| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
NYC, USA
|
 Posted - 17/07/2010 : 18:44:05
|
NO SPOILERS
I'm sorry to report that I was let down, especially since I hate to throw stones at a real original, of which there are far too few made. But my brain was not big enough, nor ears sharp enough, to receive more than intermittent snatches of the plot once the "big operation" got under way about a third in. Incessant and incomprehensible yakety-yak, and the sound design is awful to boot. There was exactly *one* compelling visual effect. The movie's very last shot was great. If it becomes a blockbuster a la MATRIX 1 [another one I felt was hard to understand, but it did have the visuals], I'll be flabbergasted.
One other interesting occurrence: there was a trailer for something called DEVIL. People trapped in an elevator, very intense, superb editing. It looked great. Then came a full-screen card: FROM THE MIND OF M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN -- and the audience *laughed*! |
Edited by - randall on 17/07/2010 21:46:23 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 17/07/2010 : 18:49:49
|
Damn... I was really looking forward to seeing this.
Perhaps it's hoping to be a blockbuster by getting people to see it twice (second time to figure out what was said). |
 |
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
NYC, USA
|
Posted - 17/07/2010 : 21:43:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Damn... I was really looking forward to seeing this.
Perhaps it's hoping to be a blockbuster by getting people to see it twice (second time to figure out what was said).
You may have an entirely different opinion -- and to be fair, it gets points just for being original. I'm so sick of sequels, remakes and pre-sold comics or toys characters.
Note that I'm not saying it's *bad*, just a huge disappointment for me. I really was hoping to love it about three times more than I did. |
|
|
|
ci�nas
"hands down"
Brizzle
|
Posted - 17/07/2010 : 22:34:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
NO SPOILERS
I'm sorry to report that I was let down, especially since I hate to throw stones at a real original, of which there are far too few made. But my brain was not big enough, nor ears sharp enough, to receive more than intermittent snatches of the plot once the "big operation" got under way about a third in. Incessant and incomprehensible yakety-yak, and the sound design is awful to boot. There was exactly *one* compelling visual effect. The movie's very last shot was great. If it becomes a blockbuster a la MATRIX 1 [another one I felt was hard to understand, but it did have the visuals], I'll be flabbergasted.
I thought it was excellent: 5/5.
As you say, it�s genuinely original � not a sequel or remake or a reboot or based on a bloody computer game � which earns it a great deal of goodwill from me. Some of the dialogue is poorly rendered, sure enough, although I didn�t have a problem understanding it; the score is obtrusive at times; & it�s a bit too long. But I found it compelling throughout.
I too expected more in the way of visual effects, but didn�t feel let down at their absence. The movie�s greatest strength is its adherence to a highly imaginative yet rigorous internal logic, rarely the case with blockbusters & probably never the case with movies about dreams and alternative realities. For the plot to make sense, Nolan had to stick to his set of rules about what can happen & what can�t. This meant that the dreamscapes had to have a concrete realism about them that precluded the use of lots of special effects.
Of Nolan�s previous movies, Inception reminds me most of Memento. That has some similar themes (the nature of identity, imposing narratives on reality, &c) and it requires a similar level of concentration: you have to retain a lot of information as events progress in order to understand what�s going on. And, yes, it�ll be interesting to see if this, combined with so few special effects, will deter the multiplex popcorn-crunchers.
I could say more but I think the less you know about this movie beforehand, the better.
|
|
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 18/07/2010 : 01:25:56
|
| i think that, for years to come, it's going to be impossible to not compare any physics-defying action film to "The Matrix." in this case, "Inception" wins. i loved it, except for the incomprehensible psycho babble, another feature it shares with "The Matrix." |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 21/07/2010 : 13:58:11
|
PROBABLY SPOILERS - actually re-reading the other posts, this one has no spoilers.
It may be that the most original thing about this is its not always successful splicing of the Michael Bay/John Woo gene with the Charlie Kauffman DNA - particularly his helix of Synecdoche.
I know it feels like it's about dreams, but it's not about dreams. Dreams is a McGuffin. No Freud was harmed in the making of this motion picture. Though some dream imagery has been plundered.
It's really about architecture. About responsibility. About accepting responsibility for the architecture of your life as reinterpreted by you to reach points of understanding, and, equally as important, points of acceptance.
It's about how all our life experiences are constructed from the same - or similar enough - building blocks, which we continually examine and play with and add to throughout our conscious and unconscious time. There's a great Yiddish word - potchke. That, Nolan suggests, is what we do all the time. We fiddle about. We re-assess. We change the lighting. Change the temperature. Change the angle. We remember what it was like when ... anticipate what it's going to be like when ... We're pursued by, almost haunted by the relationships of our past. The most visceral ones. The ones that matter most. And we fit in others. Briefly significant others. Others we hardly notice until ...
Nolan wants us to examine those edifices we've created in which to enclose ourselves, to protect ourselves, to con ourselves ... and find the courage to let them crumble, to hang on to the solidity of grass, of impermeable snow, of the frightening predictability of the tides.
Over all this he imposes lotsa action and even more noise.
What he forgets is to provide enough human dimension to people whom we should care about and not just be fascinated by. In the end, his film of ideas seems to have carved no room for the heart.
Shame, because it's so brilliantly crafted.
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 22/07/2010 08:06:50 |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
Ireland
|
Posted - 21/07/2010 : 14:51:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by lamhasuasOf Nolan�s previous movies, Inception reminds me most of Memento.
I've already drawn this comparison in trying to describe the movie without spoiling the plot.
While somebody complained that Di Caprio has acted with better skill in other films what seems clear to me is all the roles here were limited as they just supported and filled the architecture of the complicated plot which is the real star here.
It may have borrowed from ideas I first saw in Ian M. Banks novels.
I enjoyed it to a point but never felt total empathy with the characters.
Plot and set piece will make me watch it again.
|
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 21/07/2010 : 17:03:02
|
| space holder |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 21/07/2010 : 17:04:34
|
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
BELOW
"Inception" is pretty manipulative. you forget that Cobb and his team are the bad guys. they're thieves, and are particularly malicious as they manipulate Murphy in his grief over his father's death to destroy his own company. did Nolan give us an inception?
i also thought Cobb should have had a stronger reaction to Ariadne sneaking into his dream. that seems like a horrible violation to me, like mental rape.
the way that time worked differently in different levels of dreaming was pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
United States
|
Posted - 21/07/2010 : 17:21:08
|
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
(and in view so you don't have to mouse over all of this)
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
While somebody complained that Di Caprio has acted with better skill in other films what seems clear to me is all the roles here were limited as they just supported and filled the architecture of the complicated plot which is the real star here.
What a terrific insight.
BIG TIME SPOILER (I think)
I don't know if all viewers caught this, but to discuss the Totem issue and possibly ruin even a second viewing for you...
The Totem is not Leo's! He says early on that it was her totem. I believe Leo's totem is his kids' faces. He refuses to look at them until he's actually "home".
Additionally, (and I don't remember this being asked within the film,) is it not possible that a totem could have been constructed within a level of the dream? How would you know, after all? Maybe she only took a dive in the dream world and became catatonic in real life, in which case he would be struggling with the issue of "letting go" just as much as with the loss shown in the film.
Bean, you definitely put a thought I wasn't conscious of into words. Sort of reminds me of the Avengers in that respect... terrific actors in search of a spark. I have high hopes for Joseph Gordon-Levitt. If you're in the right mood for it, "Brick" is a really nice piece of work in my opinion, and "The Lookout" is also a terrific performance by him. I actually thought he was well cast in Inception as Leo's technical, ass-kicking sidekick. The tension of the film seems to be built around his role.
They started going somewhere with Ellen Page, but once she was in the "big operation" to which Randall refers, I'm not actually sure what she was doing other than to be a nagging reality check for Leo.
Regarding Damalc's comment about Ariadne sneaking into his dream, I believe we're to conclude that it's not the real her. It's a product of his own subconscious mind and his inability to let go which is addressed in the final minutes of the film.
Last thought, the time differential was a bit nonsensical... I would have had the van descending a lot more slowly. It advanced a few feet in every clip, then was just shown 10 minutes later advancing from the same spot.
Just a note on the previews: If anything scares me more than the Devil at this point, it's M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN. I didn't see the Devil preview, but was treated to a commercial featuring a relation of MguyX.
|
Edited by - Sludge on 22/07/2010 17:54:39 |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 22/07/2010 : 20:34:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
PROBABLY SPOILERS - actually re-reading the other posts, this one has no spoilers.
It may be that the most original thing about this is its not always successful splicing of the Michael Bay/John Woo gene with the Charlie Kauffman DNA - particularly his helix of Synecdoche.
I know it feels like it's about dreams, but it's not about dreams. Dreams is a McGuffin. No Freud was harmed in the making of this motion picture. Though some dream imagery has been plundered.
It's really about architecture. About responsibility. About accepting responsibility for the architecture of your life as reinterpreted by you to reach points of understanding, and, equally as important, points of acceptance.
It's about how all our life experiences are constructed from the same - or similar enough - building blocks, which we continually examine and play with and add to throughout our conscious and unconscious time. There's a great Yiddish word - potchke. That, Nolan suggests, is what we do all the time. We fiddle about. We re-assess. We change the lighting. Change the temperature. Change the angle. We remember what it was like when ... anticipate what it's going to be like when ... We're pursued by, almost haunted by the relationships of our past. The most visceral ones. The ones that matter most. And we fit in others. Briefly significant others. Others we hardly notice until ...
Nolan wants us to examine those edifices we've created in which to enclose ourselves, to protect ourselves, to con ourselves ... and find the courage to let them crumble, to hang on to the solidity of grass, of impermeable snow, of the frightening predictability of the tides.
Over all this he imposes lotsa action and even more noise.
What he forgets is to provide enough human dimension to people whom we should care about and not just be fascinated by. In the end, his film of ideas seems to have carved no room for the heart.
Shame, because it's so brilliantly crafted.
BB gets it right. again.
after thinking about my recent post, i think i ignored something.
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
i said, i thought Cobb should have reacted more strongly to Ariadne invading his dream. but there was a strong reaction. Cobb's subconscious, in the form of Mal, tried to kill her. Cobb played it cool in the real world (?) because, i think, they needed Ariadne, but Cobb was really pissed.
|
Edited by - damalc on 22/07/2010 20:35:51 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
NYC, USA
|
Posted - 22/07/2010 : 22:58:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
[s]
It may be that the most original thing about this is its not always successful splicing of the Michael Bay/John Woo gene with the Charlie Kauffman DNA - particularly his helix of Synecdoche.
Um, HUH? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 23/07/2010 : 00:23:36
|
Just come out of this and gotta' say I thoroughly enjoyed it, despite the projector breaking down 1 minute into the film. I also appreciated Nolan's use of things we all understand about dreams ('the kicker' springs most to mind).
I can't really add much to what's already been said but I've a few ponderings on it I'd like to run by you guys...
Thinking back on it, can anyone verify if we ever saw Cobb/ Cobb's wife's totem actually stop spinning and fall over in Cobb's 'reality', i.e. not flashbacks to when his wife was alive? I don't remember seeing this, but I could have forgotten.
Also, is it possible that at the end when Cobb meets up with Saito again, instead of going out of the first level of dream/ up a dream, he's gone down into another dream? This occurred to me because we don't see what happens after Saito reaches for the gun and then Cobb wakes up on the plane as though he has no recollection how he got there (this being an established indicator you're in a dream). Perhaps Saito is so bonkers by this point he forces Cobb down with him further? |
|
|
|
Sludge
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
United States
|
Posted - 23/07/2010 : 17:37:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Just come out of this and gotta' say I thoroughly enjoyed it, despite the projector breaking down 1 minute into the film. I also appreciated Nolan's use of things we all understand about dreams ('the kicker' springs most to mind).
I can't really add much to what's already been said but I've a few ponderings on it I'd like to run by you guys...
Thinking back on it, can anyone verify if we ever saw Cobb/ Cobb's wife's totem actually stop spinning and fall over in Cobb's 'reality', i.e. not flashbacks to when his wife was alive? I don't remember seeing this, but I could have forgotten.
Also, is it possible that at the end when Cobb meets up with Saito again, instead of going out of the first level of dream/ up a dream, he's gone down into another dream? This occurred to me because we don't see what happens after Saito reaches for the gun and then Cobb wakes up on the plane as though he has no recollection how he got there (this being an established indicator you're in a dream). Perhaps Saito is so bonkers by this point he forces Cobb down with him further?
I was thinking one reason to view again is to pay more attention to Saito. There's more to this character. He's a business contact, so why would Leo use the argument that he should come back to his youth for their lifelong friendship? Just a thought.
I once took a scriptwriting class, and one of the first things the teacher warned us on was to avoid the cliche of story that turns out to have been a dream. I guess if you're going to do it you better do it right, because you're up against the Wizard of Oz (and everything else that has tried it).
|
|
|
|
Yukon 
"Co-editor of FWFR book"
Kingston, Canada
|
Posted - 27/07/2010 : 17:45:34
|
Just have to say Inception is one of the best films I've seen in a long time. 6/5 stars for me.
I know quite a few people who said they had problems following it.
The viewer has to juggle the plot on five levels: Reality, Dream Level 1, Dream Level 2, Dream Level 3, and Dream Level 4. If you miss one line a dialogue, you may miss a key point that renders the rest of the film completely confusing. So don't go to get popcorn and make sure you go to the bathroom BEFORE the movie begins or else you are in trouble.
This movie was 2.5 hours of intense thinking and I was amazed how Nolan juggled such a complex story. It nice to have a Hollywood blockbuster not treat the audience like idiots and give them a complex plot.
It's been a week since I saw the film and I'm still thinking about stuff I missed. Maybe it was all a dream -- the movie starts in a dream so we don't know how we got there....
|
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 28/07/2010 : 02:33:50
|
Same as Yukon... I loved it, with only minor reservations obliterated by the sheer level of detail and intelligence that went into constructing the film. It's hard to comprehend how hard it must have been to write properly - and one gripe is that it was just a little too complicated for too much of the time to be solidly entertaining. But... a class act through and through - I thought it was mind-bendingly bonkers and consistently exciting, and unlike Bean and Baffy I did find an emotional heart in Cobb's grief and guilt over Mal's death; her suicide was very effecting I thought, and in his primary goal to get back to his children. No one else has mentioned yet whether or not they thought he actually made it home or not, which is interesting as that seems to be the real talking point. I was talking to a friend tonight who totally missed the fact that the whole last scene could just be limbo and not reality, but I guess he missed the point about the spinning totem. Personally I don't think he made it back given the fact the children are wearing the same clothes and are in the same location in the same lighting state as from his memories. Also because Nolan decided not to end the film by showing the spinning top fall... but I'm open to other people's thoughts on it, because it's designed to be a talking point after all... 
On a side note I went with an actor friend who appeared in it so that was bizarre and fun too.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Inception
