Inception, A Spoiler-filled thread Options

[maian]

Juno and Edith Piaf are alright but they don't have much to do proving that - for all his smarts - Nolan still cannot write decent female characters at all. Quentin and Lars needs to sit him down and pass along some tips. It's kind of embarrassing how bad he is at 'teh girls'. Also, he has two incredibly talented and beautiful young ladies to work with. Why did he make them look so dull and plain - even? The man could make Monica Bellucci into 'average'.

I thought that Cotillard's character was actually quite interesting given that she is just a figment of his imagination, or at least a projection of how Cobb chooses to remember her. She doesn't need depth since she is a cipher for all of his guilt and obsession. As such, she's quite a compelling and terrifying character, or at least I found her to be. Ariadne isn't much more than an audience surrogate to take us inside the world of the film, and I thought that Ellen Page did a good job with what is a fairly thankless role.

I don't disagree that Nolan can't write for women - it's a problem that has dogged him ever since Following - but I thought that there were reasons within the story that justified their lack of depth.

Nolan is clearly not a lucid dreamer - his visuals are very very pedestrian indeed. Yes - lots of expensive hotels and suits and austere buildings and Escher references and those old fashioned Rocky Horror lifts. But why so brown and gold and grey - why does his work always look washed out and his production design so cheap? It looked very bland like something from a very slick Conde Nast publication. A 4 star hotel at Singapore airport. If this was Tarsem (the master at dreams on screen) or Del Toro or Gilliam (even Burton and Scott - although they were more vibrant back in the day) - how amazing would this movie be? Nolan is not a visionary. Films about dreams need this aspect. The stuff about Edith's house was interesting I suppose but the rest didn't come close to the world of dreams. Not by one iota.

I thought the visuals suited the story since it's not a film set in real dreams, but in man-made ones that have to appear real in order to trick the mark into thinking that they are awake. If the film was genuinely dreamlike, then its central premise would be endangered. It would also remove a lot of the ambiguity of the ending, since the lack of differentiation between reality and dreams - spinning corridors, folding cities aside - fuels a lot of the discussion about whether or not the film is all or partly a dream.

[Serafina_Pekkala]

I thought that Cotillard's character was actually quite interesting given that she is just a figment of his imagination, or at least a projection of how Cobb chooses to remember her. She doesn't need depth since she is a cipher for all of his guilt and obsession. As such, she's quite a compelling and terrifying character, or at least I found her to be.

I suppose that is one justification in this instance 'the projection cipher' plotline but boring and one dimensional are not excuses IMO. It has happens too often.

I don't disagree

Just write 'I agree', dude - over-complication of syntax is an academic habit one needs to shake. I find the lack of decent convincing female characters beyond banal stock characters to be laughable. Even Oliver Stone isn't this bad.

I thought the visuals suited the story since it's not a film set in real dreams, but in man-made ones that have to appear real in order to trick the mark into thinking that they are awake. If the film was genuinely dreamlike, then its central premise would be endangered. It would also remove a lot of the ambiguity of the ending, since the lack of differentiation between reality and dreams - spinning corridors, folding cities aside - fuels a lot of the discussion about whether or not the film is all or partly a dream.

No - I don't buy that. It's a sci-fi conceit used to disguise a massive hole in the directors technique - one he did too often for my liking. How can they trick the mark into thinking they are awake when the dreams are fantastical and beyond logic? Then they would know they are dreaming. I don't think that stands up to logic. Or I misunderstand you. I know what Nolan wanted to do and followed his plot but found the execution to lack flair. I had same issue with The Dark Knight.

Plus - I hate films that use this kind of logic as 'oh it's clever' as an excuse for 'no it doesn't make sense'. Not that this does but you know what I mean. It is a complex idea but usually, complex ideas can be told very simply (which he does do very often). I totally understood this part as with the dream within a dream - the hotel versus the Heroes of Tellemache power station ski place . That was well done. In terms of structure and pace - he is the best in his game.

I didn't actual dislike this movie BTW. I just found it a bit pedestrian in visuals and sometimes nonsensical in execution. I applaud that Nolan went all the way with his idea but just didn't think this was the best thing ever.

[logger]

Inception

I really liked it. Kind of like a bigger, better version of The Matrix, just with fewer, less spectacular action sequences, possibly the only thing the Wachowskis really get right. That said, the action set pieces in this are still very good. The film does have its flaws but they're not really big enough to spoil the fun and aren't really worth the scrutiny. Also like The Matrix it takes place in an environment where the only real limits are imagination, so you still end up wishing for something even more imaginative, with more levels (I did like the reveal of the Metal Gear Solid level though) and just more stuff, but what you do get is pretty good too. Obviously some of the critics have gone overboard, the comparisons to Kubrick are only slightly less ridiculous than the comparison of The Dark Knight to The Godfather was, but if you want to see a big, fun, not as dumb as the average action film then I heartily recommend this.

[logger]

I can now read what other people thought.

(played by the so-beautiful-she-makes-me-want-to-cry Marion Cotillard)

She is super gorgeous but seeing that mole on her forehead on the big screen has put me off a bit. After a while it was all I could see.

I think the whole 'it's up to you to decide!' ending was a massive cop-out. It should've stayed spinning and rendered the whole movie an epic tragedy, instead it felt a bit Disney. The entire cinema sighed when it ended, the kind of 'bit rubbish' sigh that the rest of the film didn't deserve.

I think it was all just a film. The thing about the audience really surprises me. I was lucky enough to have a screen to myself so have no idea what anybody else would have thought but I wouldn't have thought people would feel like that.

his visuals are very very pedestrian indeed.

I always get the feeling that he's playing it a bit safe (maybe not), probably the reason why he has been so successful. Whilst I've not really been a fan of his other films (although I thought Memento was pretty good for what it was and showed Nolan's potential) I'm glad he has been successful enough to get something like this made at a time when most big budgets are going to films based on old tv shows, toys, comic books and board games.

[Serafina_Pekkala]

I always get the feeling that he's playing it a bit safe (maybe not), probably the reason why he has been so successful. Whilst I've not really been a fan of his other films (although I thought Memento was pretty good for what it was and showed Nolan's potential) I'm glad he has been successful enough to get something like this made at a time when most big budgets are going to films based on old tv shows, toys, comic books and board games.

I agree. And he is being purposefully bland. The fact he made a blockbuster and isn't Michael Bay alone is worth applauding.

I didn't like The Matrix but found Inception to much better (despite appearing negative before) - just lacking in visual charisma and with some paper-thin characters. Someone like Gilliam (in The Fisher King) could knock out some wonderful imagery but he could never do a mainstream film like Nolan. Looking back, I think some aspects were bland on purpose - the corporate Gods asked for this and he delivered.

[logger]

I only think the Matrix is alright as a big, dumb sci fi action movie and wasn't blown away by it like so many others. Probably why I don't mind the sequels either.

[Raven]

I liked The Matrix, because it is one of the few films I have seen in the cinema in the last couple of decades that I knew nothing about when I went in, and I was consequently blown-away by it.

I don't mind Reloaded so much, but Revolutions went so far of message it disappeared up it's own bum hole.

[logger]

I first saw it at Glastonbury, and like you, didn't know anything about it. I didn't even know there was some kind of twist about what the matrix actually was, which was weird because it had been out for over a year at the time.

[Raven]

I saw it very late in it's run, and am surprised that I hadn't had it spoilered for me but the time I got around to seeing it.

The original is still in my top-ten-all-time-great science fiction movies.

[Hobbes]

The Matrix > Inception

Just sayin'.

Also did anyone else realise that the first constructed dream is supposed to be 2 weeks of dreamtime, yet the chemist manages to drive them around for pretty much the entire thing without getting shot/caught? I've only just thought of that, but what a gaper of a plothole that is.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Jul 27 2010, 08:57 PM

[logger]

Inception's soundtrack is clever than I thought.

Hans Zimmer confirms it here.

Also did anyone else realise that the first constructed dream is supposed to be 2 weeks of dreamtime, yet the chemist manages to drive them around for pretty much the entire thing without getting shot/caught? I've only just thought of that, but what a gaper of a plothole that is.

Wasn't that like the maximum amount of time or something? I can't really remember now.

[Serafina_Pekkala]

The music is a nice motif but any lucid dreamer will tell you that physical sensation is what wakes you up. Not music. Motion breaks the dream, Nolan.

[maian]

Wasn't that like the maximum amount of time or something? I can't really remember now.

Yeah, they establish that the maximum amount of time you could spend in the first dream is 2 weeks, the next one 6 months, and the last one 10 years. (Not a major spoiler, but I know people want to go in knowing as little as possible so I've hidden it)

The music is a nice motif but any lucid dreamer will tell you that physical sensation is what wakes you up. Not music. Motion breaks the dream, Nolan.

It is the motion that wakes them up. The music acts as a signal so that they know when to activate the kicks; the physical action that will end the dream.

This post has been edited by maian: Jul 28 2010, 10:04 AM

[dandan]

i'm seeing this tonight... as someone who is mocked for having painfully mundane dreams (preparation for re-sealing my bath is a recent classic), i'm sure i'll be blown away by the comparative wildness of these dream bits...

[Serafina_Pekkala]

I just kept thinking - "haha someone has taken acid then".