# Inception



## Augie March (Aug 26, 2009)

First teaser trailer online here from Christopher Nolan's next film starring Leonardo 'Sproutface' Dicaprio.

Not much to go on, but already looks damned intriguing if you ask me...*strokes chin expectantly


----------



## Dillinger4 (Aug 26, 2009)

Its going to be shit.


----------



## Augie March (Aug 26, 2009)

Shit like a fox.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Aug 26, 2009)

Shit like a shitfox.


----------



## Augie March (Aug 26, 2009)

Shit like a fantastic mr fox.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Aug 26, 2009)

Shit like fantastic mr shitfox of shittington.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 26, 2009)

Nolan is a genius, so it will probably good, although I'm slightly concerned by the matrixy fight scene


----------



## Dillinger4 (Aug 26, 2009)

The same Christopher Nolan who did 'The Dark Knight', possibly one of the most boring films of all time?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 26, 2009)

Yes.  And no it isn't.


----------



## Augie March (Aug 29, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> The same Christopher Nolan who did 'The Dark Knight', possibly one of the most boring films of all time?



Boring like a fox.


----------



## Augie March (Jan 1, 2010)

New trailer


----------



## Diamond (Jun 14, 2010)

This looks like it could be quite good.

Did they give Nolan total creative license on this one?


----------



## Augie March (Jun 15, 2010)

Apart from the trailer, I'm trying my hardest to avoid the publicity for this. Nolan himself has said the experience of the film is a whole lot better if you go into the cinema not knowing what it's about.


----------



## Augie March (Jun 15, 2010)

Diamond said:


> This looks like it could be quite good.
> 
> Did they give Nolan total creative license on this one?



I'd guess so. After Dark Knight, he probably got free reign to do whatever he wanted with his next film.


----------



## elevendayempire (Jun 15, 2010)

Augie March said:


> I'd guess so. After Dark Knight, he probably got free reign to do whatever he wanted with his next film.


I imagine they unloaded truckloads of money on his front lawn, if he'd only sign for Batman 3.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jun 15, 2010)

Augie March said:


> I'd guess so. After Dark Knight, he probably got free reign to do whatever he wanted with his next film.



He only agreed to do the next batman flick on the proviso they let him do Inception - his pet project, he's been trying to get this made for years.

Inception looks great, Nolan hasn't dropped the ball yet imho.


----------



## vogonity (Jun 15, 2010)

Augie March said:


> Apart from the trailer, I'm trying my hardest to avoid the publicity for this. Nolan himself has said the experience of the film is a whole lot better if you go into the cinema not knowing what it's about.



Hmm... And I read this on the day Channel 4's showing an extended trailer! <<curses>>


----------



## elevendayempire (Jun 15, 2010)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> He only agreed to do the next batman flick on the proviso they let him do Inception - his pet project, he's been trying to get this made for years.
> 
> Inception looks great, Nolan hasn't dropped the ball yet imho.


Weeeeell... there are bits of both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight that don't quite work.

The Joker's "Do I look like the kind of guy who makes plans?" line, for one thing. Yes, Joker. Yes you do, if the ludicrously elaborate plan that forms the centrepiece of TDK is anything to go by.

And then there's little things like mispronouncing Ra's Al Ghul (okay, that's a _very_ little thing) and the shots of Bruce Wayne's house in the first film that are very obviously filmed in the rolling Kent countryside.

The Prestige is fucking good, mind.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2010)

This should be a fab film.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jun 15, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


> Weeeeell... there are bits of both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight that don't quite work.
> 
> The Joker's "Do I look like the kind of guy who makes plans?" line, for one thing. Yes, Joker. Yes you do, if the ludicrously elaborate plan that forms the centrepiece of TDK is anything to go by.
> 
> ...



Mmmnn yes....there were a few surplus bits to TDK (the whole Hong Kong thing at the start was utterly avoidable) and Insomnia was slow to get going...but really this is small beer compared to what he's pulled off, he's brought art house sensibility to hollywood blockbusters and made it stick, despite the continued presence of C.Bale.  

I agree that The Prestige is his best flick - even Bowie is good in it!


----------



## elevendayempire (Jun 15, 2010)

I think it's also that Nolan's quite a chilly writer; he doesn't go in for emotions quite so much as clever plotting - and he tends to overuse the trick of having characters repeat lines of dialogue later in the film (or even the scene) with a slightly different emphasis. See "why do we fall?" in Batman Begins, for instance, or "Why so serious?"


----------



## i_got_poison (Jul 7, 2010)

theres a big write up about this film in empire magazine. nolan comes across in the interview as a really nice guy, who has to constantly sell his creative ideas to his bosses. he also doesn't dick them(the execs) around with overshoots and running cost.

the fact leonardo dicaprio is on board for this film makes me want to see it even more. some actors\actresses are a sign of quality.


----------



## The Master (Jul 7, 2010)

i think he's the reason and the success of the dark knight the studio have let Nolan do his film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 7, 2010)

there's an unequivocally positive review of it here:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45679
it doesn't give anything major away but if you're fussy about spoilers, maybe you shouldn't read it. i get the feeling that the little you know about the plot the better.


----------



## Reno (Jul 7, 2010)

So far all the reviews have been sterling, so there is hope yet that this year will come up with a decent blockbuster move. Going to see this in a weeks time.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 7, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> theres a big write up about this film in empire magazine. nolan comes across in the interview as a really nice guy, who has to constantly sell his creative ideas to his bosses. he also doesn't dick them(the execs) around with overshoots and running cost.
> 
> the fact leonardo dicaprio is on board for this film makes me want to see it even more. some actors\actresses are a sign of quality.



Total Film also had a big piece on Empire (though not as big as Empire's). The magazines' covers were so similar that the bloke at the checkout queried whether I'd made a mistake. 

Anyway, yes, it does look good, from what few details have been released about it so far.


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 7, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> the fact leonardo dicaprio is on board for this film makes me want to see it even more. some actors\actresses are a sign of quality.



I know what you mean. I don't particularly rate diCaprio as an actor, but I think he's a canny chap who tends to attach himself to decent films.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2010)

Stigmata said:


> I know what you mean. I don't particularly rate diCaprio as an actor, but I think he's a canny chap who tends to attach himself to decent films.


Really?  I thought he was good in Gilbert Grape, Romeo + Juliet, Blood Diamond, This Boy's Life at the least.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 7, 2010)

Personally I think dicaprio is one of the best actors of his generation, i'm really glad he's tried to avoid 'pretty boy' roles and chosen great directors recently. Plus Joseph Gordon levitt, who seems set to break out from great indie performances, I can't wait to see this film.


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 8, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Really?  I thought he was good in Gilbert Grape, Romeo + Juliet, Blood Diamond, This Boy's Life at the least.



Not seen most of those. He's not a bad actor, he's average to decent. But he picks good roles.


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2010)

Interesting to see that Jospeh Gordon Levitt is also in this. He's the actor who lots of people thought could play the Joker in a third Nolan Batman film.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 8, 2010)

Santino said:


> Interesting to see that Jospeh Gordon Levitt is also in this. He's the actor who lots of people thought could play the Joker in a third Nolan Batman film.



I'd have had him more down as a Riddler-type, but he's definitely got the ability.


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> I'd have had him more down as a Riddler-type, but he's definitely got the ability.



I think it's as much because of the physical resemblance as anything.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 8, 2010)

He's got a class CV; Family Ties, Quantum Leap, 3rd Rock FTS, Dr Quinn, Roseanne, Brick, Numb3rs, _*GI Joe & The Rise of Cobra*_ 

Very much looking forward to this fillum - the trailers look incredible, and it's precisely the kind of reality bending CGI that I enjoy watching...


----------



## hektik (Jul 8, 2010)

it looks fucking mint, and I am going to watch it at the imax for sure.


----------



## rhod (Jul 8, 2010)

interview with Nolan here - Interesting to see that he doesn't think the current 3D cinema format is good enough to apply to this film yet, but doesn't rule it out in the future (or maybe the studios didn't want to spend the dosh on SF films, which are often quite risky propositions at the box office). I'm sure it will surface in the future if the 2D version goes down well.

Still, the early reviews look very good and I'll definitely rouse myself to see it on the big screen.


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 8, 2010)

Santino said:


> I think it's as much because of the physical resemblance as anything.


It really is eerie, isn't it? And the Joker's one of the few characters you could easily recast, based on the fact that his face is covered in slap.

Though Nolan's said he won't be featuring the Joker in Batman 3 as he's (understandably) "uncomfortable" with the notion. And I can't see any young actor wanting to step into Ledger's shoes and try to replicate his (Oscar-winning) performance.

It's doubly frustrating because it was the first time that anyone had tried to create some continuity between superhero films in terms of the villains, rather than showcasing a new villain in each film and killing them off. We'd already seen Nolan giving Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow a bit-part in The Dark Knight, and you can bet your life he had plans for the Joker in the third film. Which we'll now never get to see.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 8, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> He's got a class CV; Family Ties, Quantum Leap, 3rd Rock FTS, Dr Quinn, Roseanne, Brick, Numb3rs, _*GI Joe & The Rise of Cobra*_ .



I like him very much - he is fantastic in Brick.


----------



## LJo (Jul 8, 2010)

I am seeing it tonight, can't wait.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 8, 2010)

LJo said:


> I am seeing it tonight, can't wait.




Preview screening?


----------



## LJo (Jul 8, 2010)

Successfully blagged tickets for premiere, which should be amusing. I'm going to play C-List Celebrity Bingo.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

The trailer for this looks well decent


----------



## scifisam (Jul 9, 2010)

LJo said:


> Successfully blagged tickets for premiere, which should be amusing. I'm going to play C-List Celebrity Bingo.



You lucky thing - how did you manage that? 

We're booking Imax tickets.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 9, 2010)

I'm gonna torrent it cus I'm a scab.


----------



## Reno (Jul 9, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> I'm gonna torrent it cus I'm a scab.



I never regard people who watch a film that is designed to be experienced on the big screen rather than endured on a shitty torrenent as actually having seen that film. You are dead cool though for being such a rebel.


----------



## idioteque (Jul 9, 2010)

This looks good, I think I'm actually going to go to the cinema for this one


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 9, 2010)

Reno said:


> I never regard people who watch a film that is designed to be experienced on the big screen rather than endured on a shitty torrenent as actually having seen that film. You are dead cool though for being such a rebel.



Don't download shit torrents, and got a media server for a massive Sony Bravia, so no. I'd rather do that than endure watching it in a hot cinema surrounded by other people in uncomfortable chairs with no pause button and not being able to smoke. Each to their own though.

Do you regard people who wait for the DVD release in the same way? You imply that you do.


----------



## mentalchik (Jul 9, 2010)

idioteque said:


> This looks good, I think I'm actually going to go to the cinema for this one



Same as !


----------



## vogonity (Jul 9, 2010)

LJo said:


> I am seeing it tonight, can't wait.



So, how was it?

Personally, I can't wait: IMAX tickets are booked...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 9, 2010)

Just booked IMAX for the 20th


----------



## LJo (Jul 9, 2010)

Bloody hell, I thought it was incredible. Don't want to give away anything about the plot because it was great going in hardly knowing anything. I'd recommend not reading any reviews until you've seen it. But in very broad terms, it was complex, brilliantly shot, great performances, and the last 45 minutes are one of the best action sequences I've ever seen. It asks a lot of its audience and there will be a period where you haven't got a fucking clue what's going on, but stick with it.

And I got to tell Christopher Nolan that at the after-party so I am well happy today (and also hungover). Managed to talk to him for about five minutes without saying anything utterly fucking stupid. He is one of my favourite directors. 

At least I think I didn't say anything stupid....


----------



## vogonity (Jul 9, 2010)

Nice one!

Massively jealous that you got to talk to him, but


----------



## vogonity (Jul 9, 2010)

Double post...


----------



## Augie March (Jul 9, 2010)

I'm getting massively excited about watching this now. It's clearly going to be the greatest thing ever.


----------



## belboid (Jul 16, 2010)

off to see this now, better be worth it!


----------



## The Groke (Jul 16, 2010)

Just got back - fucking loved it.

Need to go see again.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 16, 2010)

Just got back too - went with my baby...   Really enjoyed it - although had to watch the entire thing with my hands over her ears because it was so loud.  Still - she slept and I thought it was great.  The final shot though, the twist I suppose, you knew that was coming from the start!!


----------



## The Groke (Jul 16, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> The final shot though, the twist I suppose, you knew that was coming from the start!!



I need to watch it again, but I thought the end was left deliberately ambiguous...


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 16, 2010)

The Groke said:


> I need to watch it again, but I thought the end was left deliberately ambiguous...



Yeah exactly!  And the way it was done ... well it's hard to say what I mean without giving things away... need to use a spoiler really.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 16, 2010)

ok - figured out how to use a spoiler... and here it is.. 



Spoiler: what I'm saying about the ending



Right - so what I mean is - as soon as he introduced the idea of a "totem" which you use to indicate whether or not you are in "reality" - in his case the little metal spinning top which never toppled if he was dreaming - it was obvious that after seemingly achieving some resolution at the end of the film, there would be a shot of the little spinning top and you'd not see if it toppled or not.  So the whole premise of the film is questioned - what is/was reality?  It reminded me of the end of the original cut of Blade Runner in that respect


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 16, 2010)

Seeing it Sunday, cant wait!


----------



## The Groke (Jul 16, 2010)

Spoiler: ending



I reckon it was probably a bit of a cheap shot and the resolution was as it appears; the wobble ends in a fall and the fact that he saw his kids faces reinforces that. Unless of course the film stops playing by the rules it established.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 16, 2010)

The Groke said:


> Spoiler: ending
> 
> 
> 
> I reckon it was probably a bit of a cheap shot and the resolution was as it appears; the wobble ends in a fall and the fact that he saw his kids faces reinforces that. Unless of course the film stops playing by the rules it established.





Spoiler: ending



yeah but the only rule was the one about whether it falls or not - and we don't see whether or not it does - it looks like it's going to fall though right?  It gets a bit more wobbly...   The think about seeing his kids faces - that was something personal to him - not an indicator of reality - that was my reading of it.  Anyway, I thought it was a fairly predictable way to end - but then I guess it was one way of avoiding an even more predictable "happy ending" and obviously means there's always scope for a follow up...


----------



## Cid (Jul 16, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> Just got back too - went with my baby...   Really enjoyed it - although had to watch the entire thing with my hands over her ears because it was so loud.  Still - she slept and I thought it was great.  The final shot though, the twist I suppose, you knew that was coming from the start!!







^^ Clicky


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 16, 2010)

Blimey - you can buy anything these days!!


----------



## Cid (Jul 16, 2010)

Peltor too, they make the standard aviation ear defenders.


----------



## belboid (Jul 16, 2010)

Now that was really really excellent. One might have quibbles about specific little bits but overall it was fucking A. Joseph Gordon was superb, that sexy motherfucker. As for the ending - come on, it HAD to be that. Totally total recall and al movies of this ilk.

My only surprise was actually how UNcomplicated it all was, comparatively straightforward, all things considered.

Film of the year so far


----------



## The Groke (Jul 16, 2010)

Just proves that you can have an epic action blockbuster with some real substance to it.

I hope Michael Fucking Bay et all are weeping into their money piles.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 16, 2010)

I just adored



Spoiler: good bits



All the zero G stuff (and the "why" of it) - especially as it was nearly all _physical_ effects...they spun entire rooms around on gimbals to get the shots. Just brilliant cinema.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Jul 16, 2010)

it was the mutts nutts


----------



## belboid (Jul 16, 2010)

The Groke said:


> I just adored
> 
> 
> 
> ...



spot on, that was all brilliantly done


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 16, 2010)

*stumbles into thread with hands over eyes*

i love chris nolan, really looking forward to this, just hoping to avoid any spoilers ...

*stumbles back out*


----------



## The Groke (Jul 16, 2010)

Really didn't seem like 2 and-a-half hours of my time either - just rocketed by.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jul 16, 2010)

Wow, that was fantastic, sumptuously dense plotting and a neat side stepping of a cheesey ending. On the way out some woman turned on her phone and told her friend 'I'm at the cinema...oh what a load of rubbish, nah, not as good as The Matrix...' ...


----------



## Liveist (Jul 16, 2010)

I was seriously impressed watching this, great film. I need to go watch it again


----------



## Thora (Jul 16, 2010)

gaijingirl said:


> Just got back too - went with my baby...   Really enjoyed it - although had to watch the entire thing with my hands over her ears because it was so loud.  Still - she slept and I thought it was great.  The final shot though, the twist I suppose, you knew that was coming from the start!!



I went to see it tonight too and my (unborn) baby squirmed and wriggled the whole way through cos of the noise - very uncomfortable


----------



## Reno (Jul 17, 2010)

I thought it was crap. Sure, the film may be more complex than the average action film and keeping track of all the dreams within dreams is some sort of OCD achivement, but that in itself doesn't make it particularly good. It's a Rubik's cube of a puzzle film that tries to hoodwink audiences into thinking there is more to it than there is, but intellectually, conceptually and emotionally this is paper thin.

The film is endlessly talky. An excellent cast is wasted on forever explaining the convoluted rules of the plot to each other. Nearly all the dialogue is taken up by exposition and there are next to no lines that would enlighten us about the characters we are supposed to care about. The central conceit of the hero being haunted by guilt over a dead wife seems to be de-rigieur now for many an A-list director's vanity project (Solaris, The Fountain and Shutter Island, from which DiCaprio seems to recycle his performance) but there is no emotional weight to any of this, because the film never invests anything in its characters. Not even actors as talented as Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Marion Cotilliard and the always wonderful Joseph Gordon-Levitt can breathe any life into these cyphers. DiCaprio is at his least interesting when he plays these scrunchy faced, brooding bores he's been saddled with over the last few years.

All of this would be excusable if the film was  least visually interesting, but for most of the part it isn't. From the publicity I was expecting something visually wildly imaginative, especially with he concept of people entering dreams, a sort of Fantastic Voyage of the subconscious. Unfortunatly the Escher-style mutating city stuff that's all over the publicity takes up just about a couple of minutes and it barely features in the bog standard action sequences. The rest takes place in what looks like lobbies of office buildings and executive suites in hotels and there are the usual endless overhead shots of high rise buildings you always get with Nolan. The dream world at the deepest level of dreams looks as dull as dishwater, a flatly rendered CGI metropolis. The film never looks or feels like a dream, because Nolan's conception of a man's innermost psyche doesn't extend beyond the look of a 90s action film. There even is a dream level that is a dreary shoot-out on skies, seen in countless spy films. Christopher Nolan still only a middling director of action sequences and there have been any number of Bond films that do this type of much, much thing better. 

I really wanted to like Inception, but this is the film that finally sealed it for me that Nolan is the emperors new clothes of Hollywood film-making. Did people want to like this so much that they convinced themselves that this was actually any good ? Inception was preceeded by months of sweaty fanboy hype from the likes of AintItCool (where The Dark Knight is considered the greatest film ever!) and the middle brow press duly followed in their praise like the sheep they are. Don't let them fool you, this is a witless, bloated windbag of a film.


----------



## thegonzokid (Jul 17, 2010)

Really liked it. Plus that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is hot.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 18, 2010)

Reno said:


> I thought it was crap. Sure, the film may be more complex than the average action film and keeping track of all the dreams within dreams is some sort of OCD achivement, but that in itself doesn't make it particularly good. It's a Rubik's cube of a puzzle film that tries to hoodwink audiences into thinking there is more to it than there is, but intellectually, conceptually and emotionally this is paper thin.
> 
> The film is endlessly talky. An excellent cast is wasted on forever explaining the convoluted rules of the plot to each other. Nearly all the dialogue is taken up by exposition and there are next to no lines that would enlighten us about the characters we are supposed to care about. The central conceit of the hero being haunted by guilt over a dead wife seems to be de-rigieur now for many an A-list director's vanity project (Solaris, The Fountain and Shutter Island, from which DiCaprio seems to recycle his performance) but there is no emotional weight to any of this, because the film never invests anything in its characters. Not even actors as talented as Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Marion Cotilliard and the always wonderful Joseph Gordon-Levitt can breathe any life into these cyphers. DiCaprio is at his least interesting when he plays these scrunchy faced, brooding bores he's been saddled with over the last few years.
> 
> ...


 
You liked Avatar so that means film is amazing!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 18, 2010)

thegonzokid said:


> Really liked it. Plus that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is hot.


 
I know someone who's going to see it purely because that Hardy bloke is in it.


----------



## Fez909 (Jul 18, 2010)

Reno: thank you for that review which sums up my thoughts on this film exactly and so saves me the hassle of typing it all out on this phone.

Rubbish, fairly boring film which, it seems, most people loved?? reminded me of the butterfly effect, which I feel harsh comparing it to as that was utter rubbish.

Massive letdown, and a first failure for Nolan.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 18, 2010)

Fez909 said:


> Reno: thank you for that review which sums up my thoughts on this film exactly and so saves me the hassle of typing it all out on this phone.
> 
> Rubbish, fairly boring film which, it seems, most people loved?? reminded me of the butterfly effect, which I feel harsh comparing it to as that was utter rubbish.
> 
> Massive letdown, and a first failure for Nolan.


 
You've not seen Insomnia? Now that is a terrible film...


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

I disagree with pretty much everything you have written.

I am not going to bother jousting with you over your opinion of the movie per se - a pointless exercise for both of us as we have made up our minds!



However, I would take exception with this:



Reno said:


> Inception was preceeded by months of sweaty fanboy hype from the likes of AintItCool (where The Dark Knight is considered the greatest film ever!) and the middle brow press duly followed in their praise like the sheep they are.



Do you _really_ believe that the utterly laughable "ain't it cool" had (has) any influence over the serious movie press/critics?

Scanning through Rotten Tomatoes shows a few credible dissenters - as there always will be for any widely praised film - but the majority seem to at least "like" it. 

You assert that this is just down to mass delusion and the pernicious influence of Aintitcool and that you alone can see the truth?






Reno said:


> Don't let them fool you, this is a witless, bloated windbag of a film.



Hmm.

Would you go as far to say that not only do you dislike the film, but you don't even see any value in this as a summer blockbuster over rotten tripe like Transformers 2 or Clash of the Titans, endless gross-out man-baby comedies and Avatar?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 18, 2010)

actually  form what i see this kinda feel  a bit matrix like

but  presumably a  hell of a lot better than the later movies

a bit ghost in the shell 2 too


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2010)

The Groke said:


> I disagree with pretty much everything you have written.
> 
> I am not going to bother jousting with you over your opinion of the movie per se - a pointless exercise for both of us as we have made up our minds!
> 
> ...



Sorry, but I haven't seen Transformers 2 or Clash of the Titans and I never will. Unlike Christopher Nolan, James Cameron at least knows how to shoot and edit an action sequence. In any case, Inception is shit and ultimately I don't care why critics are jizzing all over it. The critics who are, are shit too. Still, I do belive that Internet fanboy hype has become very influential in setting the tone for how films are being received.  Not all critics liked it though and the ones I value (Nick Schager at Slate, Andrew O'Heir at Salon) trashed it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2010)

my flatmate saw it last night and had pretty much the same opinion of it as reno - he found the endless talky exposition frutstrating. i am going to find out for myself, but i am not a big fan of christopher nolan - he can't seem to tell a story


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

See, I really didn't think the exposition was that bad! No different to any good "heist" movie, where half the fun is in the planning scenes...

I thought the action scenes were well done and the effects and cinematography excellent!

Funny how we perceive these things so differently.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2010)

another thing he mentioned was what he felt to be the intrusive soundtrack


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> another thing he mentioned was what he felt to be the intrusive soundtrack


 
"_BLLLLAAAAAAAAAARRRRRT_"

I liked it.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i am going to find out for myself,



It is nothing more than a great action movie all gussied up in an unusually (for the genre) cerebral conceit, but hey - it hit all the buttons and worked for me.

I will definitely be watching it again.

I will say that if you don't really like Nolan's movies, I am not sure that this is going to transcend that for you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2010)

i thought the batman films were generally poor, though i did enjoy the first one as it was pretty lively and dealt with the origins story way better than most superhero flicks. i haven't seen insomnia. i've only seen memento once, stoned, so i'll reverse judgement. er what's the other one about the magicians - the prestige - made me want to read the book, but was generally a bit of a mess. following is a great short that showed a lot of promise, unfortunately not quite realised.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

At the risk of sounding like a really lazy critic (It's like X on acid!) it does _feel_ like Memento got smooshed into the second Batman movie.

Of course it isn't that simple, but still...


----------



## poului (Jul 18, 2010)

Reno said:


> Not all critics liked it though and the ones I value (Nick Schager at Slate, Andrew O'Heir at Salon) trashed it.


 

Anthony Quinn slammed it in the Indy aswell, I recall. It does seem to be a limited number of critics who've criticised the film but they do all happen to be the best ones.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2010)

i bet paul ross liked it


----------



## Superdupastupor (Jul 18, 2010)

The ellen page character was the most see through cypher ever " look viewer! Incase it's too complex for you I've inserted a member of the audience in the film for you"

thought it was pretty medium. And the concept go my mind going at certain points.  Did di caprio shoot this at the same time as shuttled island? I think he may of


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

Superdupastupor said:


> Incase



In case



Superdupastupor said:


> I think he may of



Have. I think he may _have_.

I am not sure you are really qualified to critique films presented primarily in English.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2010)

thegonzokid said:


> Really liked it. Plus that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is hot.



He is ridiculously cute, cool and hot. Ogling him in fab suits was the only pleasue I got from the film. 

Then again, (500) Days of Summer and Mysterious Skin are much better films and he is centre stage in both.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

Reno said:


> He is ridiculously cute, cool and hot. Ogling him in fab suits was the only pleasue I got from the film.
> 
> Then again, (500) Days of Summer and Mysterious Skin are much better films and he is centre stage in both.



I like him very much.

Didn't really get on with 500 days of Summer, Mysterious Skin is good...but Brick is still his best IMO.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2010)

The Groke said:


> I like him very much.
> 
> Didn't really get on with 500 days of Summer, Mysterious Skin is good...but Brick is still his best IMO.



I absolutely hated Brick. It's high concept of film noir as high school film tried way too hard to impress and nothing about the characters or situations struck me as believable in any way. It's a calling card film, nothing more.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

Reno said:


> I absolutely hated Brick. It's high concept of film noir as high school film tried way too hard to impress and nothing about the characters or situations struck me as believable in any way. It's a calling card film, nothing more.



But nothing about the characters or situations in your stereotypical film noir are "believable" either...

...surely then it nailed the trope, paid homage without descending into straight parody and presented it in a refreshingly original setting.


Heh - I don't reckon we are going to go to the movies together any time soon.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2010)

The Groke said:


> But nothing about the characters or situations in your stereotypical film noir are "believable" either...
> 
> ...surely then it nailed the trope, paid homage without descending into straight parody and presented it in a refreshingly original setting.
> 
> ...



Unlike proper film noir, Brick tried way to hard to be clever and the strain really showed. Gordon-Levitt also starred in The Lookout which is a much less gimmicky attempt at a modern film noir and a lot better for it.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

Reno said:


> Unlike proper film noir, Brick tried way to hard to be clever and the strain really showed. Gordon-Levitt also starred in The Lookout which is a much less gimmicky attempt at a modern film noir and a lot better for it.


 
I liked The Lookout.


----------



## idioteque (Jul 18, 2010)

Saw Inception today and absolutely loved it


----------



## poului (Jul 18, 2010)

Brick was indeed a load of posturing rubbish. Reno is clearly on the money with these matters and I would like him to become our resident film critic.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

poului said:


> Brick was indeed a load of posturing rubbish. Reno is clearly on the money with these matters and I would like him to become our resident film critic.



Well yeah, except not.

I seem to recall him not objecting to Avatar unduly, thus -9000 credibility points.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2010)

...anyway, same old pointless subjective arguments. Why bother beyond; person A liked it, person B hated it and person C was indifferent.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 18, 2010)

I really enjoyed it but one plot point is annoying me.



Spoiler: plot



At the end wasn't Cobb in limbo for as long or nearly as long as Saito.  In which case when Cobb found him at the beginning/end why had he hardly aged yet Saito was now an old man.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2010)

The Groke said:


> ...anyway, same old pointless subjective arguments. Why bother beyond; person A liked it, person B hated it and person C was indifferent.


that wouldn't be worth reading at all, would it? i like it when people disagree about stuff (as long as they remain civil) - it's important to be aware of other opinions


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2010)

The Groke said:


> Well yeah, except not.
> 
> I seem to recall him not objecting to Avatar unduly, thus -9000 credibility points.


 
avatar is a mostly enjoyable film and it looks amazing. didn't you like it?


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2010)

I liked it.

About two thirds of the way through, I was prepared to come onto this thread and type 'THIS FILM WAS TOTALLY AWESOME!!112', because I was caught up in the excitement. After sober reflection, I wouldn't go quite that far, but there were some TOTALLY AWESOME bits in it. I did enjoy Gordon-Levitt in his waistcoat in the hotel.


----------



## poului (Jul 18, 2010)

The Groke said:


> Well yeah, except not.



Brick sucked. You need to admit it to yourself.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2010)

The Groke said:


> Well yeah, except not.
> 
> I seem to recall him not objecting to Avatar unduly, thus -9000 credibility points.


 
That's already Kid_Eternity's idea of a running gag and it become tiresome a long time ago. It's particular to film discussion on the interwebs that people seem to think that  relentlessly slagging something off that is hugely succesful and popular makes them look cool or insightful. With Avatar it seemed like people for the first time ever realised that Hollywood blockbusters are frequently derivative of other stories and felt that it would be extremely clever to to repeat that particular finding ad nauseum on internet forums. Last time I checked Avatar got pretty good reviews and in the real world there is no consensus that it is a bad film, so I'm not the only one who seems to like it. At least unlike Inception it was visually spectacular and it told its story in moving pictures rather than clunky dialogue.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2010)

Some of the best films are mostly people talking.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2010)

Santino said:


> Some of the best films are mostly people talking.



Yes, but unlike Inception they have good dialogue.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2010)

My point is that it's pointless and uninteresting to condemn films because they break some 'rule' of film-making. And vice versa.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2010)

Santino said:


> My point is that it's pointless and uninteresting to condemn films because they break some 'rule' of film-making. And vice versa.



I'm sorry you find anything that doesn't agree with your opinion pointless and uninteresting, but I thought we were discussing the merits of a particular film here.

You can break all sorts of rules if you do something interesting, but for an action film, a genre that is supposed to be inherently kinetic, to rely almost entirely on pages of expositionary dialgue to move the plot along strikes me as a failing. We are not talking Eric Rohmer here.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 18, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> avatar is a mostly enjoyable film and it looks amazing. didn't you like it?


 
Avatar was a pile of cliched almost racist shite.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2010)

but it was exciting (mostly) and visually incredible


----------



## Augie March (Jul 18, 2010)

God damn, this was all I hoped for. I already want to see it again.


----------



## idioteque (Jul 18, 2010)

Same here 

Cliche hasn't seen it yet so I'm hoping he'll be up for coming with me so I can see it again


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jul 19, 2010)

The exposition in Inception wasn't that bad considering the complexity of the plot....but if you'd left it out you' have had a film like Primer, a film that cuts the audience absolutely no slack and consequently needs a wikipedia page with a technical diagram to explain how it works. Did it go the other way and become Angels and Demons? No it didn't.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 19, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> that wouldn't be worth reading at all, would it? i like it when people disagree about stuff (as long as they remain civil) - it's important to be aware of other opinions



Well yes...and no!

I do get sucked into it despite my better judgement and it can be entertaining if you get a discussion going about the intricacies of the film, the performances, deeper meanings etc.

What usually happens however (as on this thread) is that it rapidly distils into:

Team Yay: "It was great!"
Team Nay: "It was shit!"

Repeat ad nausea and maybe dress it up a little for varieties sake.

Which just seems a little futile and not particularly engaging!

Given that - for example - Reno and I hold fundamentally contradictory views on this one (he thinks it wasn't visually exciting, I do. I think the expositionary dialogue was pretty light considering, he doesn't) it isn't like one of us will eventually turn to the other and say; "Fuck me, your argument suddenly penetrates! You were right all along"





Orang Utan said:


> avatar is a mostly enjoyable film and it looks amazing. didn't you like it?



No. At the risk of again playing the opposites game with Reno:

1) I found nothing to like or engage with in any of the characters - the lead in particular was just a charisma vacuum.
2) The story was woefully slight and crushingly predictable.
3) Unnecessary expositionary dialogue was an insult to intelligence - it hardly needed it.
4) ...and of course, the visuals/action scenes...which is all the film had...

 I didn't like them for the most part.

 I found the visuals way too busy - there was just no subtlety, deftness or restraint. Absolutely _everything_ glowed, moved, bounced, squeaked, floated, "_amazed_".

When everything is wondrous, _nothing_ is.

Don't get me wrong - I can't argue that technically it was an amazing achievement - the effects themselves were brilliantly realised, but the art design and vision was just a catastrophic explosion of CGI.

I thought the Navi just looked daft too.







Reno said:


> It's particular to film discussion on the interwebs that people seem to think that  relentlessly slagging something off that is hugely succesful and popular makes them look cool or insightful.



Or it could be that people had real issues with it. Like you have with Inception.



Reno said:


> Last time I checked Avatar got pretty good reviews and in the real world there is no consensus that it is a bad film, so I'm not the only one who seems to like it.



That's not really a point though is it - I could say the same thing about Inception and it wouldn't invalidate your opinion of it.



Reno said:


> At least unlike Inception it was visually spectacular and it told its story in moving pictures rather than clunky dialogue.



...and thus, we come back to our fundamentally, diametrically opposed opinions and I guess, back to the start of this post again.


----------



## chazegee (Jul 19, 2010)

You've got to watch shit films like Avatar with a crippling hangover. Otherwise they really are shit.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2010)

I really dont get why OU thniks Inception had too much exposition, I would be intereted in lookng at an actual script, but it really didn't give me that impession at all. Certainly not compared to many other heist movies, or noir ones (since we're also on about noir - Brick was great, btw). It all did what it was meant to do, drive the film forward without bogging it down. 

The look of the film also had some _weight_ to it - cos it wasn't all done with CGI, and that alone is a very pleasant change.

It was an intelligent, well made movie, with a coherent story and decent acting (tho I would agree that deCaprio & Page were rather thin, JGL, Tom Hardy, & Cillian Murphy were all great). All of which places it several miles above Avatar, which isn't a movie, it's masturbation.  I want to go and see Inception agaoni immediately, I have no desire ever to see one more second of Avatar.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 19, 2010)

i didn't say it had too much exposition. i haven't seen it yet


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2010)

oh, no, it was your flatmate, sorry.

Tell him he's an idiot


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2010)

Reno said:


> the ones I value (Nick Schager at Slate, Andrew O'Heir at Salon) trashed it.


 
just  read these. Schager is interesting, and actually rather likes quite a bit of the movie.  And what he dislikes about it, are some of the things that made it good for me - especially the lack of detail about some of the 'mechanisms' of the film - somethnig which is an odd criticism considering he also complains of its excessive talkyness. He wanted it to be more Mulholland Drive, but it was never going to be, so thats a daft crit in my book.

O'Hehir is much much worse tho, seems to have gone with te intentin of finding it shite, so the he even explicitly misrepresents what happens in it!


----------



## strung out (Jul 19, 2010)

haven't read the thread yet. just come back from seeing it and it was shit


----------



## strung out (Jul 19, 2010)

why does falling off a bridge make the next dream level weightless? and how come if it's weightless, you can blow a few wires and fall down a lift shaft? how come jumping off a building or being blown to pieces in a snowy wilderness constitutes a kick, but dying normally doesn't? why was dicaprio's character still young in limbo at the end when the other guy was old and had been there for years? why why why????


----------



## kained&able (Jul 19, 2010)

saw it on saturday, was quality, not sure i quite get it and need to see it again though.


----------



## Reno (Jul 19, 2010)

belboid said:


> He wanted it to be more Mulholland Drive, but it was never going to be, so thats a daft crit in my book.



He doesn't want Inception to be more like Mulholland Drive, he just compares how both films represent the dream state and why he thinks that the earlier film makes a better job of it. It's always lazy to misrepresent what someone writes to then "prove them wrong". Personally I think Salon and Slant publish some of the most thoughtfull film criticism you currenly can find and they are highly respected for for their filmwriting, but obviously they aren't as smart as you.

I didn't really thing Inception caught anything about dreams otrthe subconscious, it was much more like a film about a video games.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 19, 2010)

strung_out said:


> why does falling off a bridge make the next dream level weightless?



Because those were the rules of the central conceit and the "physical" properties of the world(s) that the architect created



strung_out said:


> and how come if it's weightless, you can blow a few wires and fall down a lift shaft?



He didn't, he cut/blew the wires so it wasn't attached to anything, then placed charges at one end, detonated them and used Newtons 3rd law to move the lift in the opposite direction.



strung_out said:


> how come jumping off a building or being blown to pieces in a snowy wilderness constitutes a kick, but dying normally doesn't?



It was do do with the _motion_ of the jerk, the sensation of falling - replicating that drifting off and jerking yourself awake sensation...and being "killed" is...well, being killed.



strung_out said:


> why was dicaprio's character still young in limbo at the end when the other guy was old and had been there for years? why why why????



Because The Other Guy had died some time ago in the dream level and moved on into limbo, thus experiencing the massively accelerated time shift for a while whereas we follow Dicaprio straight in to limbo after his "death"


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2010)

Reno said:


> He doesn't want Inception to be more like Mulholland Drive, he just compares how both films represent the dream state and why he thinks that the earlier film makes a better job of it.


so he _does_ want to be more like Mulholland Drive in a particular way. 



> It's always lazy to misrepresent what someone writes to then "prove them wrong".


good thing I didnt then, but a shame the o'hehir does so 



> Personally I think Salon and Slant publish some of the most thoughtfull film criticism you currenly can find and they are highly respected for for their filmwriting, but obviously they aren't as smart as you.


lol, naah, the only one being stupid here is you, not them. I disagree with a film review and it makes me a snob?  Dont go on the internet if you only want to hear what you want to hear, there's a good lad.



> I didn't really thing Inception caught anything about dreams otrthe subconscious, it was much more like a film about a video games.


 I actually agree it is _as much_ about video games as the subconscious, it is, after all, a summer multi-multi-million dollar blockbuster heist movie, that 
has more in common with Oceans 11 than L'Annee Derniere a Marienbad.  But it's a very succesful example of that genre.


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2010)

It has occurred to me that, intentionally or not, the film is also a kind of deconstruction of the action/heist genre. Allies appear when they are needed, equipment and weapons are always conveniently ready to hand, enemy minions are mindless automotons (so it's ok to kill them), and the main characters are essentially immune from death. Nolan did something similar in Memento, when the main character starts as a cool-looking detective type, with a sports car, suit and flash looking gun. As the film progresses we see him acquire/lose all these items, until by the start/end he is an obsessive nutter in an anorak.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 19, 2010)

Santino said:


> It has occurred to me that, intentionally or not, the film is also a kind of deconstruction of the action/heist genre. Allies appear when they are needed, equipment and weapons are always conveniently ready to hand, enemy minions are mindless automotons (so it's ok to kill them), and the main characters are essentially immune from death. Nolan did something similar in Memento, when the main character starts as a cool-looking detective type, with a sports car, suit and flash looking gun. As the film progresses we see him acquire/lose all these items, until by the start/end he is an obsessive nutter in an anorak.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2010)

I would like to watch it again now.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 20, 2010)

It was ok but not great, shame really as I was looking forward to it. I wasn't bored once while watching it's just that the film never seemed to get to a pay off and over explained too many things. I really wanted it to be great, the ideas in it were great but it never delivered them to any satisfaction. 

Why wasn't there more clever use of the dreamscape like when the guy was fighting on the stairwell only to double back and it be an optical illusion? 

The biggest problem I saw was why didn't they use their dream shaping powers more? I know on the first level or two they couldn't risk it due to possibly provoking an attack but when the dream turned against them why didn't they use that advantage?

That said it pissed on the almighty crap that is Avatar from a great height!


----------



## Reno (Jul 20, 2010)

Just listening to the Radio 4 podcast of The Film Programme and Matthew Sweet put it perfectly: 

"If you're 12 you'll think the film is incredibly profound, anyone older than that will probably see it as a good illustration of the gap between complexity and cleverness. A much smarter film, Toy Story 3, is out on Monday..."


----------



## Diamond (Jul 20, 2010)

I didn't think it was great but then I'm not sure I fully grasped all of it. Saw it on Sunday after a heavy Saturday night and didn't have the requisite stamina of concentration.

I'll reserve full judgment until I get an opportunity to see it again but at heart I thought the problem was to do with the concept. Dream states and dream stealing just never really interested me.

Also, the characterisation suffered in light of the complexity of the plot and in direct contrast to Memento.

I didn't feel that any of them were anchored enough in any particular reality for me to care about what happened to them.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It was ok but not great, shame really as I was looking forward to it. I wasn't bored once while watching it's just that the film never seemed to get to a pay off and over explained too many things. I really wanted it to be great, the ideas in it were great but it never delivered them to any satisfaction.
> 
> Why wasn't there more clever use of the dreamscape like when the guy was fighting on the stairwell only to double back and it be an optical illusion?
> 
> ...


 
I quite like the way that Nolan was relatively restrained in using some of his ideas. For example, the use of the Escher-staircase to trick a heavy was set up quite early, and then used once (without stopping to remind the audience what had happened, as Hollywood films sometimes do). If Inception had been a Matrix film, there would have been a ten-minute fight based on that idea. Too many action films have over-long and over-complicated action sequences (see Pirates of the Caribbean for examples, especially 2 and 3.)

As for using dream-shaping powers in general, they avoid it to stop the target becoming conscious that they are dreaming. In order to plant the idea, they need the dream to be as 'realistic' as possible. This doesn't just mean keeping things out of sight of the dreamer's 'body', but right out out of the dream altogether, as the dreamer is subconsciously aware of almost everything that's happening.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 20, 2010)

Reno said:


> "If you're 12 you'll think the film is incredibly profound, anyone older than that will probably see it as a good illustration of the gap between complexity and cleverness. A much smarter film, Toy Story 3, is out on Monday..."


 

Not sure anyone here has declared it as such.

Can't it just be a fun action movie based around a fairly original conceit which requires significantly more thought and attention than 99% of other summer blockbusters?


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2010)

Apparently not.  Some of the trailers and pre-publicity gave the impression that it was going to be a work of philosophical, artistic and literary genius.  It appears a couple of morons actually bought the hype.


----------



## Reno (Jul 20, 2010)

belboid said:


> Apparently not.  Some of the trailers and pre-publicity gave the impression that it was going to be a work of philosophical, artistic and literary genius.  It appears a couple of morons actually bought the hype.



I was hoping for something visually exciting, reasonably smart and original and got neither. I've seen enough modern Hollywood movies to not expect  "a work of philosophical, artistic and literary genius." Again your way of arguing a point is to make crass assumptions about others and to misrepresent what tey say to then "prove them wrong" on your terms.

That said, Toy Story 3 is all of the things Inception isn't (well being a threequel, maybe not original) and even its action sequences kick Nolan's films ass.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 20, 2010)

The Groke said:


> Because The Other Guy had died some time ago in the dream level and moved on into limbo, thus experiencing the massively accelerated time shift for a while whereas we follow Dicaprio straight in to limbo after his "death"


 
DiCaprio went to limbo around the same time didn't he as he followed the heir down there.  

In terms of being 'profound' I'm glad the film didn't attempt to be such. A film attempting to give a profound insight into dreaming would inevitably disappear up its own arse.  The film mostly avoided it even during the necessary exposition.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2010)

Reno said:


> I was hoping for something visually exciting, reasonably smart and original and got neither. I've seen enough modern Hollywood movies to not expect  "a work of philosophical, artistic and literary genius."


well it did two and a half of the three for me, but I dont have any desire to come over as a know it all superior smartarse, so maybe thats the difference



> your way of arguing a point is to make crass assumptions about others and to misrepresent what tey say to then "prove them wrong" on your terms.


 
oh the irony.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 20, 2010)

Reno said:


> Just listening to the Radio 4 podcast of The Film Programme and Matthew Sweet put it perfectly:
> 
> "If you're 12 you'll think the film is incredibly profound, anyone older than that will probably see it as a good illustration of the gap between complexity and cleverness. A much smarter film, Toy Story 3, is out on Monday..."


 
I'm not so sure, my friend brought her 12 year old and he was confused by the end not awestruck.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 20, 2010)

Santino said:


> I quite like the way that Nolan was relatively restrained in using some of his ideas. For example, the use of the Escher-staircase to trick a heavy was set up quite early, and then used once (without stopping to remind the audience what had happened, as Hollywood films sometimes do). If Inception had been a Matrix film, there would have been a ten-minute fight based on that idea. Too many action films have over-long and over-complicated action sequences (see Pirates of the Caribbean for examples, especially 2 and 3.)
> 
> As for using dream-shaping powers in general, they avoid it to stop the target becoming conscious that they are dreaming. In order to plant the idea, they need the dream to be as 'realistic' as possible. This doesn't just mean keeping things out of sight of the dreamer's 'body', but right out out of the dream altogether, as the dreamer is subconsciously aware of almost everything that's happening.


 
I've already covered that, the target was knocked out/ dead in the snow dream they were being shot at by everything in it what harm would have there been in using the power there?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 20, 2010)

The Groke said:


> Not sure anyone here has declared it as such.
> 
> Can't it just be a fun action movie based around a fairly original conceit which requires significantly more thought and attention than 99% of other summer blockbusters?


 
The irony is that quote better suits Avatar a film Reno praised to high heaven...


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I've already covered that, the target was knocked out/ dead in the snow dream they were being shot at by everything in it what harm would have there been in using the power there?


 
He was only dreaming he was unconscious. The body moving around in the dream represents his conscious mind, the 'I' bit that we think of as us, bit his un/sub-conscious is also aware of things going on. The heavies skiiing around shooting at people are projections of his subconscious mind. This is crucial for the whole plot, because the day-to-day business of extraction depends on making the target think about some secret in their dream, which then becomes manifest in the dream-world as a safe or document or something.

Everything happening at every level of the dreams is being tracked by Fischer's mind, on some level. Which is why his body in the hotel 'knows' to float around without gravity, because his body in the van can 'feel' the weightlessness as the van falls.


----------



## zenie (Jul 20, 2010)

Want to see this, don't want to read thread and spoil it


----------



## vogonity (Jul 20, 2010)

Really enjoyed it, with some reservations (already mentioned in this thread). Looking forward to seeing it again soon. 
Weightless sequences were fantastic.
Enjoyed the descending dream levels.
Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon Levitt were cool as...
Hans Zimmer's score seemed to be channelling John Barry from time to time.
Wonder what Nolan will direct after Batman 3? Go smaller?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 20, 2010)

vogonity said:


> Really enjoyed it, with some reservations (already mentioned in this thread). Looking forward to seeing it again soon.
> Weightless sequences were fantastic.
> Enjoyed the descending dream levels.
> Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon Levitt were cool as...
> ...


 
He's doing the new Superman after the next Batman I think...


----------



## LJo (Jul 20, 2010)

Reno said:


> Just listening to the Radio 4 podcast of The Film Programme and Matthew Sweet put it perfectly:
> 
> "If you're 12 you'll think the film is incredibly profound, anyone older than that will probably see it as a good illustration of the gap between complexity and cleverness. A much smarter film, Toy Story 3, is out on Monday..."


 
Way to be a patronising twat, Matthew Sweet. Christ, why can't some critics stick to reviewing a film rather than its audience.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 20, 2010)

What an excellent film. Well paced, not overly wordy (what's with all the guff about exposition - there was enough there to get the ideas over and no more), action sequences that owe more to the Mann rather than Bay school of directing (and I completely agree with Santino's point about not overusing the same effect ideas like the escher stairwells).

The ending was absolutely spot on too 

RE: the Avatar comparison...there is no comparison. Avatar was all looks and nothing else.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 20, 2010)

I saw this tonight and didn't think it was that great.  I didn't really find it involving at all or think that the action scenes were that exciting.

Reading a few of the major reviewers, the following were interesting points which largely sum the film up for me:




			
				Todd McCarthy said:
			
		

> Impeccably made as it is and, like “Vertigo,” blessed with an indispensable score, unquestionably the best thing Hans Zimmer has ever done, “Inception” plays like the film of a brilliant mathematician, scientist or engineer rather than a work by someone who, in another era, would have been a novelist, poet or philosopher. Nolan is a thinker, all right, a very busy explorer of mind functions, but capable merely of diagrams when it comes to the heart and soul.



http://blogs.indiewire.com/toddmccarthy/archives/review_inception/




			
				Leonard Maltin said:
			
		

> He delights in creating cinematic puzzles but I always sense the wheels turning, instead of getting caught up in the action. Obviously he has the imagination to devise ingenious premises and the skill to bring them to life, but halfway through Inception, which runs close to two-and-a-half hours, my mind started to wander. Instead of being pulled into his world I felt myself drifting away from it.



http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/archives/film_review_inception/

I see that the LA Times have an article on how the film's reception by critics has changed suddenly.



> But as critics from large consumer outlets began weighing in last week, the current shifted. Reviewers from the Wall Street Journal, Salon, New York Magazine, Slate and the New York Times all registered deep reservations about the film, criticizing, among other things, its triumph of the technical and conceptual over the narrative and the emotional. "For the most part, 'Inception' is a handsome, clever and grindingly self-serious boy-movie, shorn of imagination, libido, spirituality or emotional depth," wrote O'Hehir in Salon. "[T]hough there is a lot to see in 'Inception,' there is nothing that counts as genuine vision," tweaked A.O. Scott in the New York Times. "The emperor's new bed-clothes," declared the Wall Street Journal's John Anderson.
> 
> There were also a number of mainstream critics who exalted the film. The Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan and the Chicago Sun-Times' Roger Ebert were among those who were warmly enthusiastic, with Turan calling it "a tremendously exciting science-fiction thriller that's as disturbing as it sounds." (Audiences also embraced "Inception"; the movie grossed a studio-estimated $60.4 million over its opening weekend.)
> 
> But overall, the film lost a good fraction of its cachet. A 100% "fresh" rating on the review-aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes early last week had, by the weekend, fallen to 83%. It's telling, too that the site's "Top Critics," which tend to represent the most influential reviewers, were a number of points off that mean — they approved only at a rate of 76%. Those are enviable figures for most films but a notch below the best-reviewed movies of the summer, such as "Toy Story 3" and "The Kids Are All Right."





> Indeed, one of the unusual characteristics of the "Inception" debate has been critics evaluating the film in the context of other reviews. "I truly have no idea what so many people are raving about. It's as if someone went into their heads while they were sleeping and planted the idea that 'Inception' is a visionary masterpiece," wrote David Edelstein in his New York Magazine review, adding "Slap! Wake up, people! Shalalala! Slap!"


 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-inception-backlash-20100719,0,3544832.story


----------



## Maltin (Jul 20, 2010)

Whilst notoriously cranky with current films, Rex Reed's final comments in the New York Observer are probably true:




			
				Rex Reed said:
			
		

> None of this prattling drivel adds up to one iota of cogent or convincing logic. You never know who anyone is, what their goals are, who they work for or what they're doing. Since there's nothing to act, the cast doesn't even bother. It's the easiest kind of movie to make, because all you have to do is strike poses and change expressions. It all culminates on skis in the middle of a blizzard, as Leo is pursued by machine-gun-equipped snowmobiles, but you don't even know who's driving them. I have no idea what the market is for this jabbering twaddle - probably people who fritter away their time playing video games, which I'm willing to bet pretty much describes Christopher Nolan. He labors over turning out arty horror films and sci-fi action thrillers with pretensions to alternate reality, but he's clueless about how to deal with reality, honest emotions or relevant issues.
> 
> Inception is the kind of pretentious perplexity in which one or two reels could be mischievously transposed, or even projected backward, and nobody would know the difference. It's pretty much what we've come to expect from summer movies in general and Christopher Nolan movies in particular, but I keep wondering: Can he do anything of more lasting value? He's got vision, but creating jigsaw puzzles nobody can figure out and using actors as puppets who say idiotic things, dwarfed by sets like sliding Tinker Toys, doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment to me.



I doubt he thought much of Avatar either.


----------



## strung out (Jul 20, 2010)

i just thought that while it was a decent enough action film, it was attempting to masquerade as something a lot more substantial, yet didn't really pull it off due to a lack of convincing characterisation, gimmicky sequences and cod psychological rubbish attempting to convince you that the film goes a lot deeper than it actually does. like i said, decent enough action film, would have been better with bruce willis in the lead though.


----------



## Maltin (Jul 20, 2010)

strung_out said:


> decent enough action film, would have been better with bruce willis in the lead though.


 I think I would have preferred that version too.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2010)

Maltin said:


> I saw this tonight and didn't think it was that great.  I didn't really find it involving at all or think that the action scenes were that exciting.
> 
> Reading a few of the major reviewers, the following were interesting points which largely sum the film up for me:
> 
> ...


 
mmm, perhaps not the wisest choice to finish off your selection of reviews - one that slags off those 'evaluating the film in the context of other reviews' 

The last para of the Reed is quite plainly wrong too


----------



## Reno (Jul 21, 2010)

belboid said:


> mmm, perhaps not the wisest choice to finish off your selection of reviews - one that slags off those 'evaluating the film in the context of other reviews'
> 
> The last para of the Reed is quite plainly wrong too



How dare you doubt Rex Reed


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 21, 2010)

> None of this prattling drivel adds up to one iota of cogent or convincing logic. *(1)You never know who anyone is, what their goals are, who they work for or what they're doing.* Since there's nothing to act, the cast doesn't even bother. It's the easiest kind of movie to make, because all you have to do is strike poses and change expressions. It all culminates on skis in the middle of a blizzard, as Leo is pursued by machine-gun-equipped snowmobiles, *(2)but you don't even know who's driving them*. I have no idea what the market is for this jabbering twaddle - *(3)probably people who fritter away their time playing video games*, which I'm willing to bet pretty much describes Christopher Nolan. He labors over turning out arty horror films and sci-fi action thrillers with pretensions to alternate reality, but he's clueless about how to deal with reality, honest emotions or relevant issues.



Bold1 - Idiot comment. At the start Leo was working for Kobol extracting from Saito. Then he's working for Saito, as is everyone else. 

Bold2 - They were projections. It was established pretty early on that anyone _not_ a dreamer was a projection.

Bold2 - Ah, here comes the nub. Anyone who describes videogaming as 'frittering' has zero cred AFAIC. 

If that's a closing comment for a review, all I have to ask is 'Did you actually watch the film?' For someone who is clearly a serious film critic, these kinds of crits are pretty lame stuff.


----------



## strung out (Jul 21, 2010)

see, i wasn't a massive fan of the film, but that review by rex reed just seems to be either wrong or misses the point in so many different ways.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 21, 2010)

OK before i go to see this, and bear in mind i cba actually reading the thread, does the film have the following?


A hot chick who at various points in the film wears skimpy or tight fitting clothing?

Robots that fight?

Lots of explosions and guns and stuff?

a plotline that can be understood by an 11 year old without too much difficulty?

lots of cgi stuff?

any 3 out of that 5 and I am going to have to go see it


----------



## strung out (Jul 21, 2010)

Pingu said:


> OK before i go to see this, and bear in mind i cba actually reading the thread, does the film have the following?
> 
> A
> hot chick who at various points in the film wears skimpy or tight fitting clothing?
> ...


 
no, no, yes, yes, yes


----------



## Pingu (Jul 21, 2010)

shame about 1... but hey... guess where I am going this weekend?


----------



## LJo (Jul 21, 2010)

strung_out said:


> see, i wasn't a massive fan of the film, but that review by rex reed just seems to be either wrong or misses the point in so many different ways.


 
That's because he's a mad old man whose lasting moment of fame was appearing in Myra Breckenridge, one of the worst films ever made.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2010)

strung_out said:


> no, no, yes, yes, yes


 
no, no, yes, yes if s/he pays really close attention and doesn't go for a piss, not as much as you might think

if you ask me


----------



## The Groke (Jul 21, 2010)

belboid said:


> no, no, yes, yes if s/he pays really close attention and doesn't go for a piss, not as much as you might think
> 
> if you ask me



lol - that is pretty much word for word what I was going to write...


----------



## Diamond (Jul 21, 2010)

I'm starting to think that the problem with the film is that it lacks pathos.

This is probably what people are alluding to when they refer to the film as being like a video game.

Both tend to leave you emotionally uninvolved.


----------



## LJo (Jul 21, 2010)

Diamond said:


> I'm starting to think that the problem with the film is that it lacks pathos.
> 
> This is probably what people are alluding to when they refer to the film as being like a video game.
> 
> Both tend to leave you emotionally uninvolved.


 
Personally, I've never understood this view of Nolan as a 'cold', or 'emotionless' director.

I was massively moved by the final scene between Cob and his wife in Inception, for example.

And Memento, I think, is a deeply, deeply emotional film. I've never felt the structure got in the way of the sheer horror of the main character's situation.

There seems to be this consensus that clever structure and/or action doesn't allow for emotion - that cliched old 'style over substance' argument. I don't think that follows at all.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 21, 2010)

> Both tend to leave you emotionally uninvolved.





Lump in my throat watching this...


----------



## Diamond (Jul 21, 2010)

LJo said:


> Personally, I've never understood this view of Nolan as a 'cold', or 'emotionless' director.
> 
> I was massively moved by the final scene between Cob and his wife in Inception, for example.
> 
> ...


 
Hey, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a Nolan thing, just that this is particularly the case with Inception.

It's interesting that you mention the final scene with the wife. I cared so little about the characters at that point and was so bored with their interactions that I just remember thinking: supposed emotional payoff = we must be near the end then.

In contrast, Memento was far more involving. A lot of it turned on some great performances from the principals but the plot was so much tighter and so much more focused in on Leonard's predicament.

With Inception that focus and pathos diffused and drifted away as the film delved deeper through the dream levels.

Maybe that's the fundamental flaw with the plot/premise.


----------



## strung out (Jul 21, 2010)

i didn't find the final scene with cobb and his wife in any way emotionally involving. mostly because cobb was obviously just a bit of a dick and his wife (or at least his projection of his wife) was a complete twat. i'm afraid i just didn't connect emotionally with any of the characters. mercenaries doing illegal and morally dubious things don't tend to grip me no matter how heroic or amusing they are


----------



## vogonity (Jul 21, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> He's doing the new Superman after the next Batman I think...


 
Yeah: co-writing, producing. Was thinking more about directing.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 21, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> What an excellent film. Well paced, not overly wordy (what's with all the guff about exposition - there was enough there to get the ideas over and no more), action sequences that owe more to the Mann rather than Bay school of directing (and I completely agree with Santino's point about not overusing the same effect ideas like the escher stairwells).
> 
> The ending was absolutely spot on too



I didn't expect it to be this good. The trailer was very misleading; it's not The Matrix at all. Another excellent piece of cinema from Nolan & cracking cast and score.


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2010)

strung_out said:


> mercenaries doing illegal and morally dubious things don't tend to grip me no matter how heroic or amusing they are



((((((((((strung_out)))))))))


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 21, 2010)

I have to say, while I was watching this I did think at one point, 'I'd trust Nolan to do justice to a film of Neuromancer.'


----------



## g force (Jul 21, 2010)

Diamond said:


> I'm starting to think that the problem with the film is that it lacks pathos.
> 
> This is probably what people are alluding to when they refer to the film as being like a video game.
> 
> Both tend to leave you emotionally uninvolved.



Then they're referring to games like Call of Duty and Mario then. Because there are plenty of games that involve you emotionally and are far more cinematic than the drivel coming out of Hollywood.


----------



## strung out (Jul 21, 2010)

Santino said:


> ((((((((((strung_out)))))))))


 
i'm not saying that as some kind of moral judgement! i just find it harder to engage with characters when i can't sympathise with their motives, particularly when the main charater of the film is as wooden as di caprio's


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 21, 2010)

Don't diss COD. When Gaz and Price get shot at the end of COD4 I was _gutted_. Same applied to American Marine mate who gets nuked and when you get shot and burned alive by the bad guy in MW2.

Altho Mario's a cunt.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 21, 2010)

g force said:


> Then they're referring to games like Call of Duty and Mario then. Because there are plenty of games that involve you emotionally and are far more cinematic than the drivel coming out of Hollywood.


 
Such as?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 21, 2010)

g force said:


> Then they're referring to games like Call of Duty and Mario then. Because there are plenty of games that involve you emotionally and are far more cinematic than the drivel coming out of Hollywood.


 
Depends on what emotions you're talking about. My emotional involved while playing Mario is one of joy, while playing CoD I feel excited and aggressive.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 21, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Lump in my throat watching this...




Man that game was so boring...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 21, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Depends on what emotions you're talking about. My emotional involved while playing Mario is one of joy, while playing CoD I feel excited and aggressive.



For me, it's the opposite. I feel joy when playing CoD, and anger and agression when playing Mario


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 21, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> For me, it's the opposite. I feel joy when playing CoD, and anger and agression when playing Mario



Heh but to say you're not emotionally connected isn't true is it? It's just different emotions that are experienced for different lengths of time...


----------



## LJo (Jul 21, 2010)

strung_out said:


> mercenaries doing illegal and morally dubious things don't tend to grip me no matter how heroic or amusing they are



God, I'm the opposite. I am completely gripped by people who are totally different from me. This means I am fascinated by morally dubious mercenaries and utterly bored by thirtysomething women with two kids who enjoy gardening. When I engage with a morally dubious character and find myself actually liking some murderer/adulterer (hello, Tony Soprano and Don Draper), it just bring up so many interesting questions. It adds an extra dimension. I don't think I'd watch any films at all if there had to be someone in it that I approved of morally.


----------



## LJo (Jul 21, 2010)

g force said:


> Then they're referring to games like Call of Duty and Mario then. Because there are plenty of games that involve you emotionally and are far more cinematic than the drivel coming out of Hollywood.


 
Anyone ever played Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath? I cried at the end of that.


----------



## strung out (Jul 21, 2010)

LJo said:


> God, I'm the opposite. I am completely gripped by people who are totally different from me. This means I am fascinated by morally dubious mercenaries and utterly bored by thirtysomething women with two kids who enjoy gardening. When I engage with a morally dubious character and find myself actually liking some murderer/adulterer (hello, Tony Soprano and Don Draper), it just bring up so many interesting questions. It adds an extra dimension. I don't think I'd watch any films at all if there had to be someone in it that I approved of morally.


it probably works better when the morally dubious lead character isn't as 3 dimensional as a sheet of paper though.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 21, 2010)

tbh when i snipe someone from the otherr side of the map in BFBC2 or COD I cant help but think of the wife and family they have left behind. i use the scope to search their still twitching copse for photos etc


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 21, 2010)

Just seen this, really enjoyed it, wasn't profound or anything  like that just good with some excllent action sequences and solid performances. Plus the snow scenes reminded me of "Metal Gear Solid" which is no bad thing.

I would certainly watch it again!


----------



## D'wards (Jul 21, 2010)

I loved the concept of being caught in a dream for 40 years, and growing old, and then waking up and only a couple of hours have passed and you're young again.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 21, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Just seen this, really enjoyed it, wasn't profound or anything  like that just good with some excllent action sequences and solid performances. Plus the snow scenes reminded me of "Metal Gear Solid" which is no bad thing.
> 
> I would certainly watch it again!


 
Heh me and someone I know turned to each saying in unison Modern Warfare 2.


----------



## bhamgeezer (Jul 22, 2010)

This film is bad. I really tried to like this, I am generally I would say I am fan of films that introduce interesting sci-fi premises to drive the story, as well as films that try and engage the audience by making certain aspects of the story less obvious. Yet as much as I tried to I could not enjoy this. Usually these films don't tend to be great but solid and entertaining. This film reeked of an attempt at being more meaningful than it should be, consequently missing the mark completely therefore compromising what should make it at least passable. I got bored about the halfway mark and spent the rest of the time trying to figure out what Nolan was trying yet failing to achieve.

The first thing that annoyed me was that the basic premise of the film was so weak it needed to be repeated ad nauseum by the characters to remind the audience of the rules of the dream world to explain why we should give a fuck. Most films of this nature start with the premise in its simplest form and demonstrate the contingent elements of that premise in a way that does not raise the audience's attention. Think of the characters in the matrix needing to be near a specific landline phone if they wanted to escape, the film wouldn't have worked had they been able to come and go as they please, however this plot device didn't cause the audience to raise an eyebrow. (I realise this film is not the matrix but it is at least an example of something done well.)



Spoiler: stuff relating to plot



Inception on the other hand needed to have the main characters constantly reminding each other of the rules (why not write in a rookie character to justify this), how sedatives effected the situation was even explained twice I believe. Other examples would be the behaviour of the subconscious characters, the falling mechanic, the layer mechanic. These aspects of the dreamworld were entirely crucial to the film having any element of danger whatsoever, and rather than be shown they had to be told. It almost felt as if these devices were being written into the story as the primary plot was being created just for it to continue be of interest.

The second problem with the film was the characters, this aspect could have rescued the film. A poor plot device can always be forgiven if the characters are engaging. However the large team of  collected for the job gave film a feel of the comic criminal heist movie (early on I was expecting their names to flash on screen in freeze frame), then the audience were expected to care about them as if they were real people. Drawing a maze on a piece of paper makes you qualified to work with a team of hi-tech corporate spies apparently, completely unbelievable, even with Michael Caine randomly appearing and offering his recommendations (at least they got the rookie to justify all the tedious explanation). There was really no insight into the personalities of characters, Ariadne? (I had to look up her name), Eames? (a stereotypical cool guy) Arthur? (likes to float in lifts apparently, what is the point of him?). Saito, maybe the one character I thought was decent.

Right at the end Cobb's wife is back as something we're meant to care about this, rather than just the action, had they developed this better and cut the boring middle of the movie maybe it could have been rescued. But frankly it feels like an afterthought to the actual inception. Obviously story around his wife and children is meant to be what is motivating Cobb's, but it felt subsidary to the team effort.



The film as a whole felt unnecessarily full, too many characters, too many pointless conversations about the rules of the dreamworld, nothing done well. Finally the film lacks any kind of interesting meaning behind it at all, scepticism is hardly fresh material for films these days.

All in all I still can't figure out what this film is trying to be, as an action movie it's pretentious, as a sci-fi film it's completely uninspired, as an moderately intelligent film like momento it's completely banal and corny. It feels like a film trying to do everything and failing at it all.

tl;dr it's shit, torrent it


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2010)

bhamgeezer said:


> Most films of this nature start with the premise in its simplest form and demonstrate the contingent elements of that premise in a way that does not raise the audience's attention.



did you not see the opening twenty mins?  Where they introduced nearly all the basic principles?  Even reviews that have slagged the film off have praised that part for its tautness in doing just what you complain it doesn't do.



> (why not write in a rookie character to justify this).....(at least they got the rookie to justify all the tedious explanation)


 
I think you can spot the obvious contradiction there

As for your point re Cobbs mrs, well if you didn't care right until the end, there's nowt anyone can do, but there were clearly reasons to care brought in long long before the final scenes, so that seems to be more your omission than Nolan's


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 22, 2010)

It's ironic that bhamgeezers review contains all the problems and issues he associates with the film - aimlessness, lack of character, repetition of the same point over and over


----------



## Santino (Jul 22, 2010)

I am going to see it again.


----------



## Sadken (Jul 22, 2010)

Saw it last night.  It made me wanna say "Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, Ohh myy gosh".  Plus, I keep going "Neeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" like that bit on the soundtrack


----------



## bhamgeezer (Jul 22, 2010)

Kyser - Stick to the film fanboi


----------



## Santino (Jul 22, 2010)

Sadken said:


> Saw it last night.  It made me wanna say "Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, Ohh myy gosh".  Plus, I keep going "Neeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" like that bit on the soundtrack



You've cut and paste this from Sight & Sound, I'm sure.


----------



## bhamgeezer (Jul 22, 2010)

belboid said:


> did you not see the opening twenty mins?  Where they introduced nearly all the basic principles?  Even reviews that have slagged the film off have praised that part for its tautness in doing just what you complain it doesn't do.



Yes, and I continued to be reminded of those principles on which the story so precariously hangs for the next 2 hours, without which their is no threat to any of the characters, it's a dream. I saw the whole damn movie, a premise that has to be repeated is evidently a shit premise, if you have to write in unexplained clauses to make of interest like falling and water then its not the premise itself driving the movie, but rather random additional premises about how dreaming work in the "Inception" world just for it to be of interest, there is something wrong. This would be ok if it made for a character story, but it doesn't, the team are caracitures.



> I think you can spot the obvious contradiction there



I worry if you think that's what a contradiction is, it's actually an obvious plot device coming true.



> As for your point re Cobbs mrs, well if you didn't care right until the end, there's nowt anyone can do, but there were clearly reasons to care brought in long long before the final scenes, so that seems to be more your omission than Nolan's


 
No I didn't care because their characters were neither real nor interesting. They had the depth of the characters in a heist film but were then treated as if they were real towards the end. It simply wasn't believable.

Examples being Ariadyne joining the team. despite knowing it's illegal and the basis "pure creativity", Caine's character, an academic, recommending his student for shady business deals, Eames existing, The billionaire's son just being like "Yeah sure lets go do an extraction" in the second layer of the dream. Honest to God I can say I cared and believed about these characters about as much as in 2012.


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2010)

characeters in a heist film aren't real?  What?  You're not making any sense whatsoever.  In none of your post.


----------



## bhamgeezer (Jul 22, 2010)

belboid said:


> characeters in a heist film aren't real?  What?  You're not making any sense whatsoever.  In none of your post.



No in a heist film the characters are believable because they are not meant to have any depth of character, therefore we don't question their motives, they're bank robbers or whatever. This movie took this format but then tried to make it something else and ended up without any characters I can believe in.


----------



## LJo (Jul 22, 2010)

bhamgeezer said:


> No in a heist film the characters are believable because they are not meant to have any depth of character, therefore we don't question their motives, they're bank robbers or whatever. This movie took this format but then tried to make it something else and ended up without any characters I can believe in.


 
But it doesn't necessarily follow that characters in a heist film aren't meant to have depth - look at Heat, for example.


----------



## Santino (Jul 22, 2010)

LJo said:


> look at Heat, for example.


 
Don't, is my advice.


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2010)

bhamgeezer said:


> No in a heist film the characters are believable because they are not meant to have any depth of character,


 
wow, well that's just bollocks.  You seem to have a very restricted/ive view of how any type of genre is supposed to work.


----------



## bhamgeezer (Jul 22, 2010)

LJo said:


> But it doesn't necessarily follow that characters in a heist film aren't meant to have depth - look at Heat, for example.



Point taken, but I'm think more of the Tarintino-esque stuff that has been popular in the last 5 years. Inception tried to gloss over the character motivation in this way, then later turned into a movie concerned with these weak characters rather than just what they do. Frankly I think the movie would have been far better served with half the cast and more focus on the Cobb's doing the job with Ariadyne for Saiko and his relationship with his dead wife. The rest just seemed there to fill the numbers.


----------



## bhamgeezer (Jul 22, 2010)

belboid said:


> wow, well that's just bollocks.  You seem to have a very restricted/ive view of how any type of genre is supposed to work.


 
I'm talking about a general idea. Not every film involving a heist neccessarily require it to be a comic style with cartoony character motivation, in fact the beauty of cinema is completely free to do what it pleases. This film however tried to have it both ways and looks ridiculous as a result.


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2010)

well, we disagree.  I'm afraid I find your criticisms to be a bigger mess than you think Inception is.  Hey ho, its only a fillum.


----------



## bhamgeezer (Jul 22, 2010)

belboid said:


> well, we disagree.  I'm afraid I find your criticisms to be a bigger mess than you think Inception is.  Hey ho, its only a fillum.


 
Sure, but the criticisms are perfectly valid and when you look past the hype, the director, the complexity of the plot and the big budget you're left with nothing but a bad story.


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2010)

mmm, maybe.  Or, not.

In fact, just not


----------



## The Groke (Jul 22, 2010)

It just occurred to me that RenegadeDog would have fucking loved it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 22, 2010)

LJo said:


> But it doesn't necessarily follow that characters in a heist film aren't meant to have depth - look at Heat, for example.


 bad example as it's one of the dullest films in existence


----------



## LJo (Jul 22, 2010)

You and Santino are both wrong, but I suspect that is another thread.


----------



## Santino (Jul 22, 2010)

LJo said:


> You and Santino are both wrong, but I suspect that is another thread.


 
When Orang Utan and Santino agree about something, it is time to take notice.


----------



## Santino (Jul 22, 2010)

Just been reading some comments about this on a blog and noticed how much criticism of this film, like The Dark Knight before it, seems to be focussed on what the critic imagines a lot of other people ('Nolan fanboys') to be thinking/feeling about it. As if they are not so much responding to the film as much as to a supposed orthodoxy which doesn't even exist.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2010)

going to the cinema in a bit - can't decide between this and toy story 3. if there's millions of kids there, i guess i'll plump for inception


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2010)

LJo said:


> You and Santino are both wrong, but I suspect that is another thread.


 
only michael mann can make a scene of people fighting with guns boring


----------



## Reno (Jul 23, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> going to the cinema in a bit - can't decide between this and toy story 3. if there's millions of kids there, i guess i'll plump for inception



Look at all the happy customers on the Toy Story 3 thread and do yourself a favour, go see that. It's ten times the film that Inception is.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2010)

the only thing that's swaying me towards inception iis that it's the first day of the school holidays


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 25, 2010)

bhamgeezer said:


> Examples being Ariadyne joining the team. despite knowing it's illegal and the basis "pure creativity", Caine's character, an academic, recommending his student for shady business deals, Eames existing, The billionaire's son just being like "Yeah sure lets go do an extraction" in the second layer of the dream. Honest to God I can say I cared and believed about these characters about as much as in 2012.


 
None of these things are unreasonable or unbelievable in the context of the film.



> if you have to write in unexplained clauses to make of interest like falling and water then its not the premise itself driving the movie, but rather random additional premises about how dreaming work in the "Inception" world



The stuff you mention reflects how dreams work in the real world, they weren't arbitrary choices by the writer.


----------



## treefrog (Jul 25, 2010)

Went to see it this morning. I bloody loved it. 

/nothing to add


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 26, 2010)

Just got back from seeing it, fantastic film.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 26, 2010)

one thing that bugs me is that Di Caprio has learned to act through being in big films. Now that might sound stupid but think about how rubbish it is that Sony field test equipment by selling it at top dollar to early adopters. Same thing. He never rally got good till Blood Diamond and yet has been cranking out shite for loads of years before that. He was good in this, even if I lost the plot about 20 minutes before the end. That is not like me, I follow a plot tightly normally. I don't get what floaty man was doing nor why he was floaty. Re watch needed, I think


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 26, 2010)

I thought it was a big stupid film which was more interesting than most other action films, but which took itself entirely too seriously.

I didn't like the snow layer because you couldn't tell who was who

i liked the Cobbs' version of limbo - it felt that kind of too-flat, almost right reality that dreams sometimes have.  and the floaty stuff - where there was almost a chance to crack a smile.


----------



## Pat24 (Jul 26, 2010)

I went to see it last night and I really enjoyed it.


----------



## Reno (Jul 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> one thing that bugs me is that Di Caprio has learned to act through being in big films. Now that might sound stupid but think about how rubbish it is that Sony field test equipment by selling it at top dollar to early adopters. Same thing. He never rally got good till Blood Diamond and yet has been cranking out shite for loads of years before that. He was good in this, even if I lost the plot about 20 minutes before the end. That is not like me, I follow a plot tightly normally. I don't get what floaty man was doing nor why he was floaty. Re watch needed, I think



Not many people would agree that he only got good with the mediocre Blood Diamond. Check out his first major film role in What's Eating Gilbert Grape, DiCaprio was fantastic in that. I think he gave his best performance so far in Catch Me If You Can which allowed him a much greater range then all the recent "tortured" roles he's been doing, which are rather one note and require not much more than a furrowed brow.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't get what floaty man was doing nor why he was floaty. Re watch needed, I think


 
Presume you mean Joseph Gordon Levitt's character, during the bit where he's fighting in the hotel and trying to get them all into the lift?

Because the 'chemist' who was driving the van in the first layer of the dream had reversed off the bridge and they were plummeting towards the water (the impact of which would create the 'jump' that wakes them all up), therefore they were all weightless for a fraction of time, time which extended into minutes in the dream-world (and increased exponentially within each dream layer, hence the guys attacking the snowy fortress had the longest).

Weightless in the 1st layer = sense of weightlessness in the next layer, hence floaty man (which was one of the best scenes of the film for me).

Having re-read that^^^, it's all over the place but I can't be bothered to edit.

I also agree with Reno (regarding DiCaprio, not the film itself), he's been a damn good actor for a lot longer than Blood Diamond.


----------



## strung out (Jul 26, 2010)

the impact of falling off the bridge didn't wake them all up though!


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> one thing that bugs me is that Di Caprio has learned to act through being in big films. Now that might sound stupid but think about how rubbish it is that Sony field test equipment by selling it at top dollar to early adopters. Same thing. He never rally got good till Blood Diamond and yet has been cranking out shite for loads of years before that.


 
Nah he totaly outclassed De Niro in The Basketball Diaries.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

strung_out said:


> the impact of falling off the bridge didn't wake them all up though!


 
No, they missed that kick, and had to wait for the van to hit the water to wake up.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 26, 2010)

strung_out said:


> the impact of falling off the bridge didn't wake them all up though!


 
Yeah, just realised that, I meant it woke them from the deeper layers of the dream, not entirely.


----------



## strung out (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> No, they missed that kick, and had to wait for the van to hit the water to wake up.


 
yeah, but the van hitting the water didn't wake them up though did it? they all had to scramble out of the sinking van to the shore. or have i mis-remembered that?


----------



## strung out (Jul 26, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> Yeah, just realised that, I meant it woke them from the deeper layers of the dream, not entirely.


 
it was the falling lift, snow fortress explosion and jumping off a building that kicked them out of those layers. falling off a bridge into the water didn't seem to kick anyone out of anything.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

strung_out said:


> yeah, but the van hitting the water didn't wake them up though did it? they all had to scramble out of the sinking van to the shore. or have i mis-remembered that?


 
It woke them from the second dream (the hotel), back into the first dream, where they would have to hang around until the drugs wore off and they could wake up properly into reality.


----------



## strung out (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> It woke them from the second dream (the hotel), back into the first dream, where they would have to hang around until the drugs wore off and they could wake up properly into reality.


oh right. i thought a jump only awoke you from the dream you were currently in (hence why jumping off the top of a building 'jumped' ariadne out of limbo into snow world. the snow world explosion jumped her back into hotel world, and the lift fall jumped her back into van falling off bridge world)


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

strung_out said:


> oh right. i thought a jump only awoke you from the dream you were currently in (hence why jumping off the top of a building 'jumped' ariadne out of limbo into snow world. the snow world explosion jumped her back into hotel world, and the lift fall jumped her back into van falling off bridge world)


 
No, falling brings you back into the place where your body is actually falling (whether dream or real). The lift crash brought her back to the lift, the van crash brought her back to the van and so on.


----------



## strung out (Jul 26, 2010)

so what did jumping off the building do then?


----------



## Onket (Jul 26, 2010)

Riddled with stuff that doesn't make sense, but a very enjoyable film.

Love the way people are talking about it as if it was real!


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

strung_out said:


> so what did jumping off the building do then?



Kill herself in that dream, so she woke up when Fischer was resuscitated, I think.


----------



## strung out (Jul 26, 2010)

i thought killing yourself in the dream meant you didn't wake up? sent you down into limbo or something. of course, she was already in limbo (i think) so god knows what killing herself there did!

ok, next question... seeing as they never planned to go into limbo from the snow dream, how come they set a load of explosives around the fortress if they didn't originally plan for there to be a next level to have to jump them out of?


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

strung_out said:


> i thought killing yourself in the dream meant you didn't wake up? sent you down into limbo or something. of course, she was already in limbo (i think) so god knows what killing herself there did!
> 
> ok, next question... seeing as they never planned to go into limbo from the snow dream, how come they set a load of explosives around the fortress if they didn't originally plan for there to be a next level to have to jump them out of?



You can get to limbo just by 'going too deep', like Cobb and Mal the first time. Killing themselves was how they escaped it. Saito got there because he 'died' before his body was ready to wake up because of the drugs.  What's dangerous about limbo is that you forget that it's a dream. I think the important thing is rejecting the reality of that dream, i.e. 'killing yourself'.


----------



## hektik (Jul 27, 2010)

Saw it yesterday evening: thought it was excellent, but could have done with a bit of editing to cut down the length of the film a bit (but I don't know where the cuts could have come). I was pretty impressed with the dream-like but hyper-real vision that Nolan had set out in the film, and liked the fact that he didn't go overboard with the CGI possibilities of structures of the dream twisting and changing as part of the major plot narrative: in the hands of another director/scriptwriter, the premise could have been overblown and gaudy: imagine will smith wise cracking his way through a CGI dreamworld in order to get home to his wife, shudder, and thank the lord that nolan was able to do it himself.

I also liked the way that he played with the conventions of film-making, such as cut-shots, in order to further bamboozle the viewer: he explicitly draws your attention to it in the scene in paris, so that you can then never be sure whether the cut is because of the dream, or simply for operational/filmic purposes. 

I can understand some of the criticisms of people on this thread that the rest of the team were cyphers - there only to explain the plot to the audience - but I thought the exposition was farily light, given the complexity of the film. And it certainly wasn't done heavy-handedly. 



Spoiler: just in case, but why on earth would you be reading this thread if you hadn't seen the film



Also of course, you could argue that the reason that the rest of the inception team were cyphers for the reason that they were all part of his dream anyway, which is the explanation I am currently leaning towards - the whole thing was a dream, that leo had forgotten he was in a dream, and the whole movie was the maze that he had to navigate. The movie itself was his subconcious playing out - part of him knows it's a dream, and wants it to end, so that he can join his wife (who killed herself and left the dream) and kids, and part of him that wants to stay in the dream, to go deeper and explore further and stay in the dreamworld. His subconscious has created this whole situation in order to try and push him to resolve what he wants to do, whether to wake up, or to stay in the dream.


----------



## Mapped (Jul 28, 2010)

I went to see this last night and really enjoyed the ride. I'm working in Holland this week and visited a coffee shop just before I went, which means I'm going to have to see it again with a clearer head.

I wish I had seen the film without reading the reviews. I found that the background knowledge made me try to 2nd guess the film right from the start.

Oh and Dutch Cinemas: don't put an intermission in a film like inception  Stopping abruptly in the middle of an action sequence is not cool.


----------



## hektik (Jul 28, 2010)

an interesting little video about the score for inception here, in relation to how it relates to je ne regrette rien:


----------



## tastebud (Jul 28, 2010)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Nolan is a genius, so it will probably good, although I'm slightly concerned by the matrixy fight scene


well not my usual choice of film but I actually enjoyed it immensely and have just seen this post - think you would have done too


----------



## wayward bob (Jul 29, 2010)

we squeaked into the last showing last night - queues round the block. i don't usually watch action films, and i haven't seen the batman films, though i've seen and enjoyed all of nolan's others, i love his plotting and the satisfying feeling of everything clicking into place.

i enjoyed this, it didn't feel too long, and it was pacy enough plotwise that you could gloss over the bits you didn't quite get without getting totally lost. there was a fair bit of nonsense involved and i'm sure there are contradictions aplenty if you want to pick it to pieces but i was happy to suspend disbelief and go along for the ride. i didn't enjoy the shooty bits but i loved all the floaty stuff in the hotel.

i found all the characters perfectly likeable, despite the limited character development, i enjoyed joseph gordon-levitt in his waistcoat in the hotel scenes too 

i think a lot of the criticism i've read upthread is valid, it's certainly no masterpiece, but none of the flaws were fatal enough to stop me thoroughly enjoying the film.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 29, 2010)

This is a totally marmite film - every person I've spoken to who has seen it has either really enjoyed it or hated it. Nothing inbetween.


----------



## Santino (Jul 29, 2010)

I saw it again and now my vote counts twice.


----------



## Reno (Jul 29, 2010)

Santino said:


> I saw it again and now my vote counts twice.


----------



## Santino (Jul 29, 2010)

Who said Germans have no sense of humour?


----------



## Reno (Jul 29, 2010)

Santino said:


> Who said Germans have no sense of humour?



Just returning the "snide smiley" favour.


----------



## Santino (Jul 29, 2010)

Reno said:


> Just returning the "snide smiley" favour.



Good work.


----------



## Reno (Jul 29, 2010)

..


----------



## Santino (Jul 29, 2010)

Reno said:


> ..



How zen.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 29, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> This is a totally marmite film - every person I've spoken to who has seen it has either really enjoyed it or hated it. Nothing inbetween.


 
not so. my flatmate enjoyed it but had many criticisms. other people too.


----------



## strung out (Jul 30, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> not so. my flatmate enjoyed it but had many criticisms. other people too.


 
me too


----------



## Kid A (Jul 30, 2010)

I absolutely loved it. Contrary to what most of the negative criticism is saying, it's a perfect example of a film that is _genuinely_ imaginative and intelligent, _doesn't_ put style over substance, _doesn't_ take itself too seriously and _isn't_ pretentious, even though it could easily have been all those things. I would agree that it's more about the imaginative idea, the concept, than about character and emotion, but what's wrong with that? It succeeds brilliantly on the concept, which makes logical sense and is never too vague. If you don't understand the concept then it's your problem, because it is perfectly thought out. I mean, the quote earlier where someone said "we don't know who the people driving chasing him through the snow at the end are" - seriously? Speak for yourself. You should have paid attention. And it doesn't _fail_ on character and emotional involvement either, that's just not the main point of the film.


----------



## Kid A (Jul 30, 2010)

Oh, and I have to take this opportunity to come down firmly on the "video games can be intensely emotionally involving" side of that particular argument. Have to agree with the person who posted the FFVII link. One of the greatest works of fiction ever, in any medium, in my opinion. People who think games can't rival films in this area should also check out Final Fantasy X, Half-Life 2, Grim Fandango, Metal Gear Solid and the Monkey Island series.


----------



## Santino (Jul 30, 2010)

The limbo concept is also less shaky than it seemed at first. It makes sense to me now.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 30, 2010)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...on't-like-inception--are-stupid-201007302959/


----------



## 100% masahiko (Jul 31, 2010)

Saw this on the big screen last night.
It was a grand film - really, really cool - great ideas.
Loved the concept but hated some of the scenes when they spent 3-4 minutes explaining things over and over.
We get it okay? Point taken.

I loved it.


----------



## cliche guevara (Aug 1, 2010)

Well I thoroughly enjoyed that. I can see why a lot of people don't like it, obviously they failed to understand the concept fully.


----------



## strung out (Aug 1, 2010)




----------



## Reno (Aug 1, 2010)

cliche guevara said:


> Well I thoroughly enjoyed that. I can see why a lot of people don't like it, obviously they failed to understand the concept fully.



No, we understood it. Maybe some of us just think that anybody over the age of 16 shouldn't be quite impressed by "the concept" as they are, because it's not really that clever.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

he was taking the piss i think!


----------



## Reno (Aug 1, 2010)

Uh, ok.


----------



## cliche guevara (Aug 1, 2010)

I did say that with my tongue firmly in my cheek. However, a lot of people's critiscisms have been thoroughly deconstructed on this thread, which rings a bit of truth into my statement.


----------



## Reno (Aug 1, 2010)

Not so sure he was taking the piss anymore.


----------



## Lea (Aug 2, 2010)

Watched this on Saturday and really enjoyed it although I did get a bit lost with the plot.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 2, 2010)

100% masahiko said:


> Loved the concept but hated some of the scenes when they spent 3-4 minutes explaining things over and over.
> We get it okay? Point taken.
> 
> I loved it.


 
Considering its an american blockbuster I think they kept the explanation segments to a reasonable minimum.

I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was very well executed.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 4, 2010)

christopher nolan read a lot of donald duck as a kid - inducktion:
http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/show.php?num=1&loc=D2002-033&s=date


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 4, 2010)

It was just an ok film imho.

It could have done with a lot of editing down. Especially in the third dream layer in the mountains. _Waaay_ to much shooting action and pointless explosions. I was getting bored waiting for the plot to carry on.

Also I couldn't get with the Elaine Paige character - she was just the girl from Juno to me throughout the film. Not convincing enough.


----------



## Reno (Aug 4, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> Also I couldn't get with the Elaine Paige character...


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 4, 2010)

Soz.. 'Ellen Page'


----------



## Reno (Aug 4, 2010)

I would have liked to see Elaine Page belt out a showtune in Inception though.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 4, 2010)

Also, I didn't really like the character of Yusuf (the sedative chemist). Every time he had any attempt at comedy (and his freaking out in the van) it was lame and he verged on being a not very funny comedy chemist.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 4, 2010)

Well just got back from the cinema and have to say i enjoyed it greatly.......very rarely go and i'm glad i went to see this !


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 5, 2010)

Reno said:


> I would have liked to see Elaine Page belt out a showtune in Inception though.


 
"Memories....."


----------



## ChrisFilter (Aug 21, 2010)

Just seen it. I'm in the 'wow, that was amazing, I loved it' camp.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 21, 2010)

The fight scene in the mountains went on _waaay_ too long. It was like something from a James Bond parody at times.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 21, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> The fight scene in the mountains went on _waaay_ too long. It was like something from a James Bond parody at times.


 
Well, it was a dream, so you'd kind of expect that.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2010)

Saw it a second time last night - absolutely brilliant. A few little quibbles with some of the aesthetics, but for the most part a stunning piece of cimena that leaves your head spinning after you've seen it.


----------



## Reno (Aug 21, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Well, it was a dream, so you'd kind of expect that.



Funnily enough that's the last thing I'd expect to dream about, but to each their own.


----------



## strung out (Aug 21, 2010)

it was fucking shit


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2010)

Reno said:


> Funnily enough that's the last thing I'd expect to dream about, but to each their own.


 
Do you know what you dream about within the dreams within your dreams within your dreams?


----------



## strung out (Aug 21, 2010)

dreams are for losers


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2010)

You had a quadruple imagination bybass of late?


----------



## strung out (Aug 21, 2010)

twice


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 23, 2010)

i thought it was ok. not as groundbreaking or mind blowing as i had been led to believe by the hype.....


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2010)

if you want to see a genuinely clever and gripping movie about extraction, go see Skeletons, pisses all over Inception.


----------



## Reno (Aug 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> if you want to see a genuinely clever and gripping movie about extraction, go see Skeletons, pisses all over Inception.


 
Looks interesting, but never heard of it. It's on my rental list.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2010)

Reno said:


> Looks interesting, but never heard of it. It's on my rental list.


Yes, passed me by as well until yesterday. A really good and tidy UK film.


----------



## i_got_poison (Aug 23, 2010)

i got to admit to being disappointed with inception. the concept is ambitious, the actors are superb but the direction leaves alot to be desired.
at times it felt as though the whole production was about to unravel and it's a testament to the cast it didn't.
someone has already mentioned the fortress action scene, but the street shootout was just as lamentable.

i think nolan's receiving alot of praise for this effort, which leads me to believe it's the TDK crowd nudging their guy along. one wonders how long
the afterglow of that film, will sustain a director who appear to be running close to empty.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Aug 23, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> i got to admit to being disappointed with inception. the concept is ambitious, the actors are superb but the direction leaves alot to be desired.
> at times it felt as though the whole production was about to unravel and it's a testament to the cast it didn't.
> someone has already mentioned the fortress action scene, but the street shootout was just as lamentable.
> 
> ...


 
I think the absolutely fucking enormous gates the film has generated will ensure Mr Nolan does just fine.

Lots of people really enjoyed the film. The film made lots of money. That's what I'd call a directorial success, even if not everyone was bowled over by it. It's a summer blockbuster, remember. No more, no less.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2010)

ChrisFilter said:


> I think the absolutely fucking enormous gates the film has generated will ensure Mr Nolan does just fine.
> 
> Lots of people really enjoyed the film. The film made lots of money. That's what I'd call *a directorial success*, even if not everyone was bowled over by it. It's a summer blockbuster, remember. No more, no less.


That may well be so, but it doesn't explain why some people are going on about this film as if it's a multi-layered marvel of film making that shows us hidden dimensions to the human soul, as opposed to an action movie that has some good effects but a pretty piss-poor story line.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Aug 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> That may well be so, but it doesn't explain why some people are going on about this film as if it's a multi-layered marvel of film making that shows us hidden dimensions to the human soul, as opposed to an action movie that has some good effects but a pretty piss-poor story line.


 
Because people are a little starved of media with any depth so look for it wherever possible?

Compared to Big Brother or Sky News, it is a multi-layered marvel.


----------



## girasol (Aug 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> That may well be so, but it doesn't explain why some people are going on about this film as if it's a multi-layered marvel of film making that shows us hidden dimensions to the human soul, as opposed to an action movie that has some good effects but a pretty piss-poor story line.


 
This, and the over the top CONSTANT LOUD MUSIC annoyed the shit out of me   It was too much, even for an action movie.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Aug 23, 2010)

Didn't notice the music until the final scene where I thought it was really effective.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 23, 2010)

"a pretty piss-poor story line" tsk, there are some hard taskmasters on here


----------



## Gromit (Aug 23, 2010)

I think its a marvelous film but have to point out one continuity error. 

They lived to a ripe old age in the first dream. But were young when he implanted the idea and they waited for the train.


----------



## girasol (Aug 23, 2010)

ChrisFilter said:


> Didn't notice the music until the final scene where I thought it was really effective.


 
It was driving me insane    so over the top and unnecessary, a lot of time.  Sometimes a bit of silence, or even subtler music does wonders for suspense!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> "a pretty piss-poor story line" tsk, there are some hard taskmasters on here


I was expecting much more after hearing comparisons with Bladerunner - i don't think Inception held a candle to the complexity of that story line, for eg. I'd even go so far as to say that Total Recall had more to it, although that may be a stretch too far.


----------



## strung out (Aug 23, 2010)

incidentally, has anyone read Amaryllis Night and Day? that explores the idea of entering each other's dreams and creating alternative realities in them. it could have been the story of di caprio's character and his wife as they lost themselves in the dreamworld


----------



## Mation (Aug 23, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Saw it a second time last night - absolutely brilliant. A few little quibbles with some of the aesthetics, but for the most part a stunning piece of cimena that leaves your head spinning after you've seen it.


 it was absolute rubbish!


----------



## ChrisFilter (Aug 23, 2010)

Mation said:


> it was absolute rubbish!


 
Ah, the old faux-naif tactic when dissing other people's opinions. A classic!



It wasn't absolute rubbish. There are many absolutely rubbish films and that wasn't one of them.


----------



## strung out (Aug 23, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> i thought it was ok. not as groundbreaking or mind blowing as i had been led to believe by the hype.....


 
as much as i like to say how fucking rubbish i thought the film was, i think this is probably closer to the truth


----------



## Mation (Aug 23, 2010)

ChrisFilter said:


> Ah, the old faux-naif tactic when dissing other people's opinions. A classic!
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't absolute rubbish. There are many absolutely rubbish films and that wasn't one of them.


No - I genuinely don't understand it - the head-reeling part especially. I could understand if people just thought it was a good action movie or something (I didn't - not cataclysmic enough   - but I can see why people might have iyswim). 

The people I went with loved it too and I was absolutely baffled. No interesting ideas explored at all, just the suggestion that there might be an interesting idea plus "it was all a dream" cop-outness.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 23, 2010)

Gromit said:


> I think its a marvelous film but have to point out one continuity error.
> 
> They lived to a ripe old age in the first dream. But were young when he implanted the idea and they waited for the train.


I think they covered that when he was explaining it at the end (or somewhere near there, been a while since I saw it); you saw the same scenes he'd described, with them as young, but this time it was old people (remember in particular old hands being held on the train tracks).


----------



## magneze (Aug 23, 2010)

I really liked it. The story held together pretty well to I think. However, one thing really annoyed me. When they went into the 4th dream stage, why would the dead people be in that chaps subconcious?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Aug 23, 2010)

magneze said:


> I really liked it. The story held together pretty well to I think. However, one thing really annoyed me. When they went into the 4th dream stage, why would the dead people be in that chaps subconcious?


 
Yeah, I didn't get the shared subconscious bit. If it was limbo, as they said, wouldn't it be a limbo personal to each dreamer?


----------



## i_got_poison (Aug 23, 2010)

as much as i enjoyed the tragic love story protrayed by di caprio and cotillard. i could help but notice the flaws. i found the last scene between cobbs and mal, where cobbs has mal in his arms
and is bidding farewell to her, lacked the necessary gravitas to convey the emotional importance of the scene.. so much so, it almost descends into the realms of farce. the moment was saved, however, by ariadne (ellen page) staring forlornly at the lovers with such innocent concern for their plight, that she's able lend it authenticity.

i'm the sort of moviegoer who leaves their brain at the door and most of my expectation too. the fact i was aware of the above (from a personal perspective),
means the film provoked some emotional core of my being into rejecting certain aspects of this film.


----------



## AndyFilo (Aug 23, 2010)

It is the first film I've seen at the cinema for ages and I really enjoyed it. The score was brilliant as well.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2010)

maybe you should go to the flicks more often?


----------



## AndyFilo (Aug 23, 2010)

I like films but I'm not too bothered about the actual cinema-going experience itself.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2010)

you should be, it's wonderful imo.

proper magic


----------



## Gromit (Aug 23, 2010)

Some films aren't worth seeing in the cinema. You'll get much the same effect on your telly at home.

Some films however just have to be seen on the big screen to get the full impact. Preferably a hugeormouse IMAX screen.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 23, 2010)

Would have liked to have seen Inception at IMAX, especially as Nolan's such a fan of it, but it was a contest between £15 and free (Cineworld pass) so not much of a contest at all really.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 23, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Would have liked to have seen Inception at IMAX, especially as Nolan's such a fan of it, but it was a contest between £15 and free (Cineworld pass) so not much of a contest at all really.


 
Lightweight. I paid a return fare train ticket and that £15 to see Dark Knight at the BFI Imax.

Also a flight to Toronto and back to see Batman Begins in their Imax.

Now that we have our own (more modern) one in Cardiff i am spared much expense.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2010)

Gromit said:


> Lightweight. I paid a return fare train ticket and that £15 to see Dark Knight at the BFI Imax.
> 
> Also a flight to Toronto and back to see Batman Begins in their Imax.
> 
> Now that we have our own (more modern) one in Cardiff i am spared much expense.


i got a free ticket to the dark knight but i didn't go cos i thought it'd be shit


----------



## Gromit (Aug 23, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i got a free ticket to the dark knight but i didn't go cos i thought it'd be shit


 
How wrong you were. Best Batman film ever made imo.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2010)

i saw it on dvd and wasn't impressed. best batman film is the one with adam west.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 23, 2010)

Gromit said:


> Lightweight. I paid a return fare train ticket and that £15 to see Dark Knight at the BFI Imax.
> 
> Also a flight to Toronto and back to see Batman Begins in their Imax.


I saw Dark Knight three times, twice at the Imax, once as part of an all-night Batman marathon. I've paid my dues


----------



## AndyFilo (Aug 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you should be, it's wonderful imo.
> 
> proper magic


 
It's just one of those things I've never been sold on.

Live gigs/plays/sport are different because they are usually genuinely unique experiences but cinema is exactly the same thing you get at home but bigger and louder IMO.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2010)

apart from audience reaction - makes a big difference in horror and comedy films


----------



## AndyFilo (Aug 24, 2010)

Audience members can be an annoyance too though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2010)

it's only happened to me once


----------



## stereotypical (Aug 25, 2010)

Saw this today.  Really enjoyed.  Great cast and was very impressed with Dicaprio.  Essentially its a mainstream blockbuster with brains and yes there maybe will be abit too much exposition and lengthy seemingly unnecessary dialogue for some viewers but I thoughly enjoyed it.

There was a say 10 minute period when it could have gone either way for me (when they first enter the 3rd level) but it hit the right buttons and had me leaving the cinema impressed.

Need to see it again though


----------



## stereotypical (Aug 25, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Plus the snow scenes reminded me of "Metal Gear Solid" which is no bad thing.



Thats exactly what I thought when you see Cobb look throught his rifle sight at the guards, MGS all over it.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 21, 2011)

Just watched it again, found it quite boring this time round. Looking back think I was being charitable to say the least..!


----------



## Santino (Aug 21, 2011)

I think I've seen it 4 or 5 times now, I still like it.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 21, 2011)

Jesus I couldn't watch this again...there's just nothing worth watching again, no classic scenes etc...


----------



## 8den (Aug 21, 2011)

girasol said:


> It was driving me insane   so over the top and unnecessary, a lot of time. Sometimes a bit of silence, or even subtler music does wonders for suspense!


 
I saw this thread, and was reminded of this article, that shows you that there's a little more to the film score





> In recent days Internet denizens have gotten very excited about a viral video (posted above) that compares the Édith Piaf song “Non, je ne Regrette Rien” to Hans Zimmer’s score for the movie. When the video’s pseudonymous author, camiam321, plays the key musical cue from that score, two ominous blares from a brass section, followed by a slowed-down version of the Piaf song (which the “Inception” characters play at regular speed as a warning to wake up from a dream state), they sound nearly identical.
> 
> In a telephone interview Mr. Zimmer, a film composer and producer who won an Academy Award for his music for “The Lion King” and was nominated for films including “Rain Man” and “Gladiator,” said the sonic similarity was not only intentional but also the one element of an enigmatic movie “that wasn’t supposed to be a secret.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Utopia (Feb 26, 2013)

For the record.....Cobb's totem wasn't the spinning top thing, that was, as he says himself, Mal's(his wife's).  

Cobb's totem was actually his wedding ring, whenever he's dreaming he has his wedding ring on because, as he says, in his dreams they're still together.  

In the last scene when he spins the top.....he's not wearing the ring, hence thats his reality.


----------



## 89 Til Infinity (Feb 26, 2013)

Utopia said:


> For the record.....Cobb's totem wasn't the spinning top thing, that was, as he says himself, Mal's(his wife's).
> 
> Cobb's totem was actually his wedding ring, whenever he's dreaming he has his wedding ring on because, as he says, in his dreams they're still together.
> 
> In the last scene when he spins the top.....he's not wearing the ring, hence thats his reality.


 
if the wedding ring is only in dream scenes surely that means it is a dream object rather than his totem?


----------



## Utopia (Feb 26, 2013)

89 Til Infinity said:


> if the wedding ring is only in dream scenes surely that means it is a dream object rather than his totem?



AH......good point, well made!

Um.........


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 26, 2013)

Utopia said:


> ...In the last scene when he spins the top.....he's not wearing the ring, hence thats his reality.


In the last scene, where the top is spinning...he's not looking at it, he's looking at and walking towards his kids.   He has chosen it as his reality, whether it's real or not.


----------

