dicaprio fans here are going wild.Can't stand the guy.

Not a big fan of the batman director either.

Huffmeister
07-25-2010, 12:52 AM
Going again tonight. Paying special attention to Michael Caine, Saito, and Leo's Totem - and I'm not talking about the top.
Ok, I'll bite. What is Leo's "real" totem?

Taco John
07-25-2010, 12:57 AM
Ok. A couple things...

1. I think that Cobb's personal totem is his wedding ring. When he's in the dream world, he knows he's there because he's wearing it. When he's in the real world, he doesn't wear it. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to clearly see at the end of the film whether or not he had his ring on when he finally spun the top.

2. What I didn't understand/appreciate the first time around is that Michael Caine is Mal's father. This seems very odd to me. I wish I understood more about what has gone on between him and Cobb. Apparently, he buys the story about Mal killing herself, and is still willing to associate with Cobb despite the tragic death of his girl. This is a little troubling to me because it's never explored at all in the film.

3. The possibility that Cobb is in a deeper state of limbo is there, and I have what I believe is a strong theory about it. They were very careful to show the progression that Adrienne went through as she moved up from limbo all the way through each kick. And when they got to the van level, they showed everybody breathing oxygen using scuba tanks and passing it around. They then escaped the sinking van. They shoed Cobb's limp, drowning body there, as they shrug and make their escape. Cobb had died on level one. The next thing they show is Cobb "waking up on the shores of (Saito's) subconsious." Saito was an old man who had built an empire for himself, and was "a lonely old man waiting to die alone."

Now, keep in mind that the entire reason that they don't wake up from the dream when they die is because they are under sedation. Also remember that Fischer was shot on level three and ended up in limbo until Adrianne threw him and herself off the building at the time of the kick. Also remember that Cobb and Saito had missed the kick and died on level 1. They were still under heavy sedation. Thus, shooting themselves at the end wouldn't necessarily bring them out, and could very possibly instead take them even deeper into limbo - a level that Cobb had never reached before, and his subconsious took over from there to set everything in order based on the ideas that he had decided on in the first level of limbo (ie. Mal is dead, it's time to move on).

This would explain why the kids look the same age - though the other simple explination for that is that the time that has elapsed since Mal's death hasn't been a significant amount of time. The first time I watched the movie, I had thought the kids sounded older. The second time I watched it, they still seemed very young.

Under this theory, Saito and Cobb end up braindead in the real world, despite the successful execution of their plan.

In my heart, though, I want to believe that they made it out safely. Either way, I think the show is great and easily moves into my top ten list.

KC native
07-25-2010, 02:41 AM
Saw it tonight. Very thought provoking. I will more than likely return to see it again.

Simply Red
07-25-2010, 08:57 AM
disappointed, grrrr... Figures.

Simply Red
07-25-2010, 08:58 AM
some of the effects in relationship to how a dream 'feels' were cool, LD is always good. But man, I'm not sure why, but I just really did NOT seem to dig this movie. IAF, I may see it again, to finally decide.

Simply Red
07-25-2010, 09:01 AM
also noteworthy, the garments were part of the plan, here. Lots of cool clothing. Stylish, if nothin' else.

Red Brooklyn
07-25-2010, 09:22 AM
Excellent write up, Taco John. Thanks for sharing that.

I think you're right in saying that the possibility that Cobb is in a deeper state of limbo does exsist. The movie is designed for possibilities.

For me, though (at least until I see it again), I have to just stick with trying not to over think it too much. That feels like a trap. The kids look the same age because only 2 years have passed since Mal died. You're not going to cast different children to play a 3 and a 5 year old. And, practically speaking, since the movie didn't take two years to film, the kids look the same. I think it's that simple.

It's a catch-22 of a film like this. You have a passage of time that is not equivalent to real life. You make a choice. Cast the same kids, people get suspicious. Cast different kids, people either don't buy it or get even more suspicious. Nolan can't win. He can only make a choice and hope that people get it. Or hope that it's ambiguously satisfying to both sides.

Interesting thoughts about the wedding ring... I'll have to keep that in mind next time I see it. But I think the top still has to be his totem. Why else does he scramble for it so desperately sometimes? He uses it immediately (in at least one situation that I recall) to test his reality. If the ring was his totem, he wouldn't have tested the top, he would have just looked at his finger, right?