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

I thought this film made the matrix look like a kindergarden movie. It's not like a really great movie, but Hollywood-wise it kicks ass.

It's really good, not quite brilliant, but it definitely fills that Matrix niche more than any other film I've seen in the last 10 years.

Can't believe I made it through all 24 pages of this thread. Some good discussion and reviews linked here. For my money, in a nutshell:

A good film for a mainstream big budget 'blockbuster' but its flaws make it soulless, unrewarding and long.

Although this review has kind of changed my mind and I think it is probably a great movi http://chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html

My original opinion of the movie was partly influenced by (SPOILER) thinking that Leonardo Dicaprio's character is awake in the end.

  On 7/25/2010 at 2:56 PM, Space Coyote said:

Although this review has kind of changed my mind and I think it is probably a great movie http://chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html

I think someone else posted this before in the thread but this is the first time I have read it. It definitely is an intelligent perspective into the infrastructure of the film. Pretty cool.

  On 7/25/2010 at 12:10 AM, The Overlook said:

Best summer movie? Sure. Kubrick? Fuck you.

spot on

  On 7/25/2010 at 12:10 AM, The Overlook said:

Eyes Wide Shut - Nicole Kidman naked? Sure. Kubrick? Fuck you.

I was thinking about the criticism fielded here (and elsewhere) about the dreams not being strange enough, but I kind of think that's missing the point a little.

I know that the subconcious is a very mysterious place, and it is there where perhaps stranger images/ideas could potentially have been explored. However, the idea central to the premise of the movie is that the target of extraction/inception is unaware that he/she is dreaming, so it makes perfect sense that the dreams aren't far out. Perhaps it also goes some to explain why the subconcious is the way that it is in this film; as the dreams try to ape reality as much as possible, the subconcious part of the dreamers mirror this, and thus we have exaggerated cityscapes as the limbo state is slightly beholden to these parameters?

Maybe if the dreams used in the film for extraction/inception had been trippier in nature, then we may have had a truly wierd limbo state?

I Thought it was a great hollywood film, better than most of the brainless crap thats released these days.

Some parts of the film made me feel a bit nervous, especially the whole sequence where the minibus is falling back off the bridge and they are waiting for the series of kicks to come in - it was a great build of tension but I cant quite explain why I had this strange feeling.

Wasnt as fucked up as I thought it would be, lots of people were saying its very confusing but I found the whole dreams within dreams thing quite simple to follow really.

I hope there is NO sequel. Hollywood needs to learn when to leave great movies alone.

i think those defending the pedestrian quality of dreams by reminding us that the architects have made them that way in order to trick the dreamer into thinking they're awake are overlooking two major issues with this interpretation. first off, as i already mentioned, this defense does nothing to explain how the duped dreamers behave just like they would if they were awake with no dissociation whatsoever in their personalities even when they realize they are dreaming. this is ridiculous, at the very least viewers should be offered a glimpse into the strange nature of their experience even if they "don't know they're dreaming" -- ffs, who the fuck knows they're dreaming???? so, dreams are only weird if we know we're dreaming, otherwise it's just like waking life? come on people, let's think about that one... secondly, there are scenes of reality-bending dream imagery in this film...and these scenes are boring, unimaginative and often simply serve as backdrops to action or masturbatory displays of cool explosions n shit.

so yeah, best ever movie.

lol @ alcofribas post.

seeing inception a third time didnt make me like it any more.

still, I am somehow fascinated by the movie if I would go and see it three times.

i failed to enjoy this movie. could have been an hour shorter if they removed half of the repeated scenes of the fucking bus falling off the bridge and the guy floating around in the lift.

  On 7/27/2010 at 11:40 AM, Eggs said:

that timeline picture is cool man.

  On 7/26/2010 at 6:59 PM, margaret thatcher said:

i failed to enjoy this movie. could have been an hour shorter if they removed half of the repeated scenes of the fucking bus falling off the bridge and the guy floating around in the lift.

are you kidding? I loved those scenes. that's the first time I've seen zero gravity done in a way I really enjoyed.

saw this last night. so much meh.

as some wrote before me, i too was bothered very much by how soulless, emotionless and shallow (in terms of characters) it turned out.

pure mathematical workout. and not even particularly clever.

i see how most of you film lovers around here bash memento. well, i think these two can be compared easily and i feel memento was so much better than this.

like inception, memento also explored the self-deception motive, but it managed to keep the very personal relationship between the viewer and the main character. cobb's character is really poorly presented. a personless shell.

the mangled timeline was more original in memento and at least it served the narrative some purpose. but most of all, memento actually made me care about the main character. confused, lost, manipulated. but he still maintained a persona, even though he lost (quite literary) his self. i guess the director pulled this off by focusing on fewer characters, but mainly - he gave much "alone" time to the viewer with the main character.

simply put, it worked. for me, at least. i don't want to get into memento that much really.

i won't even start about the potential of a high-budget movie depicting dreams. but yeah, a disappointment.

inception was a blur of fast paced action, ridiculous edits and a bunch of *shallow*, unmemorable characters.

Ok, so, watched this Sunday and wanted some time to let it sit before I responded to this thread. Interesting how polarizing this film seems - some people seem to hate it and feel like it was soulless, while others felt a connection to the characters and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I felt a much stronger connection to this film than memento, even though, at least on the surface, Memento has a more immediate chance of connecting the viewer to the subject. I think this might partly be because, while Inception has a lot of characters to process, Memento is very focused on the protagonist. Everyone else (though the same is could be said in Inception) is ancillary, and the protagonist's plight is very sympathetic, and understandable. The issues with Cobb are much more complex, in my opinion, particularly because much of the film can be read allegorically, or metaphorically. The environment and characters themselves could all be different aspects of the main character, which, I feel, provides a certain complexity and depth missing in Memento. Of course, it's all about your personal reaction, right? So, I don't hate on people who don't like the movie - everyone has their opinion and personal reaction to a film, at the very least on an emotional level, and this is equally valid, right?

Anyway, much like the film suggests that an idea is the most viral thing that exists, the ideas of this film have continued to affect my mind/life both in the waking and sleeping world. My dreams over the past two days have been intense, and memorable, and more complex than usual. In addition, my perception of reality has been affected, partly because I'm allowing myself to look at the world around me as a dream and, ironically, become more engaged because of this. It's the whole "what if?" factor - "what if this is really all just a dream - what does this landscape mean in that context?" It's fun, if naught else.

As a film, I can really find little fault with it. If it was JUST a heist film, it would be a great one on its own. I keep thinking about these "mundane" details, like when the soldier guys are getting slammed between two cars. When watching the movie, I was thinking, "oh it's a dream so this is totally realistic." If i had seen some of these scenes in a traditional heist film I would be like, "OMFG did you see that shit?! It looked so real!!!"

It totally worked for me - there was maybe one moment in the film where I didn't find a character's reaction believable, and the casting, even of the minor characters, was spot on. The film's pacing was what it should be, and it threw enough at my mind to keep me thinking the whole time, but also moved along quick enough that I was engaged even while I was trying to parse what level of reality I was dealing with.

*shrugs*

So, there you go - like most things, everyone's got their opinion. I feel like the movie did for me what it was supposed to - entertained, engaged me on a mental and emotional level, and has spurned further thoughts about the movie long after it's over. Easily my favorite film of the last few years. Perhaps even will be in the top ten ever, but will need repeat viewings.

PS Goldeneye snow level. Fuck yeah.

^^ fair enough.

oh, and btw - i fucking hate that Joseph-Gordon Levitt wanker and i think Ellen Page is cute as fuck. no, i didn't like Juno.

I enjoyed this movie, but I totally agree with the soulless comments. The editing was so quick and face paced that we have no time to make a connection with the characters. The editing was so quick that everything, especially the dialog, felt very rushed. There is no space or breathing room, except in scenes with him and his wife. I also believe the editing pace also kills the "surreal factor" many of you were looking for.

I think the Nolan over-reaches here, as he did with the Dark Knight. He wants to do too many things in too short of time and the pacing of the film really suffers. Things get muddy and cluttered. This doesn't mean I couldn't follow the movie, it just was messy.

With that said it was an awesome summer movie. I enjoyed it and look forward to seeing it again. Many edge-of-your-seat moments, but make no mistake... this is no Matrix like people are saying.

just one question - and i'm not winding you up, deepex - what exactly is "a summer movie"? i keep hearing that phrase in relation to Inception...

can a movie critique/opinion really benefit from such a narrow context? why do we keep coming up with this excuse?

mr nolan proudly presented us his work of 10 years, surely a very important movie to him. i don't think it's fair to judge it by the same criteria as eg Predators.

  On 7/27/2010 at 8:22 PM, kokoon said:

just one question - and i'm not winding you up, deepex - what exactly is "a summer movie"? i keep hearing that phrase in relation to Inception...

 

can a movie critique/opinion really benefit from such a narrow context? why do we keep coming up with this excuse?

mr nolan proudly presented us his work of 10 years, surely a very important movie to him. i don't think it's fair to judge it by the same criteria as eg Predators.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

although predators was more fun

 

i think of a "summer movie" as a film released to a shitload of theaters during the summer, by a major studio, that has a ton of special effects. i think you could classify 'inception' as such. thats its immediate context anyway. itll change as time moves on..

  On 7/26/2010 at 6:59 PM, margaret thatcher said:

i failed to enjoy this movie. could have been an hour shorter if they removed half of the repeated scenes of the fucking bus falling off the bridge and the guy floating around in the lift.

those were my favorite parts of the movie

  On 7/27/2010 at 7:45 PM, Deepex said:

He wants to do too many things in too short of time and the pacing of the film really suffers.

2.5hrs

  On 7/27/2010 at 10:02 PM, blicero said:

  On 7/27/2010 at 7:45 PM, Deepex said:

He wants to do too many things in too short of time and the pacing of the film really suffers.

 

2.5hrs

Exactly my point. He's crammed so much into that 2.5 hours and it just doesn't breathe. Granted they are racing against time, and it has a "heist film" feel, but I didn't feel like we have anytime to connect to the characters, take in the atmosphere, or be in much awe of what we just saw, because the next thing is already happening. It's boomboomboomboom action the entire way through (see Venetian Snares ) and I need space and actual emotional content to balance this out (see Aphex Twin )

i have never felt emotionally engaged by a christopher nolan movie, and inception failed to break that trend. its male characters were bland (this shouldn't be possible when you have joseph gordon levitt in a movie, and yet, here we are), its two female characters basically sketches. ellen page didn't exude any kind of gravity or maturity, and i didn't buy into her being the architect of this dreamspace because i couldn't imagine her having the life experience or depth to take on that kind of responsibility. mal (the names of the characters were, once again, just lazy) was a sentimentalized shade of a cliched insane-ex character. the structure of the movie didn't feel like a dream, unlike more successful films exploring the same sort of setting like paprika or mulholland drive. and i don't really expect a summer blockbuster to even attempt to be the latter film, but i would like to think that the whole reason art films exist is to push hollywood away from formula, and yet here is another two and a half hour exercise in tedium from christopher nolan, pre-packaged as mind blowing when really it's inhabiting the same tired conventions we've seen in countless other films. so what is inception? it isn't science fiction, because it's too vague to have any pretense of concerning itself with science. it's not meta-fiction, like some people are claiming, because there's no real commentary or ironic distance. it isn't a psychological thriller because it has no psychological depth. it's a magical realist take on the heist movie. the dream machine is sort of like a virtual reality unit, and there's something vaguely cyberpunk about the first twenty minutes of the film, which is also its strongest portion. but the whole thing has this first draft quality to it, like watching a treatment that's been filmed rather than a fully realized script. the dialogue is cheesy and generic. at one point cobb even says "if i take this one last job", spelling out the most basic cliche of the heist film for the audience. and all of this would be fine if the movie weren't so fucking ponderous. if it was fun.

every nolan film leaves me feeling like the mark in a long con. his films are elegant, filled with men who look and dress like GQ models. editing and cinematography so reliant on music cues and movement that it creates a kind of pull where each shot seems to be running toward the next plot point. michael caine. it's all there to lull you into thinking there's something beneath the surface. but to quote the prestige: you don't really want to work it out. you want to be fooled.

well i worked it out, and there's nothing fucking there.