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

i don't think it requires mad trippy visuals to treat dreams with more sensitivity. i feel like the whole "dream" element was unnecessarily naive. i also think it's annoying that people keep saying that this was a big hollywood movie with famous actors so we shouldn't expect it to be, you know, good. why not?

  On 7/20/2010 at 12:17 AM, Alcofribas said:

i also think it's annoying that people keep saying that this was a big hollywood movie with famous actors so we shouldn't expect it to be, you know, good.

whos saying this?

chris moss said it

  On 7/20/2010 at 12:21 AM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 7/20/2010 at 12:17 AM, Alcofribas said:

i also think it's annoying that people keep saying that this was a big hollywood movie with famous actors so we shouldn't expect it to be, you know, good.

 

whos saying this?

  On 7/19/2010 at 10:57 PM, acknowledgeandproceed said:

Remember, this was a Hollywood film that was mostly designed to appeal to the broadest audience possible starring big names. If you were going into this film expecting some high-tech Godard or Felinni, then yeah, you're gonna be disappointed.

also chris moss said this

fuck i need to see this

  On 7/19/2010 at 10:57 PM, acknowledgeandproceed said:

Major complaint I've heard concerning this film is that it wasn't surreal or trippy enough in the dream sequences, but so far as the film's set up was concerned, that's irrelevant. The target's subconscious would attack you if you constructed a mad visual masterpiece. Sure, it wasn't completely congruent with real dreams, but what is?

 

Remember, this was a Hollywood film that was mostly designed to appeal to the broadest audience possible starring big names. If you were going into this film expecting some high-tech Godard or Felinni, then yeah, you're gonna be disappointed.

 

Also, at one point a character DOES explain the entire plot of the film in a single sentence. People I know laughed at this, but its absolutely required for the mass audience, ie: lowest common denominator...

 

The point of the film is to question reality, yes? Well Christ, it's recently been determined that consciousness is an epiphenomenon. If that goes over your head, then by all means lean towards a more malignant criticism.

 

It's not a masterpiece, but it was extremely well-made, a rarity in the mass market, for some reason. It was a solid action flick that makes stupid people confused and smart people hypercritical. Put me in the middle category, wherein I knew it was going to be Shutter Island meets The Matrix, and I enjoyed it for what it was. Chris Nolan has gotten my attention.

 

Also, more bass farts would have been appreciated.

The film has some major direction flaws, and I think it fails as a hollywood blockbuster unlike say Avatar which I know people love to hate here. Not saying Avatar is better, but just saying Inception isn't really a blockbuster, I'm honestly not sure where is falls, it kind of tried to be a bit of everything, maybe thats its problem. Going into this film I wasn't sure what I was expecting, though I was definitely expecting some more original stealthy action sequences. Had this been filmed in the style of say "Children of Men" in the action sequences, I think the dreams would have felt a lot more like dreams and less like a bourne/bond movie. By framing the dreams like any Nolan film, we lose the sense of perspective. If this is one person's dream we should get that sensation. Thats not to say the cinematography wasn't gorgeous (those kids were sooo BOC) but everything kind of washed together, and I think letting the camera roll more would have given the dreams a more in the moment sensation. Especially once the dreams started collapsing etc...

Some variation in how things collapse would have also been nice. Just things blowing up, while cool at first, got very old and felt overused by the end. Kind of like 2012.

  On 7/20/2010 at 12:17 AM, Alcofribas said:

i don't think it requires mad trippy visuals to treat dreams with more sensitivity. i feel like the whole "dream" element was unnecessarily naive. i also think it's annoying that people keep saying that this was a big hollywood movie with famous actors so we shouldn't expect it to be, you know, good. why not?

Agreed. It's less that I wanted inventive visuals than a dream plot that moved into more unpredictable territory the way real dreams do. I wanted David Lynch, and got Michael Bay, you know? Not to knock Nolan - he's awesome. And I don't think it's an excuse that it's a hollywood blockbuster. Regardless of what audience it was meant for, it underdelivers in some aspects.

  On 7/20/2010 at 2:50 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 7/19/2010 at 10:57 PM, acknowledgeandproceed said:

Major complaint I've heard concerning this film is that it wasn't surreal or trippy enough in the dream sequences, but so far as the film's set up was concerned, that's irrelevant. The target's subconscious would attack you if you constructed a mad visual masterpiece. Sure, it wasn't completely congruent with real dreams, but what is?

 

Remember, this was a Hollywood film that was mostly designed to appeal to the broadest audience possible starring big names. If you were going into this film expecting some high-tech Godard or Felinni, then yeah, you're gonna be disappointed.

 

Also, at one point a character DOES explain the entire plot of the film in a single sentence. People I know laughed at this, but its absolutely required for the mass audience, ie: lowest common denominator...

 

The point of the film is to question reality, yes? Well Christ, it's recently been determined that consciousness is an epiphenomenon. If that goes over your head, then by all means lean towards a more malignant criticism.

 

It's not a masterpiece, but it was extremely well-made, a rarity in the mass market, for some reason. It was a solid action flick that makes stupid people confused and smart people hypercritical. Put me in the middle category, wherein I knew it was going to be Shutter Island meets The Matrix, and I enjoyed it for what it was. Chris Nolan has gotten my attention.

 

Also, more bass farts would have been appreciated.

 

The film has some major direction flaws, and I think it fails as a hollywood blockbuster unlike say Avatar which I know people love to hate here. Not saying Avatar is better, but just saying Inception isn't really a blockbuster, I'm honestly not sure where is falls, it kind of tried to be a bit of everything, maybe thats its problem. Going into this film I wasn't sure what I was expecting, though I was definitely expecting some more original stealthy action sequences. Had this been filmed in the style of say "Children of Men" in the action sequences, I think the dreams would have felt a lot more like dreams and less like a bourne/bond movie. By framing the dreams like any Nolan film, we lose the sense of perspective. If this is one person's dream we should get that sensation. Thats not to say the cinematography wasn't gorgeous (those kids were sooo BOC) but everything kind of washed together, and I think letting the camera roll more would have given the dreams a more in the moment sensation. Especially once the dreams started collapsing etc...

 

Some variation in how things collapse would have also been nice. Just things blowing up, while cool at first, got very old and felt overused by the end. Kind of like 2012.

Spot on - Inception tries to be too many things. And some great scenes cut too quickly, while some dull scenes dragged. This would be forgivable if the movie wasn't so taxing - it demands you pay attention to every second of it, so it feels like punishment when we have to sit there watching the same footage of Cobb's kids' backs 5 times. (I know you said you liked those scenes, but I was pretty bored with the cobb/mal plot.)

seriously though, does anyone else want to cause bodily harm to Ellen Paige?

  On 7/20/2010 at 3:20 AM, iamabe said:

seriously though, does anyone else want to cause bodily harm to Ellen Paige?

Yes, very badly, which is one of my hugest concerns going in...even the Cisco commercials with her make me really want to kill.

going tonight with the lady... will report back in the morning...

  On 7/20/2010 at 3:22 AM, The Overlook said:

  On 7/20/2010 at 3:20 AM, iamabe said:

seriously though, does anyone else want to cause bodily harm to Ellen Paige?

Yes, very badly, which is one of my hugest concerns going in...even the Cisco commercials with her make me really want to kill.

oh god. "when I was a kid...we would just go to the farm..."

KILL

I was really skeptical of this film. I cannot stand leo dicrapio and ellen page for one, for two i generally shy away from hype.

Some notes i have about this film: it should have been at least 3 hours longer.

2. Whats his face from third rock from the sun was trying to do his best neo impression and it was taxing for me to bear witness to such a canned performance.

2. Great fuckin movie. I wont spoil the end but lets just say it has a predictable ending. All i have to know about a film about dreams is that i already know the ending.

I too wish it was longer, there's a lot more details they could have gone in with the concept, too bad there probably wont be a sequel to go deeper into the dynamics of dreaming.

I don't see how you think joseph gordon levetts or whatever was trying to act like neo/keanu or anything.

  On 7/20/2010 at 4:12 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

I don't see how you think joseph gordon levetts or whatever was trying to act like neo/keanu or anything.

anybody notice how he looks just like the pigmy version of Heath Ledger.

no no no and no.

saw this the other day and thought it was absolutely fantastic. one of the best films i've seen in the last five years, easy.

saw it tonight.

pretty pretty pretty good.

Definitely original and entertaining. Quite a refreshment after seeing so much junk lately. I always dig a movie that makes you think.

my whole nutsack could have been a dream

I dunno, the pin may have wound up out the wobble and started spinning infinitely, I gotta see it again to try and see if I can find anymore details that would lead me to naturally thinking the less obvious possibilities but I'm kind of impatient and want to read something official that sheds more light on the film

a decent movie, i felt

i also thought it was pretty horrible, beyond the usual hollywood retardation, terrible acting, writing, standard "direction"

there were a few cool actors in it that i enjoyed watching but for the most part it was ... bad

also there were parts that were really cool, like when they wake up on the plane at the end. but those parts didn't make me forget the complete lack of logic that the movie had. as a lucid dreamer it was an insult to my intelligence, i've never felt this way about a movie but with a concept that cool it's just sort of frustrating that the movie turned out so .. standard.

very good at best, standard shit at worst.

  On 7/19/2010 at 3:30 PM, iamabe said:

  On 7/19/2010 at 6:08 AM, karmakramer said:

Pretty good movie, but I feel slightly disappointed that such an interesting premise took such a traditional path. The action was the most boring aspect of the film for the most part, aside from a few excellent scenes. A little long and a little to safe, Nolan is amazing but he's a tad too straight, Jonze/Kaufman could have added some real depth to it I think.

 

agreed. this is not my favorite Nolan movie.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I also had no emotional connection to any of the characters, so I didn't really give a fuck whether Cobb was living in reality or his limbo-induced dream state. I also didn't care about the entire plot with his wife. It seems like Fischer is the actual emotional core of the movie. Their manipulation of his relationship with his dad was probably the closest I felt to being emotionally invested in anyone. Also, I want to punch Ellen Paige in the fucking head.

 

Definitely not enough surreal imagery and the action was pretty weak.

 

Did anyone else have trouble understanding most of things things Ken Watanabe says? And it seems like the audio mixing is poor in some scenes, like when Cobb and Mal are kicking themselves out of their dream world by lying on the train tracks, and Cobb goes: "What's the most important thing?" Then a train comes, really fucking loud, and Mal replies: "kjdfopIJklWJENSHFWOinviwfg". I mean, seriously. Did anyone actually hear what she said there? I also saw the movie twice and couldn't hear it either time. Maybe it was the theater.

 

 

Those complaints aside, Cillian Murphy and Gordon-Levitt are perfectly cast and they are both great actors I love watching. And the movie isn't bad, just nowhere near the mindfuck or groundbreaking experience it was purported to be.

agree with all this

it was good, don't get me wrong. just ... my disappointment outweighs my actual enjoyment

there were many times during the movie that i was facepalming - it's just standard shit with a cool concept and some cool parts and some RETARDED stuff that doesn't make any sense

if your film doesn't follow the rules of nature, reality, science, etc AT ALL, then you have no right to fucking make it confusing to the point where people think they're witnessing something that actually has depth when in reality it has none.

  On 7/20/2010 at 8:50 AM, vamos scorcho said:

a decent movie, i felt

 

 

 

i also thought it was pretty horrible, beyond the usual hollywood retardation, terrible acting, writing, standard "direction"

 

there were a few cool actors in it that i enjoyed watching but for the most part it was ... bad

 

also there were parts that were really cool, like when they wake up on the plane at the end. but those parts didn't make me forget the complete lack of logic that the movie had. as a lucid dreamer it was an insult to my intelligence, i've never felt this way about a movie but with a concept that cool it's just sort of frustrating that the movie turned out so .. standard.

 

very good at best, standard shit at worst.

i felt the same way with the dream logic they had. you can tell it was made by someone who has never lucid dreamed in their life.

i still thought it was a great movie though, for what it was.

i agree, for what it was it was an enjoyable viewing.

i'm a snobby movie goer i guess, i like movies that come across more as art, they trip me out more and --- well i really do think they're much more fun to watch

i don't like nolan's style at this point, he is basically "michael bayesque" with a hint of creativity and risk taking.

  On 7/20/2010 at 9:05 AM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

you can tell it was made by someone who has never lucid dreamed in their life.

interesting, i got quite the opposite impression. Especially the whole 'kick' setup reminded me a lot of a dreaming mask i once owned made by Stephen Laberge called the Nova Dreamer

  Quote

The NovaDreamer detects when you’re in REM sleep, then gives you a cue (flashing lights or sounds) to remind you to recognize you are dreaming. Cues enter your dream, becoming incorporated just like an alarm or radio will sometimes work its way into a dream.

how do they go lucid instantly upon being thrown into the dream world whilst being heavily sedated?

  On 7/20/2010 at 11:28 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

how do they go lucid instantly upon being thrown into the dream world whilst being heavily sedated?

I don't know, maybe it's because it's a movie?

Need to wait a week before I get to see it in this backwater part of the world.

maybe cause its a movie? pffft, this is supposed to be a cinematic masterpiece and while it kind of is, there are a short list of seemingly confusing imperfections and they are interesting to debate what Nolan might have been thinking

btw anyone who is still reading this thread and hasn't seen this flick yet is pretty weird, even non-spoilers are bound to be spoilers at this point