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

Great second post! Basically the more intelligently crafted, tl;dr version of my post.

  On 7/28/2010 at 2:54 AM, remy marathe said:

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.

*sniff*

Smells like zaphod.

  On 7/28/2010 at 12:55 AM, Deepex said:

  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 )

so you're saying it should've been longer than 2.5 hrs? man, i don't know about that. anything longer than that is really pushing it for wide release. i mean, this isn't "Che pts. 1 & 2"

I love Nolan, and really wanted to like this movie... but I felt like I was watching Shutter Island -light. It was a pretty good film, but it's doesn't warrant the tremendous hype. If your expectations are low, that might help.

  On 7/28/2010 at 2:54 AM, remy marathe said:

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

Ok, I'm going to ask this question seriously and not try to backlash here. Are you saying you worked out the complexities of the plot/dream logic of the movie? If so, I have questions.

i think i understand the movie as well as anyone.

*sigh* ok, nvm.

edit: rtr

i'm not sure if your question was meant to say "this guy doesn't like the movie therefore he must not have understood it" or if you had an actual question about the plot, but if it's the latter, i'm actually serious. i understood the movie. i'm not sure if cobb is dreaming the entire movie or not, because i think it's left up for the viewer to decide, and then there's this kind of weak analogy the movie attempts where the audience participates in movie as shared dream and so all of the cliches and genre conventions are excused.

you could basically pick a point in the movie and make an argument either way for how real everything in the movie was supposed to be. taken at face value, i would say the entire movie happened as shown, cobb goes in to save saito, gets him out, they succeed, cobb goes home, and then either a. the top wobbles and falls b. the top keeps spinning and the entire thing was a dream c. the top keeps spinning and the last part of the film is a dream, with cobb still dead in the van and so still stuck in that fourth level of unstructured dream space or d. cobb has been in limbo with mal the entire time and this is all a fantasy construct, in which case the top falling doesn't really matter. either way the ending cheapens the movie, which was at least relatively consistent until that point.

not really, considering the theme of the film was that the virtual dream world had become as real as the real world, so much that characters were constantly questioning their reality. at the end he simply no longer cares. whether the top falls or not is kind of a moot point and if it had been resolved it would have ruined the entire point of the film.

  On 7/26/2010 at 6:57 PM, iamabe said:

 

 

this image actually confuses things AND get the final level wrong. it says "cobbs dream" but I believe limbo is shared dream space. so should say limbo. the fact that cobb built the world was because he was there before not that it was his dream.

  On 7/28/2010 at 4:07 PM, TwiddleBot said:

not really, considering the theme of the film was that the virtual dream world had become as real as the real world, so much that characters were constantly questioning their reality. at the end he simply no longer cares. whether the top falls or not is kind of a moot point and if it had been resolved it would have ruined the entire point of the film.

that's completely open to interpretation. and you're acting like there isn't an audience participating in the movie. whether the top falls at the end is probably the most discussed aspect of the movie, and it was thrown in to make the viewer question everything. it's a cheap ploy to add depth to the movie, something nolan has done before. and then the theme of the film isn't "the virtual dream world had become as real as the real world". that isn't really a theme at all, it's just a by product of the movie's plot. and the only character that seems to affect is cobb, but then cobb is the only character with any development whatsoever, and that development is still generic. and you could then argue that the other characters weren't developed because they're just projections, cobb is generic because he is actually just an analog for nolan lost in the film making process, etc. and this just misses the point, which is that the movie works as a mindless flick, but it's too weighed down by its own self importance to function as any kind of artistic statement or genre classic or whatever. in other words it's a weak movie.

  On 7/28/2010 at 3:45 PM, remy marathe said:

i'm not sure if your question was meant to say "this guy doesn't like the movie therefore he must not have understood it" or if you had an actual question about the plot, but if it's the latter, i'm actually serious. i understood the movie. i'm not sure if cobb is dreaming the entire movie or not, because i think it's left up for the viewer to decide, and then there's this kind of weak analogy the movie attempts where the audience participates in movie as shared dream and so all of the cliches and genre conventions are excused.

Ok - so, yes, my question was about the plot. I have some issues with your issues with the film - but, again, everyone has their own opinion and emotional reaction, and I'm not going to judge yours. I do disagree, however, that the conventions used in the movie, particularly the last scene, are just there as a sort of "gimmick" or that there isn't something important, both emotionally and intellectually, explored in the film.

Plot questions - ok, the "kick." I had a hard time figuring out what the cause/effect is of the "kick." The "kick," it seems, has to occur at the higher level to bring someone from a lower level of dreaming out to this higher level. But I have a hard time figuring out why the false gravity had to be induced in the "hotel" level. Was it that the sense of gravity experienced is supposed to correlate with the sense of gravity and then "kick" that hitting the water generates in the even higher level, or does the elevator "falling" and then rebounding provide the "kick" in that level. Also, why does Scarecrow need to be defribbed if tossing him off the building in the "limbo" universe also kick him back out. Is tossing him off the building meant to invoke the same "falling" sensation that the elevator does so that the defribb has a palpable effect? Or is it just that dying in the "limbo" level cause him to shoot back up. If so, why the defrib. If not, then why does it work for Juno that she can jump off the building and wake up?

  On 7/28/2010 at 4:29 PM, remy marathe said:

that's completely open to interpretation. and you're acting like there isn't an audience participating in the movie. whether the top falls at the end is probably the most discussed aspect of the movie, and it was thrown in to make the viewer question everything.

not being able to tell what is the dream or not is a recurring theme in the film, consistently from the opening scene with ken watanabe testing out the rug. it's why the characters carry totems with them to test reality (because they can't tell), why mal freaks out, why the old dudes live in the dream machine, etc. the film goes out of it's way to be ambiguous throughout. even the 'reality' sequences are frequently strange.. walls closing in on cobb when he escapes from the gunmen, the repeating visual motif of the kids in the dreams showing up again at the end of the film..the dubious position of his wife when she jumps. there's no way to tell if mal is actually correct or not in her assumption that they are still in the dream.

as for failing to acknowledge the audience, no offense but that's ridiculous.. everyone will interpret the film differently as will you. the audience i went with, the above was our general consensus. i never expected to see the top resolved at the end of the film, like i said, it wasn't the point.

  On 7/28/2010 at 5:44 PM, T35513R said:

  On 7/28/2010 at 3:45 PM, remy marathe said:

i'm not sure if your question was meant to say "this guy doesn't like the movie therefore he must not have understood it" or if you had an actual question about the plot, but if it's the latter, i'm actually serious. i understood the movie. i'm not sure if cobb is dreaming the entire movie or not, because i think it's left up for the viewer to decide, and then there's this kind of weak analogy the movie attempts where the audience participates in movie as shared dream and so all of the cliches and genre conventions are excused.

 

Ok - so, yes, my question was about the plot. I have some issues with your issues with the film - but, again, everyone has their own opinion and emotional reaction, and I'm not going to judge yours. I do disagree, however, that the conventions used in the movie, particularly the last scene, are just there as a sort of "gimmick" or that there isn't something important, both emotionally and intellectually, explored in the film.

 

Plot questions - ok, the "kick." I had a hard time figuring out what the cause/effect is of the "kick." The "kick," it seems, has to occur at the higher level to bring someone from a lower level of dreaming out to this higher level. But I have a hard time figuring out why the false gravity had to be induced in the "hotel" level. Was it that the sense of gravity experienced is supposed to correlate with the sense of gravity and then "kick" that hitting the water generates in the even higher level, or does the elevator "falling" and then rebounding provide the "kick" in that level. Also, why does Scarecrow need to be defribbed if tossing him off the building in the "limbo" universe also kick him back out. Is tossing him off the building meant to invoke the same "falling" sensation that the elevator does so that the defribb has a palpable effect? Or is it just that dying in the "limbo" level cause him to shoot back up. If so, why the defrib. If not, then why does it work for Juno that she can jump off the building and wake up?

my assumption is that the sedative they use requires two kicks synchronized in order to wake up the characters. so when the van goes off the bridge it isn't timed correctly and another kick is required, hence the elevator. the elevator kick pulls them out of eames' dream and into the van freefall, which then wakes them. this also explains the defrib. although, bad writing would explain all of these things.

Not sure if it explains the defrib - though I understand what you are saying about the synchronized kicks. Though, the guy from Sunshine doesn't wake from his dream when the van hits the water - nor do any of the other characters it appears.

I don't think that it's bad writing - I think Nolan probably planned things very explicitly, in a very detailed manner (if Memento is the precursor to this, and he's been working on this for 10 years, I have almost no doubts that everything in the movie is planned). Of course, again, this is my opinion. I don't understand all the complexities of the movie and it will take multiple viewings for me to have a more educated take.

edit: I would agree that the top at the end being left by Cobb is symbolic of his letting go. Whether it falls or not is, in a way, unimportant. It also serves to highlight the ambiguity of the film between dream and wakefulness.

I find it interesting as, of late, I've been doing a lot of reading on Buddhist texts which often suggest that we are dreaming through our waking hours. That we are not wholly present, and that we need to "wake up" to the present moment. It seems like one could take the abandoning of the top by Cobb at the end as doing just this.

Much of this movie seems to be about letting go - and I don't agree that Cobb is the only character who "goes on a journey." What about the guy from 28 Days Later? In a way, the latter half of the movie is all about his personal journey to acceptance too. Just a though.

also, radiohead sucks.

the defrib is a synchronized kick with him falling, since his falling isn't enough to wake him. that's what i gathered from my one viewing, anyway.

ah, yes, you're right though, the van doesn't wake them, they wake when the time runs out on the dream machine. i think. but then, maybe not.

maybe bad writing isn't the right term. i just found the movie tedious and heavy handed, and that's my main problem with it.

i suppose you're right about cillian murphy's character. i think the movie would have been more effective if it had been from his point of view. that would have been an interesting movie, for me.

the van does wake them. you are all over thinking it.

how is it i walked out of the theater without any confusion, and so many of you are getting hung up on obvious shit? did we see the same film?

  On 7/28/2010 at 6:39 PM, blicero said:

the van does wake them. you are all over thinking it.

 

how is it i walked out of the theater without any confusion, and so many of you are getting hung up on obvious shit?

presumably because the movie doesn't clarify a lot of these things because the writing is weak.

  On 7/28/2010 at 6:47 PM, remy marathe said:

  On 7/28/2010 at 6:39 PM, blicero said:

the van does wake them. you are all over thinking it.

 

how is it i walked out of the theater without any confusion, and so many of you are getting hung up on obvious shit?

 

presumably because the movie doesn't clarify a lot of these things because the writing is weak.

so, i must have attended a screening with nolan himself, who filled me in on all of the ambiguous bits, then?

also, didn't you just post this?

  On 7/28/2010 at 3:28 PM, remy marathe said:

i think i understand the movie as well as anyone.

are you now saying that you don't understand it? i'm confused.

i thought i understood it, but one of the posts up there raised a point that made me question that. i understand the movie, in general, as well as anyone, but i suppose there are some small arguable points that i didn't get. i originally thought the van woke them up, but now, thinking about it, there's nothing in the movie to show this. they swim out of the van and eames does his shapeshift thing so obviously he isn't awake yet. then cobb finds saito, then the next scene everyone is awake. it's very vague, and i understand how someone would take issue with this. again, i think it's rushed, bad writing. a movie like this needs to be specific.

there's no need to be a prick about it. you're acting like this isn't a 27 page thread about a movie where people required diagrams to understand what was happening.

  On 7/28/2010 at 6:39 PM, blicero said:

how is it i walked out of the theater without any confusion, and so many of you are getting hung up on obvious shit?

i suspect it's the same reason as to why you can play a piece of music for a buncha people and some will chat about the intricacies, some will enjoy it, some will say meh and go for beer+chips

  On 7/28/2010 at 6:33 PM, blicero said:

also, radiohead sucks.

TAKE IT BACK!!!!

@ Twiddlebot - yeah, that's how I figure it - maybe I'm just not smart enough to get it on the first go 'round, but, regardless, I certainly enjoy the post movie discussion (which, I guess, is why I'm posting here).

  On 7/28/2010 at 7:01 PM, remy marathe said:

i thought i understood it, but one of the posts up there raised a point that made me question that. i understand the movie, in general, as well as anyone, but i suppose there are some small arguable points that i didn't get. i originally thought the van woke them up, but now, thinking about it, there's nothing in the movie to show this. they swim out of the van and eames does his shapeshift thing so obviously he isn't awake yet. then cobb finds saito, then the next scene everyone is awake. it's very vague, and i understand how someone would take issue with this. again, i think it's rushed, bad writing. a movie like this needs to be specific.

 

there's no need to be a prick about it. you're acting like this isn't a 27 page thread about a movie where people required diagrams to understand what was happening.

actually, i'm acting like this IS a 27 page thread, that should only be only about 7 pages. I enjoyed the film, and I thought it was well conceived and executed. i'm just confused why so many people are having trouble grasping the plot. maybe they all saw it when they were stoned, as i did.

  On 7/28/2010 at 7:01 PM, TwiddleBot said:

  On 7/28/2010 at 6:39 PM, blicero said:

how is it i walked out of the theater without any confusion, and so many of you are getting hung up on obvious shit?

 

i suspect it's the same reason as to why you can play a piece of music for a buncha people and some will chat about the intricacies, some will enjoy it, some will say meh and go for beer+chips

word.

  On 7/28/2010 at 7:11 PM, T35513R said:

  On 7/28/2010 at 6:33 PM, blicero said:

also, radiohead sucks.

 

TAKE IT BACK!!!!

 

i actually like radiohead. i was just trying to point out another topic that elitist watmm contrarians love to go off on.

"____ is popular. expressing dislike of ____ will surely make me appear to be credible, with discriminating taste."