Inception - Chris Nolan + Leo DiCaprio = best movie of the summer?

  On 7/23/2010 at 8:24 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 7/23/2010 at 5:54 PM, iamabe said:

I don't think inception successfully comments on relationships (mal/cobb is flawed and unconvincing) or anything deeper.

 

i won't call having this opinion illegitimate because it's a subjective experience of yours, however did you miss the entire titular plot in the movie? the part where they tried to fake an emotional catharsis in Cillian Murphy by changing the nature of his relationship with his father.

 

I just remember thinking the PRestige had an awesome premise, but a very badly paced and anti climactic unfolding of events. And no i don't think it's bad to have 'ass' in a movie, lol i just meant that why bash the shit out of Ellen Page specifically (are you saying she isnt hot enough? or you just dont like her at all), i didn't really find anything about her that obtrusive or distracting, unlike scarjo's horrible acting in the Prestige (notice again im not mentioning the way she looks, but how bad she was for other reasons in the movie)

no, you're right it's all pretty subjective. Ellen Page has some latent sass that irritates me. Notice, I never said she looks bad, just that her mannerisms bug me. I don't think Scarjo's acting is bad at all, but you're probably right that her looks help.

I'm on the fence about how this movie registers with me emotionally. On one hand, the catharsis Fischer has about his dad is powerful, because Cillain Murphy does a good job of wearing his misery on his face and you sense that what he gains from the inception actually is life changing. It seems like it heals him and helps him get over the disappointment his father expresses. As good as this revelation is though, Inception doesn't do much else in that department. Cobb is difficult to care about because he is headstrong and stubborn, and his relationship with Mal is portayed without any humor (which would help us care about the good relationship they lost). Most of the rest of the characters are supporting roles so it's fine that they aren't so emotionally involved, and for a crew of professional thieves i think it's expected that they be calm and cool. I don't fault the movie for those things. But it gets very heavy with the cobb/mal theme, which really seems to fall flat.

I'm seeing it a third time tonight to get a clearer idea of what I think.

(Spoilers and all that)

So, when I first saw the posters I thought, interesting but probably hollywood shit. Then my friends started raving about it. And I went to see it with big expectations. It started well, with all the multiple layers and stuff, but after that it turned into a mix between a Mission Impossible and Ocean's Eleven movie, with a bit of the Bourne identity's "major corporations" bit added for good measure, all set to a lucid/shared dreaming theme.

The whole finding the right people for this mission was a bit too predictable--I've seen it before in so many Mission Impossible flicks it's annoying. When Ellen Page came into the picture I thought it'd get interesting--someone more apt at whatever they're doing than DiCaprio. But after a bit of special effects with her and then with plenty of fight scenes you find out about his issues, which are fairly interesting, but his relationship with Mal and how he dealt with it was very disappointingly explored, especially as it was the engine of the film.

I mean, I was interested all the way through, and I enjoyed it, but really: this much hype? Two interesting but underdeveloped relationships, Fischer-his dad and Cob-Mal, and a lot of, at times mind-numbing, action followed up by some suspense at the end with the van and all that. And a bit of shared-dreaming added. Alright, probably would recommend, but it's hardly amazing, guise.

Maybe it's because I've seen Waking Life and Open Your Eyes (but not that version Tom Cruise made) that I didn't find this film stunning and all the rest.

Abres Los Ojos is fucking immense, to be fair.

Bye, again.

  On 7/23/2010 at 4:24 PM, blicero said:

  On 7/23/2010 at 10:47 AM, the anonymous forumite said:

On the dream topic, I would say I was disapointed at first by the unreality of them. Dreams are just not like that, so full of details and long dialogues and shit. On dreammaking abilities, David Lynch ranks so higher than this. Dreams are much more abstract and weirder than what is displayed in Inception. Nonetheless, you get used to it and just imagine it as a parallel reality and not as dream per se.

 

it's not about getting used to it. the point of dreams in the film were to simulate reality as much as possible, so that the mark wouldn't suspect they were actually in a dream. the dream sequences were intentionally realistic and not abstract so as to trick the mark. there were numerous scenes in which this specific issue was explained or discussed (i.e. when cobb and that architect chick are walking around and she starts making things too unrealistic, upsetting the subconscious of the host dreamer.

 

come on people. honestly.

I thought it was that the more they fucked with the dreams the more subconscious would feel its a foreign world and get angry(the realistic nature irrelevant right?)

A lot of people said oh the architects just made the worlds hyper realistic to fool the kid they are trying to fool in the dream world... but I thought it was the more they manipulated things the more foreign it would be to the subconscious from a regular randomish confusing glitched out dream. There for manipulating a normal glitched out dream world into hyper realism would require massive amounts of change to what the subconscious should be used to in a normal uncontrolled dream world.

Even in my most spectacular lucid dreams where the fidelity of my vision and the detail in the dream world seemed more beautiful than reality there was still all sorts of glitches going on.

I really don't think there's anyway to explain why the dreams looked so un-dreamlike in this flick besides not wanting to spend the money on the thousands of CGI effects shots it would require to make the dreams look like dreams.

  On 7/24/2010 at 1:22 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

 

I really don't think there's anyway to explain why the dreams looked so un-dreamlike in this flick besides not wanting to spend the money on the thousands of CGI effects shots it would require to make the dreams look like dreams.

No need for extra cash, just look at David Lynch.

I saw the movie and

It's his wife obvviously.

(have not seen the movie)

  On 7/23/2010 at 4:24 PM, blicero said:

  On 7/23/2010 at 10:47 AM, the anonymous forumite said:

On the dream topic, I would say I was disapointed at first by the unreality of them. Dreams are just not like that, so full of details and long dialogues and shit. On dreammaking abilities, David Lynch ranks so higher than this. Dreams are much more abstract and weirder than what is displayed in Inception. Nonetheless, you get used to it and just imagine it as a parallel reality and not as dream per se.

 

it's not about getting used to it. the point of dreams in the film were to simulate reality as much as possible, so that the mark wouldn't suspect they were actually in a dream. the dream sequences were intentionally realistic and not abstract so as to trick the mark. there were numerous scenes in which this specific issue was explained or discussed (i.e. when cobb and that architect chick are walking around and she starts making things too unrealistic, upsetting the subconscious of the host dreamer.

 

come on people. honestly.

your point makes the realism of the dreams even more ridiculous imo b/c if the dreamer does not realize he's in a dream how can we explain why he's acting perfectly normal, just as he would be if he were awake? you know, b/c he IS unconscious.

anyway, most of the dreamers were at some point aware that they were dreaming. and the best shit we get from that is gun battles.

i mean how the fuck are these people going in to dream worlds, creating dream worlds, and just acting like bad-asses, no personality changes whatsoever except maybe inexplicable skill with guns, explosives, operating various vehicles with precision in high-speed chases (i guess they learned this in matrix school or something)? fucking retarded.

edit: i spelled retarded wrong lol

so ?

  On 7/24/2010 at 5:14 PM, The Overlook said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkQ0C4qDvM

LOL, that's awesome. Don't know why I never realised that.

...dude

haha

If I cared more, the ending would piss me off the most. It's a blatant attempt at getting people to go 'omg, dreaming? not dreaming? what really happened??? let's discuss it!!!' Fuck you, Nolan.

jesus christ, it's far from a big deal

  On 7/24/2010 at 6:35 PM, inteeliguntdesign said:

If I cared more, the ending would piss me off the most. It's a blatant attempt at getting people to go 'omg, dreaming? not dreaming? what really happened??? let's discuss it!!!' Fuck you, Nolan.

Yeah?... like in 8 1/2 where it was all in black & white. FTS.

Also...just curious. Describe your favorite movie.

Wait.

It's Trash Humpers, innit?

  On 7/24/2010 at 8:55 PM, acknowledgeandproceed said:

  On 7/24/2010 at 6:35 PM, inteeliguntdesign said:

If I cared more, the ending would piss me off the most. It's a blatant attempt at getting people to go 'omg, dreaming? not dreaming? what really happened??? let's discuss it!!!' Fuck you, Nolan.

 

Yeah?... like in 8 1/2 where it was all in black & white. FTS.

 

 

Also...just curious. Describe your favorite movie.

 

Wait.

 

It's Trash Humpers, innit?

Wow, I had to look up Trash Humpers, 8 1/2 and FTS for this reply.

nice Posted Image

  On 7/22/2010 at 10:51 PM, Atop said:

I definitely don't think the writing of this film was as trite as you made it out to be...there were no facebook or focus group references, perhaps to friends in the film business whom he trusts opinions from, but none of that banal shit you made up, funny as it is...that didn't happen

 

and perhaps...

 

just a bit....

 

there is some jealousy going on....?

 

and you know I think you are good at this medium as well, so I am waiting for the day when I can say, "I kind of know this guy and isn't this film amazing?!?"

I don't throw that shit out there just to be funny. Casting is often not left up to the director. Even Christopher Nolan has bosses. He may have gotten away with casting Tom Hardy, an unknown, in exchange for putting Juno in his film. I dunno, it doesn't really matter. She wasn't horrible but I thought she was still miscast because, from my perspective, she completely failed to have any discernible gravitas in her scenes. Part of that is Nolan's writing, which renders characters into wooden, cliche-spitting automatons, or worse, characters that all end up sounding the same.

Writing is the only way Joseph Gordon-Levitt was allowed to be, gorgeous clothing aside, so boring and useless.

As for jealousy, I can see why you might suggest as much, but I don't think it's a valid argument. I respect the pressure that a filmmaker must be under to pull off a box office success with a $200 million budget staring them down. However, that doesn't mean I envy the type of films Nolan likes to make. We're very different, obviously. Since I was around 16, I dreamed of going to AFI to become a successful Hollywood director. Now, at 34, I applied last year and was accepted. After a lot of soul searching, I declined my spot to be a Directing fellow. I reasoned that in 2010, an investment of $150,000 to attend AFI was more or less the equivalent of spending a house mortgage (and one you can't live in) just for a chance to win the Hollywood lottery. My point in mentioning that little story is to highlight Nolan as a guy who's in an incredibly unique position. I actually admire him, but that shouldn't be confused with jealousy. He studied literature in London, made a few short films, then spent $6000 by working with friends to make a feature length film, Following. The success of that film paved the path for his career. That should be the model of how young filmmakers attempt to get started. I have a lot of friends who've gone to L.A. and worked as assistants, the equivalent of sucking dick at the bus station, just to get their shot at a shot at a shot in Hollywood. They're trained cinematographers, editors, directors, etc. and they haven't photographed, edited, or directed anything in years. What they should do is put together microbudgets and make shit. Doesn't matter if it sucks, doesn't matter if it's not Following. It's better to be the director of dogshit than to suck dick on a Hollywood prequel/sequel/remake.

Okay, that was quite the digression. Just because I critique, often negatively, so many movies, doesn't mean I'm jealous or bitter. I think the best filmmakers are the most literate and that means I watch tons and tons of TV and movies in an effort to be a better filmmaker. I slam a lot of shit that's just shit. I also just have very peculiar tastes. Then there's movies like Inception that I really don't care about one way or another outside of their relevance to pop culture. That's not because I'm arrogant; after all, who the fuck am I? I just think some shit is disposable. The criteria for evaluating Inception seems to shift a lot depending on who you're talking to. PBN said "best film of the summer" and it's impossible to argue with that. It's probably the best film of the last five summers. That being said, I'm completely annoyed with the recent comparisons of Nolan to Kubrick, which I find hilariously insulting. Best summer movie? Sure. Kubrick? Fuck you.

I agree

man you couldnt find one single thing you liked about? of course its not a perfect movie but you are making it out to sound a lot shitter than it was..

Ben: I agree that he is not Kubrick but he doesn't remind me of Kubrick in the least....

Great film makers have influences but eventually should remind of you of only themselves...

I think we can agree on that...

and I know you are picky, and the most fun person on here to discuss film with, for me at least...

because I feel like we respect each other enough to actually keep an intelligent dialogue going even if we don't agree, which we don't a lot....

Let's be the new Siskel and Ebert!

I'll play the one who likes too much shit and you can be the dead one!

  On 7/25/2010 at 1:02 AM, Atop said:

 

 

I'll play the one who likes too much shit and you can be the dead one!

lol!

we need more zombies hosting shows.....!

Just been to see it.

Holy cow, what a movie. Could have done with out all of the special effects and still been brilliant. Taken the idea of the matrix and got a little bit further but a little closer to reality. Best film I've seen in about 2 years.