Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Inception
Spaced Out Forum > Media > Media
Pages: 1, 2
maian
So, I saw Inception. Here's the review I wrote for A Mighty Fine Blog:

QUOTE
Inception

During one of the many firefights that litter Christopher Nolan's Inception, Eames, played by Tom Hardy, says to Arthur, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, that he "shouldn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling", before using a grenade launcher to dispatch an enemy combatant that Arthur had been unable to kill with a machine gun. It seems that Nolan, who directed the film from his own script, took this advice to heart, because with this film he has definitely dreamed bigger.

Inception is a film of ideas, in that it is both driven by them and is set within them. It takes place within dreams, and dreams within dreams, as Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) the leader of a team of criminals who operate within the subconscious. Cobb's speciality is extraction - the theft of ideas by tricking targets into believing that the dream is real so that they will reveal their secrets. During one operation in which he and Arthur enter the mind of Saito (Ken Watanabe), Cobb and Arthur are undone by the presence of Cobb's ex-wife Mal. Upon waking, they discover that the operation was an audition, and that Saito wants Cobb to undertake a dream crime of his own; an inception - the implanting of an idea into a subject's mind.

Cobb begins to assemble his team. Along with Arthur, he enlists Eames, a 'forger' who is able to change his appearance in dreams in order to trick targets, Yusuf (Dileep Rao),a Chemist who will help them sedate the target long enough to allow the inception to take place, and Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect who is in change of constructing the dreamscapes within which the team's deception will take place. Ariadne also acts as the audience surrogate to whom the rules of dreams are explained. Sometimes the rules make sense, sometimes they don't (or explained so breathlessly that they seem not to - I'm still not 100% sure why sometimes it's fine for people to die in dreams, but in others it isn't) but it rarely matters. Nolan and his cast give us just enough of a sense of the peril of entering dreams to give their actions weight. We know that things can go wrong, and that if they do it could be disastrous for them.

As Cobb, Leonardo DiCaprio continues a recent trend in his career of playing essentially good men with profound psychological damage. Much like his character in Shutter Island, he is haunted by a past and a family life that continues to haunt him, somewhat literally, as the spectre of his wife (played by the so-beautiful-she-makes-me-want-to-cry Marion Cotillard) keeps breaking out of his subconscious and manifesting herself in ones in which he is trying to commit crimes. The relationship between the two is hazy, which is only appropriate considering that it is shown only in flashbacks to half-remembered dreams, but is does develop a cumulative power as the film goes on, ultimately delivering a powerful kick when the depths of Cobb's sadness is revealed and we come to understand where his guilt and desire to go home stem from. Without this, the film could very well have ended up being merely an ice sculpture; exquisitely constructed, but cold.

At its heart, Inception is a marriage between the free-wheeling imagination of dreams and the precisely constructed world of puzzles. This would seem to be an impossible task, since dreams are by their very nature devoid of the kind of logical structure that a good puzzle needs. In dreams, a Rubik's Cube could become a Rubik's Tesseract, and you could solve it not by turning the sides, but by feeding it to a swan. The film reaches an elegant solution to this problem with its conceit of having dreamworlds that must be as realistic as possible in order to fool the targets into not realising that they are asleep. I had a problem with this conceit for much of the film since it seemed like a straitjacket that it was always straining against; it's set in dreams, so anything can happen, but the dreams have to be as real as possible, so it can't.

However, this conceit makes sense when you realise that it makes the moments when the film breaks loose all the more spectacular. An early scene in a cafe, during which Ariadne suddenly becomes aware that she is in a dream and which ends with the dream world exploding spectacularly around her, would be far less effective if that was such spectacle was the norm. It would also make the jaw-dropping scene in which Arthur battles goons in a corridor that is constantly spinning around (a scene which, in the best Irwin Allen tradition, was done using real revolving sets) would seem commonplace, rather than being possibly the most astounding piece of action cinema of the last ten years.

The real triumph of the film, though, is the ease with which it makes sense of its plot, which takes place not only within the architecture of the mind, but within the architecture of that architecture. As part of the inception, Cobb and his team not only have to build a dream world for the target to lose himself in, but dreams within that dream as well. The story then gets increasingly complex as different events occur on different levels of existence and thought, with each operating at a different speed to the others (for example, ten seconds at one level is equivalent to three minutes at another, an hour at the next, and ten years at another). Done badly, this would be an incomprehensible mess, but Nolan and his editors deliver the story in a way which makes sense and is viscerally exciting. We watch as three separate timelines converge for a simultaneous climax, as the characters battle time, physics and crumbling psychic architecture to complete their task and get out alive. It's a completely cinematic finale in that it could not be done in any other medium, so reliant is it on the ability of the edit to contract or expand time.

Characters existing at different levels of reality, unsure of what is real or not, reminded me of Philip K. Dick's novel Ubik, a book which also deals with reality, identity and multiple plains of existence and has famously resisted adaptation for being completely insane. Inception is a much simpler proposition than Ubik, even with its byzantine construction, because it is an action film first and philosophical treatise second, but it's no less impressive an achievement for it. It's the sort of film that you could only make if your last film was one of the most successful of all time. It's a bold, ambitious film that refuses to hold your hand as it takes you further down the rabbit hole, then makes you wonder if rabbit holes even exist. It's a dream that does not disappear on waking, but lingers and clouds your vision, making you wonder, "What if?" It's dazzling. Simply dazzling.


So, yeah. I liked it.
Sean of the Dead
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 19 2010, 01:13 PM) *
I'm still not 100% sure why sometimes it's fine for people to die in dreams, but in others it isn't

It's fine to die in a dream provided you aren't on sedatives, as there is nothing forcing you to stay asleep. If you die when sedated, it is not possible for you to wake up and so you fall deeper into the layers of the subconscious. I think that's why.

I thought it was really, really brilliant, but my opinion doesn't really count for anything as I am eighteen years old and am easily excited by loud noises and shapes and colours - all of which were featured.
maian
QUOTE (Sean of the Dead @ Jul 19 2010, 02:22 PM) *
It's fine to die in a dream provided you aren't on sedatives, as there is nothing forcing you to stay asleep. If you die when sedated, it is not possible for you to wake up and so you fall deeper into the layers of the subconscious. I think that's why.


I thought it was something like that, but I couldn't remember the exact rationale. I'm seeing it again tonight (I had originally planned to watch it only tonight with my friend Michaela, but my sister was visiting and we decided to go and watch it yesterday) so I'll hopefully be able to pick up on some of the stuff I missed the first time around.
monkeyman
Nice review maian, that's made me want to see Inception even more.
I noticed a little typo you might want you correct if this is a direct copy of the review posted on your blog smile.gif

QUOTE
As Cobb, Leonardo DiCaprio continues a recent trend in his career of playing essentially good men with profound psychological damage. Much like his character in Shutter Island, he is haunted by a past and a family life that continues to haunt him, somewhat literally, as the spectre of his wife (played by the so-beautiful-she-makes-me-want-to-cry Marion Cotillard) keeps breaking out of his subconscious and manifesting herself in ones in which he is trying to commit crimes. The relationship between the two is hazy, which is only appropriate considering that it is shown only in flashbacks to half-remembered dreams, but is does develop a cumulative power as the film goes on, ultimately delivering a powerful kick when the depths of Cobb's sadness is revealed and we come to understand where his guilt and desire to go home stem from. Without this, the film could very well have ended up being merely an ice sculpture; exquisitely constructed, but cold.
maian
Bah, one (or several) always sneaks through!

Thanks for the kind words, Chris.
Everlong
QUOTE (monkeyman @ Jul 19 2010, 03:42 PM) *
that's made me want to see Inception even more.


Ditto. Must see it.
sweetbutinsane
QUOTE (monkeyman @ Jul 19 2010, 03:42 PM) *
Nice review maian, that's made me want to see Inception even more.
QUOTE (Everlong @ Jul 19 2010, 04:04 PM) *
Ditto. Must see it.


I was looking forward to seeing it tomorrow, but I'm being forced to go away in the caravan instead and now have to wait until next Tuesday. *grumble*
maian
Inception was just as good the second time around. It was both colder, since I was better able to see which parts were pieces of the puzzle and how they had fit together, and warmer, since I had a greater sense of who Cobb was and what was driving him.
sweetbutinsane
QUOTE (sweetbutinsane @ Jul 19 2010, 04:52 PM) *
I was looking forward to seeing it tomorrow, but I'm being forced to go away in the caravan instead and now have to wait until next Tuesday. *grumble*


Long story short, we are now going away tomorrow instead. So...

Inception

Simply loved it.
Sean of the Dead
QUOTE (Hobbes @ Jul 23 2010, 06:06 PM) *
Inception is really good, mind, but it's got a few problems with it (namely, they never addressed how/why they were all James Bond-ian in their invulnerability/aptitude with assorted weaponry).

Because they were professional thieves and presumably went through training in both the real world and within dreams? Certainly, Jack from Titanic showed himself to be adept in both worlds when he escaped from Cobol in Mombasa. Conversely, Juno didn't show any real aptitude beyond shooting Édith Piaf because she was an architecture student who has had no combat training.

I've spent a lot of this week discussing and trying to fill in possible plot holes of Inception, but that just means the fun lives on.
Hobbes
QUOTE (Sean of the Dead @ Jul 23 2010, 06:27 PM) *
Because they were professional thieves and presumably went through training in both the real world and within dreams? Certainly, Jack from Titanic showed himself to be adept in both worlds when he escaped from Cobol in Mombasa. Conversely, Juno didn't show any real aptitude beyond shooting Édith Piaf because she was an architecture student who has had no combat training.

I've spent a lot of this week discussing and trying to fill in possible plot holes of Inception, but that just means the fun lives on.


Yeah, but then why were his kids exactly the same age as he remembers them being, when he's supposedly been on the run/getting good at this job for so long? Surely if he's now the best at 'extracting' in the world it would've taken more than a couple of months to get there?
maian
QUOTE (Hobbes @ Jul 23 2010, 09:02 PM) *
Yeah, but then why were his kids exactly the same age as he remembers them being, when he's supposedly been on the run/getting good at this job for so long? Surely if he's now the best at 'extracting' in the world it would've taken more than a couple of months to get there?

One theory about the film says that the ending is a dream, so the kids being the same age as the last time he say then reflects the fact that he is trapped in a memory, unable to escape.
Hobbes
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 23 2010, 09:31 PM) *
One theory about the film says that the ending is a dream, so the kids being the same age as the last time he say then reflects the fact that he is trapped in a memory, unable to escape.


Yeah I guess that sort of covers it up a bit, but it's still a fairly sizeable leap of faith to take, especially when you consider that when he spins the top in a dream, it's in perpetual motion and doesn't waver at all, and perpetual motion is defined by consistency of movement. If they'd wanted to make that the point, then having it wobble is silly, since its imbalance is caused by normal gravity.

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.

The more I think about that finale, the more it annoys me. Really sweeps the legs out from under the film...
Shack
QUOTE (Hobbes @ Jul 23 2010, 10:31 PM) *
Yeah I guess that sort of covers it up a bit, but it's still a fairly sizeable leap of faith to take, especially when you consider that when he spins the top in a dream, it's in perpetual motion and doesn't waver at all, and perpetual motion is defined by consistency of movement. If they'd wanted to make that the point, then having it wobble is silly, since its imbalance is caused by normal gravity.

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.

The more I think about that finale, the more it annoys me. Really sweeps the legs out from under the film...


Inception

Having watched it this afternoon, I feel a little bit like you did. The main problem with having a film about dreams is that you can always stump up for the "it was all a dream" ending. I'm not sure if that's a problem with how Nolan handled it or a problem with JR Ewing for getting out of the shower.

Overall, I thought it was pretty good. Ellen Page is delightful, Joseph Gordon-Levitt a growing screen star and Tom Hardy a terrific presence. It held my attention very well, moved fairly quickly for two and half hours of film and was enjoyable as well.

My only real gripe is that some of the twists nearing the end are fairly telegraphed and I didn't really like the Mal character.

I also think the BFG did it.

Serafina_Pekkala
QUOTE (Sean of the Dead @ Jul 23 2010, 06:27 PM) *
Because they were professional thieves and presumably went through training in both the real world and within dreams? Certainly, Jack from Titanic showed himself to be adept in both worlds when he escaped from Cobol in Mombasa. Conversely, Juno didn't show any real aptitude beyond shooting Édith Piaf because she was an architecture student who has had no combat training.

I've spent a lot of this week discussing and trying to fill in possible plot holes of Inception, but that just means the fun lives on.


I also note the holes. And quote the above because it's classic Seany and made me lol like a cat.

I'd also like to add that Bronson, Ra's Al Ghul, The Scarecrow and Tommy from Third Rock are charismatic sons-o-bitches and raise the acting bar very high indeed. As Lord Flashheart would say - "woof" - the only word to describe. Also nice to see Sgt Barnes from Platoon back on screen. And Alfred - again, stealing the show. Jack from Titanic isnae bad - I personally don't like the actor but he is talented and works as a lead. In fact, I may be warming to him after all.

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'.

As a lucid dreamer (thanks to narcolepsy) - it was interesting for me to watch this movie. 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.

Saying that - I liked the film but was not overwhelmed by it. Nolan (as with Michael Haneke) is very cerebral and a master at pace & structure & dialogue. The word 'architecture' is used a lot - and this describes it entirely. He can draw and plot and impress with his engineering and inventiveness - but it is still an empty building. All very distant and lacked heart. I didn't feel for any of these characters aside the Scarecrow (and then not really, only because the acting was good). However - the fact that the narrative was so challenging and done on this scale is admirable, even if the movie lacked any real flair. The holes in the plot (of which there are many) didn't bother me so much.
maian
QUOTE (Serafina_Pekkala @ Jul 26 2010, 10:34 AM) *
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.

QUOTE (Serafina_Pekkala @ Jul 26 2010, 10:34 AM) *
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
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 26 2010, 06:11 PM) *
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.

QUOTE
I don't disagree


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

QUOTE
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.

QUOTE
(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.

QUOTE (Hobbes @ Jul 23 2010, 10:31 PM) *
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. tongue.gif 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.

QUOTE (Serafina_Pekkala @ Jul 26 2010, 10:34 AM) *
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
QUOTE (logger @ Jul 27 2010, 02:17 PM) *
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.
logger
Inception's soundtrack is clever than I thought.

Hans Zimmer confirms it here.

QUOTE (Hobbes @ Jul 27 2010, 09:52 PM) *
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
QUOTE (logger @ Jul 27 2010, 10:12 PM) *
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)

QUOTE
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.
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".
logger
The first time I heard MIA's Bucky Done Gun was in a dream, seeping in from the radio that was on as I slept. It was so good it woke me up
maian
Very thorough article about Inception.

The plot summary stuff can be skipped, but the Q & A at the end is quite interesting.

Needless to say, don't read it if you haven't watched the film.
Serafina_Pekkala
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 28 2010, 12:22 PM) *
Needless to say, don't read it if you haven't watched the film.


It's also very thorough - I stopped reading after a few paragraphs. Not for reading after excel sheets. smile.gif

And for the motion thing - well, that wasn't clear. And it still isn't quite right. We will just have to agree to disagree, mate.
maian
Here's a dedicated thread for discussion of Christopher Nolan's Inception by anyone who has seen it so that we don't clog up Cinemexperience too much with blocks of black spoiler tags. As such, you don't need to use spoiler tags, but anyone who wanders in who hasn't seen it should be wary of having it ruined.
logger
QUOTE (maian @ Jul 28 2010, 12:22 PM) *

I haven't read the article, I don't have time just yet, but I did see the headline and have heard of people being confused by it. I find it surprising as I didn't have any problem what so ever following it. Everything is explained almost to the point of becoming annoying, the plot is fairly straightforward within the context of the film and it's not like things happen that are so out of left field that you wouldn't know what was going on. Is this "confusion" just a media thing or are people really having difficulties with it?
maian
I certainly wasn't confused, but there were details that escaped me on the first viewing - such as the specific reason why people could get stuck in limbo if they died in dreams - but the big picture was clear, even if the finer points required a second viewing to come into focus. I could understand people being confused by the ending, or at least frustrated by it, though.
sweetbutinsane
QUOTE (logger @ Jul 27 2010, 10:12 PM) *


Wow, that is really clever.

I love Zimmer. smile.gif
Outatime
I thought the ending was a bit of a cop out, but I thought it was the only way they would end it. I was a bit disappointed that Joseph Gordon-Levitt wasn't really used to his full potential but on the whole I enjoyed it.
Serafina_Pekkala
QUOTE (Outatime @ Jul 29 2010, 08:27 AM) *
I thought the ending was a bit of a cop out, but I thought it was the only way they would end it. I was a bit disappointed that Joseph Gordon-Levitt wasn't really used to his full potential but on the whole I enjoyed it.


I agree with this lady.
ipse dixit
I didn't dislike anything about it. I thought it was pretty, fun, exciting and entertaining. And really rather neat and straightforward, I don't get all these 'mind-bending' and 'confusing' tags in the media hype.


Blimey, people love to analyse, don't they... linky

I'd still like to think that it begins and ends in reality.
m0r1arty
QUOTE (ipse dixit @ Aug 2 2010, 10:10 AM) *
I'd still like to think that it begins and ends in reality.


Yeah but the fact that there was a blue sky on Mars at the end makes you think eh?

...Sorry wrong film.

-m0r
maian
QUOTE (ipse dixit @ Aug 2 2010, 10:10 AM) *
I'd still like to think that it begins and ends in reality.

I'm definitely on that side of the argument, but I admire how Nolan creates enough of a sense of doubt about it to get people talking.
logger
I was thinking about this after reading that the children are wearing different clothes at the end than at any other time during the film. The important thing isn't whether we see if the totem stops spinning but that Leo no longer bothers to check.

In other news,



maian
Looking back over this thread, I realised that no one's really discussed the ending of the film in box major detail, which seems a bit odd given the nature of the ending, which is meant to generate discussion.

I'll go first. I don't think the ending of the film is a dream, or that Cobb is still stuck in limbo or anything like that. Obviously, I can see that is a possibility, but my gut reaction when watching the film was that it wasn't all a dream. Part of it was, of course, but not the part with the spinning top at the end.

I also agree with the argument that whether or not it is a dream is less important than the fact the Cobb walks away from the table without checking the top, since it means that he has reache a point where reality no longer matters to him.
Shack
QUOTE (maian @ Aug 13 2010, 10:09 AM) *
I'll go first. I don't think the ending of the film is a dream, or that Cobb is still stuck in limbo or anything like that. Obviously, I can see that is a possibility, but my gut reaction when watching the film was that it wasn't all a dream. Part of it was, of course, but not the part with the spinning top at the end.


I think this. I had exactly the same gut reaction.

I thinking it was the building and then unpeeling of the layers of each level that led me to this conclusion as well.
Zoe
I thought it was all a dream (all Cobb's dream) that's the only way it made any sense to me.

I also don't know how the ending couldn't be a dream, unless Cobb's children and father never change their clothes. And his kids just happen to be sat in the exact same position in his garden as they have been in every one of his dreams.
maian
I think they're more part of Nolan's intent to create ambiguity in the scene, rather than an out and out sign that it's a dream. In that context, the fact that he finally sees his childrens' faces, which he could never see in his memories, is more important.

Also, I think Logger said that the kids are wearing different clothes at the end, but I'd have to watch it again to see if that's the case. (We've just started showing at work this week, so I'll probably check it out this week.)
Zoe
I haven't come across anyone who agrees with me! I don't think I watched it right...

Though I was totally convinced!

Also, he would be able to remember his kids faces. I thought him seeing them in the dream, was him convincing himself it wasn't a dream, when it obviously was, if you see what I mean. Unless his kids thought it would be a wheeze to recreate the exact moment he was forced to leave them.
logger
QUOTE (maian @ Aug 13 2010, 12:58 PM) *
Also, I think Logger said that the kids are wearing different clothes at the end, but I'd have to watch it again to see if that's the case. (We've just started showing at work this week, so I'll probably check it out this week.)

I'm only going on what the costume designer said

I'm not really bothered either way.
beatoswald
This film was ok to near good. The ideas were banal. It looked like a watch advert. It only gets fun when Tom Hardy shows up. The snow level didn't work. If the sequence can be excused for being slap-dash and unconvincing because it is a dream then it needs to have some sort of further interest. The amount of effort that has clearly gone into making such a shallow film creates an air of farce. I enjoyed the film while being disappointed at its mundanity.

One little thing that I was left wondering about was why couldn't Cobb take his kids with him when he fled? When offered the tickets he is sitting in his house, presumably during a lull in judical proceedings. His powerful friends or employer (the army?) could easily get two more people out the country.

Regarding the end I think that all the film was a dream taking place in the head of Roman Polanski (the clues are there) but the film didn't give me any reason to care either way.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.