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

[Guest Mirezzi]

The art of lowered expectations.

 

"It was an enjoyable Hollywood pile of shit."

[SR4]

 

 

basically, this distinguishes itself from your typical heist flick by taking place in people's dreams. the dream worlds have nothing of the uncanny, mysterious, charged qualities of real dreams but are more or less exactly like the worlds of your average heist flick: lots of guns, astonishingly everyone is an amazing warrior capable of defeating enemies in suits in matrix-esque gravity-defying battles, using all manner of bombs and guns with complete expertise, various chase scenes, sundry explosions, etc. of course, cool effects remind us that we're in a cool movie about dreams and not some boring hollywood action movie so that's way cool man but in the dream world you get little glitches (matrix cat anyone?), neato gravitational shifts, totally wild twists in the appearance of things...and that's it. otherwise dreams are basically a superficial hodge podge of painful and repressed memories that manifest themselves in violence. while experts who have worked with dicaprio in several missions fail to notice that his subconscious has been dangerously corrupting the dream worlds and endangering their missions (well, they notice but that's about it. "yo dude, should i be worried that your dead wife keeps fucking up our missions?" "nah, bro. i got this." "aight.") and fail to inquire into the late night voyages into his subconscious that have been polluting their missions, juno walks in and instantly uncovers his inner life by asking simple questions and exerting a modicum of interest in what he's up to. her name is ariadne by the way. she makes labyrinths. lol. and decaprio's repressed wife that is running around ruining things, her name is mal. fucking lol. the dream within a dream element just provides extra action vignettes (eg, shift from a car chase to a snow mobile chase) and of course gives the viewer that satisfying "what is really real?" feeling we all love so much. whose dream is this? are they really awake or is this another dream? fuck if i care.

 

 

but it was a fun summer flick i guess.

 

I just saw this as an in-flight movie. I read a bit too much about it here beforehand, which spoiled it a bit. I think it's a pretty good idea for a film, but handled in almost completely the wrong way. Basically I agree with those who said it wasn't nearly dreamlike enough, and that Nolan was too obsessed with the rules of his universe, to the point of absurdity - I mean, Limbo? Which can actually kill you because of too much accumulated "age experience"? What?

 

I think I need to rewatch it, as obviously I missed some things. Like, how did the guys in the dream within the van dream know that there would be two kicks, when the van breaks through the guardrail and when it hits the water - I thought they were fleeing from Fischer's military goons in a kind of random pell-mell fashion?

 

Also I didn't really understand the part you liked Chen, where Arthur rigged the elevator to provide a kick in the zero-g enviro, I mean I got it, but it was a bit confusing while watching - he sort of made a rocket elevator with explosives a la the Matrix?

 

Anyway here's how I would have made the film. Cut out 90% of the gunplay, chases, the Mombasa bullshit. The best parts of the film, as always, were the emotional parts. Cobb's relationship with Mal, Fischer's relationship with his dad. And the psychological trickery aspects. I would have liked them to do more of a "profile" on Fischer. Visit his school, where he grew up...try to make the whole "architect" role actually mean something, I mean they did all this talking about a maze and it didn't amount to anything. It would have helped if he had had some sort of dark secret too, not just Cobb. Something that meshed in a weird, provocative way with Cobb's secret, like the death of a childhood friend or something. Also it seems dreams have so many other potent archetypes that seem to span cultures - I'm not a Jungian, but even my Chinese girlfriend has had the dream of her teeth falling out. There's always the one with the "threatening figure" too, where time slows and you get overtaken and wake up in a sweat. Lots of juicy ideas there on how to mine stuff. I mean I'd think if their goal is to get information then FEAR would be a major instrument at their disposal. They explained that away in some phony way in the film ("it needs to be a positive epiphany"--whatever). The idea of the target's subconscious getting suspicious was great, but underdeveloped. Why not actively have a new character appear who is some sort of "protector figure", rather than just faceless guys with guns...

 

 

not to mention that the dude changing into Tom Berenger was pretty dumb...a lot of dumb touches in the movie, actually - the hurr durr "bigger gun" scene and the "haha trick Escher stairwell" to name a few. I'm not convince Nolan is half as clever as he thinks he is...

 

thinking more about this on my flight, I think one of the reasons the film kind of fell flat for me is most of the characters are fairly calm, whereas in dreams, at least in my experience, emotions are magnified. That's why the sequences in Jacob's Ladder work, heck even why some sequences in What Dreams May Come worked. It's why the sequence where they go to his "basement" (lol, effective but way too literal) and Mol comes up and shakes the elevator door violently worked. It seems to me that a lot of the content of my dreams directly relates to my own feelings of confidence or insecurity. Eg, if I'm doing well in my life I'll have a dream where I'm smooth or score with women, but if I'm at a low point I'll have a dream involving humiliation, where nothing works right. I wish they had played with that idea more. Cobb's mental state re: Mol should have given him more "performance anxiety", where nothing worked right for him. Or something...

 

Has anyone here ever made a life decision based on a dream? I certainly haven't...

 

Also why this cost 200 mil or whatever is beyond me. It seemed a solid 60-80 mil film to me, a couple of big setpieces, but besides that...though I was watching on a tiny airplane screen, I thought I noticed a bunch of unnecessary 3D, such as using lots of digital cars and digital doubles during the rain car chase, when they could have just as easily dialed it down slightly and used stunt doubles...

 

I still think Prestige was Nolan's most emotionally satisfying film, though it had its flaws for sure. And Memento was pretty good, though also emotionally chilly. I'm not much of a Nolan fan and I don't see that changing. Really disliked the Batman films, apart from a few scenes...

 

 

OK so these two gentleman are completely correct. Just saw it for the first time tonight. Wow. What a disappointment.

 

 

I know I'm about 6 months too late, but I really can't get over why nominally intelligent people thought this was good.

 

I didn't know it was possible to make a rehash of a hugely successful decade old film, remove all the visual and creative interest and still have it be a success. Thankfully, Hollywood, Nolan and idiotic moviegoers stepped up to the plate. I'm impressed.

 

 

The art of lowered expectations.

 

"It was an enjoyable Hollywood pile of shit."

 

 

everyone seems to have no problem saying why it wasn't good, but where's the explanation over why its BAD?

 

anyone who believes any hype in Hollywood or over movies before they watch them are one,

 

fucking idiots in the first place

 

and two,

 

bound to be disappointed

 

saying criticisms like "its shit dur hur big gun scene was stupid" might not make the movie a classic, but to say its BAD or "shit" just from things like that is a little too harsh.

 

I was about to say these same people are probably the ones that think the Room is a classic because its conveniently pretentious to do so.

[awesomeperson]

Standards have been so lowered that movies like the Inception are considered masterpieces lol, social conformity is a tough bitch.

[GORDO]

 

 

basically, this distinguishes itself from your typical heist flick by taking place in people's dreams. the dream worlds have nothing of the uncanny, mysterious, charged qualities of real dreams but are more or less exactly like the worlds of your average heist flick: lots of guns, astonishingly everyone is an amazing warrior capable of defeating enemies in suits in matrix-esque gravity-defying battles, using all manner of bombs and guns with complete expertise, various chase scenes, sundry explosions, etc. of course, cool effects remind us that we're in a cool movie about dreams and not some boring hollywood action movie so that's way cool man but in the dream world you get little glitches (matrix cat anyone?), neato gravitational shifts, totally wild twists in the appearance of things...and that's it. otherwise dreams are basically a superficial hodge podge of painful and repressed memories that manifest themselves in violence. while experts who have worked with dicaprio in several missions fail to notice that his subconscious has been dangerously corrupting the dream worlds and endangering their missions (well, they notice but that's about it. "yo dude, should i be worried that your dead wife keeps fucking up our missions?" "nah, bro. i got this." "aight.") and fail to inquire into the late night voyages into his subconscious that have been polluting their missions, juno walks in and instantly uncovers his inner life by asking simple questions and exerting a modicum of interest in what he's up to. her name is ariadne by the way. she makes labyrinths. lol. and decaprio's repressed wife that is running around ruining things, her name is mal. fucking lol. the dream within a dream element just provides extra action vignettes (eg, shift from a car chase to a snow mobile chase) and of course gives the viewer that satisfying "what is really real?" feeling we all love so much. whose dream is this? are they really awake or is this another dream? fuck if i care.

 

 

but it was a fun summer flick i guess.

 

I just saw this as an in-flight movie. I read a bit too much about it here beforehand, which spoiled it a bit. I think it's a pretty good idea for a film, but handled in almost completely the wrong way. Basically I agree with those who said it wasn't nearly dreamlike enough, and that Nolan was too obsessed with the rules of his universe, to the point of absurdity - I mean, Limbo? Which can actually kill you because of too much accumulated "age experience"? What?

 

I think I need to rewatch it, as obviously I missed some things. Like, how did the guys in the dream within the van dream know that there would be two kicks, when the van breaks through the guardrail and when it hits the water - I thought they were fleeing from Fischer's military goons in a kind of random pell-mell fashion?

 

Also I didn't really understand the part you liked Chen, where Arthur rigged the elevator to provide a kick in the zero-g enviro, I mean I got it, but it was a bit confusing while watching - he sort of made a rocket elevator with explosives a la the Matrix?

 

Anyway here's how I would have made the film. Cut out 90% of the gunplay, chases, the Mombasa bullshit. The best parts of the film, as always, were the emotional parts. Cobb's relationship with Mal, Fischer's relationship with his dad. And the psychological trickery aspects. I would have liked them to do more of a "profile" on Fischer. Visit his school, where he grew up...try to make the whole "architect" role actually mean something, I mean they did all this talking about a maze and it didn't amount to anything. It would have helped if he had had some sort of dark secret too, not just Cobb. Something that meshed in a weird, provocative way with Cobb's secret, like the death of a childhood friend or something. Also it seems dreams have so many other potent archetypes that seem to span cultures - I'm not a Jungian, but even my Chinese girlfriend has had the dream of her teeth falling out. There's always the one with the "threatening figure" too, where time slows and you get overtaken and wake up in a sweat. Lots of juicy ideas there on how to mine stuff. I mean I'd think if their goal is to get information then FEAR would be a major instrument at their disposal. They explained that away in some phony way in the film ("it needs to be a positive epiphany"--whatever). The idea of the target's subconscious getting suspicious was great, but underdeveloped. Why not actively have a new character appear who is some sort of "protector figure", rather than just faceless guys with guns...

 

 

not to mention that the dude changing into Tom Berenger was pretty dumb...a lot of dumb touches in the movie, actually - the hurr durr "bigger gun" scene and the "haha trick Escher stairwell" to name a few. I'm not convince Nolan is half as clever as he thinks he is...

 

thinking more about this on my flight, I think one of the reasons the film kind of fell flat for me is most of the characters are fairly calm, whereas in dreams, at least in my experience, emotions are magnified. That's why the sequences in Jacob's Ladder work, heck even why some sequences in What Dreams May Come worked. It's why the sequence where they go to his "basement" (lol, effective but way too literal) and Mol comes up and shakes the elevator door violently worked. It seems to me that a lot of the content of my dreams directly relates to my own feelings of confidence or insecurity. Eg, if I'm doing well in my life I'll have a dream where I'm smooth or score with women, but if I'm at a low point I'll have a dream involving humiliation, where nothing works right. I wish they had played with that idea more. Cobb's mental state re: Mol should have given him more "performance anxiety", where nothing worked right for him. Or something...

 

Has anyone here ever made a life decision based on a dream? I certainly haven't...

 

Also why this cost 200 mil or whatever is beyond me. It seemed a solid 60-80 mil film to me, a couple of big setpieces, but besides that...though I was watching on a tiny airplane screen, I thought I noticed a bunch of unnecessary 3D, such as using lots of digital cars and digital doubles during the rain car chase, when they could have just as easily dialed it down slightly and used stunt doubles...

 

I still think Prestige was Nolan's most emotionally satisfying film, though it had its flaws for sure. And Memento was pretty good, though also emotionally chilly. I'm not much of a Nolan fan and I don't see that changing. Really disliked the Batman films, apart from a few scenes...

 

 

OK so these two gentleman are completely correct. Just saw it for the first time tonight. Wow. What a disappointment.

 

 

I know I'm about 6 months too late, but I really can't get over why nominally intelligent people thought this was good.

 

I didn't know it was possible to make a rehash of a hugely successful decade old film, remove all the visual and creative interest and still have it be a success. Thankfully, Hollywood, Nolan and idiotic moviegoers stepped up to the plate. I'm impressed.

 

 

The art of lowered expectations.

 

"It was an enjoyable Hollywood pile of shit."

 

 

everyone seems to have no problem saying why it wasn't good, but where's the explanation over why its BAD?

 

anyone who believes any hype in Hollywood or over movies before they watch them are one,

 

fucking idiots in the first place

 

and two,

 

bound to be disappointed

 

saying criticisms like "its shit dur hur big gun scene was stupid" might not make the movie a classic, but to say its BAD or "shit" just from things like that is a little too harsh.

 

I was about to say these same people are probably the ones that think the Room is a classic because its conveniently pretentious to do so.

 

I'd say it's bad because it has no characters whatsoever, the architect girl, did we ever get to see why was shee needed? what was exactly the maze that she designed?

 

in the moment i did things of many things that made this movie bad, but i didin't bother so much because i was gonna feel like a film student snob arguing theory or something so i forgot a lot. but i can sum it up as there's stuff that is presented and never followed upon and never used, never explained, all the film is is bang bang run run.

[Blir]

How come basically anyone in this thread who doesn't like Inception is implying everybody else is stupid and/or has low standards? I get the whole 'this film is super popular so I have to be super piercing to balance it out' thing, but can't you just not like a film without being an arrogant twat?

 

I mean, I really dislike Man On Fire. I think it's a pile of shit, but I don't think all the people I know who like it are retarded.

 

 

 

 

This film is so bad it makes me furious! I'm going to post on the internet about it!!!

 

[cruising for burgers]

How come basically anyone in this thread who doesn't like Inception is implying everybody else is stupid and/or has low standards? I get the whole 'this film is super popular so I have to be super piercing to balance it out' thing, but can't you just not like a film without being an arrogant twat?

 

I mean, I really dislike Man On Fire. I think it's a pile of shit, but I don't think all the people I know who like it are retarded.

 

 

 

 

This film is so bad it makes me furious! I'm going to post on the internet about it!!!

 

because before i watched the movie they promised me things like mindblowing, never seen, outstanding and clever

[GORDO]

How come basically anyone in this thread who doesn't like Inception is implying everybody else is stupid and/or has low standards? I get the whole 'this film is super popular so I have to be super piercing to balance it out' thing, but can't you just not like a film without being an arrogant twat?

 

I mean, I really dislike Man On Fire. I think it's a pile of shit, but I don't think all the people I know who like it are retarded.

 

 

 

 

This film is so bad it makes me furious! I'm going to post on the internet about it!!!

 

 

 

it's the other way around.

 

if you say you didn't like it, people will tell you that it's because you didn't understand it. then you point out that there's nothing there to understand, then you come and call me an arrogant twat. fu.

 

 

and what MJ said.

[Blir]

Well you didn't understand it and Michael Jackson is dead. I don't listen to dead people. FU

[GORDO]

oh, no!!! : (

[azatoth]

Why should it matter what others think about something that you like/dislike?

[cruising for burgers]

i think it's called a discussion

[cruising for burgers]

 

if you say you didn't like it, people will tell you that it's because you didn't understand it. then you point out that there's nothing there to understand, then you come and call me an arrogant twat. fu.

lolz exactly

[chenGOD]

 

 

I'd say it's bad because it has no characters whatsoever, the architect girl, did we ever get to see why was shee needed? what was exactly the maze that she designed?

 

 

Ummm i thought they did a pretty decent job of explaining why the architect girl was necessary...

[SR4]

How come basically anyone in this thread who doesn't like Inception is implying everybody else is stupid and/or has low standards? I get the whole 'this film is super popular so I have to be super piercing to balance it out' thing, but can't you just not like a film without being an arrogant twat?

 

I mean, I really dislike Man On Fire. I think it's a pile of shit, but I don't think all the people I know who like it are retarded.

 

 

 

 

This film is so bad it makes me furious! I'm going to post on the internet about it!!!

 

because before i watched the movie they promised me things like mindblowing, never seen, outstanding and clever

 

who promised you that though? hollywood trailers? reviewers? or colleagues with incredibly similar taste to your own?

 

because there is a marked difference.

 

How come basically anyone in this thread who doesn't like Inception is implying everybody else is stupid and/or has low standards? I get the whole 'this film is super popular so I have to be super piercing to balance it out' thing, but can't you just not like a film without being an arrogant twat?

 

I mean, I really dislike Man On Fire. I think it's a pile of shit, but I don't think all the people I know who like it are retarded.

 

 

 

 

This film is so bad it makes me furious! I'm going to post on the internet about it!!!

 

because before i watched the movie they promised me things like mindblowing, never seen, outstanding and clever

 

who promised you that though? hollywood trailers? reviewers? or colleagues with incredibly similar taste to your own?

 

because there is a marked difference.

 

to clarify, if you expected mindblowing shit because a trailer said so, thats akin to me expecting Maid in Manhattan to be the best summer comedy in years. or whatever shit they say.

[GORDO]

 

 

I'd say it's bad because it has no characters whatsoever, the architect girl, did we ever get to see why was she needed? what was exactly the maze that she designed?

 

 

Ummm i thought they did a pretty decent job of explaining why the architect girl was necessary...

 

to elaborate a bit more, yes, they said why they needed her, that is, the movie tells why they needed her but it's never actually shown, like the "maze" itself. the only significant thing that character does is at the end of the movie, all that happenes before with her is irrelevant and in no way connected to what her role actually was.

[cruising for burgers]

who promised you that though? hollywood trailers? reviewers? or colleagues with incredibly similar taste to your own?

 

because there is a marked difference.

 

to clarify, if you expected mindblowing shit because a trailer said so, thats akin to me expecting Maid in Manhattan to be the best summer comedy in years. or whatever shit they say.

i have no colleagues with incredibly similar taste to my own.

 

and maid in manhattan is the best comedie ever!!! or whatever shit they say!

[zazen]

to elaborate a bit more, yes, they said why they needed her, that is, the movie tells why they needed her but it's never actually shown, like the "maze" itself. the only significant thing that character does is at the end of the movie, all that happenes before with her is irrelevant and in no way connected to what her role actually was.

 

I thought the 'maze' was the arrangement of three nested dreams and the landscapes, images and layout of each dream - the city, the hotel and the snow fortress - wasn't that all designed by her?

[Boxing Day]

I only watched ten minutes of it , and knew exactly what kind of movie was gonna be .. turned it off.

[cruising for burgers]

I only watched ten minutes of it , and knew exactly what kind of movie was gonna be .. turned it off.

did you actually turned the cinema off??? what about other people that were enjoying the movie?

[GORDO]

to elaborate a bit more, yes, they said why they needed her, that is, the movie tells why they needed her but it's never actually shown, like the "maze" itself. the only significant thing that character does is at the end of the movie, all that happenes before with her is irrelevant and in no way connected to what her role actually was.

 

I thought the 'maze' was the arrangement of three nested dreams and the landscapes, images and layout of each dream - the city, the hotel and the snow fortress - wasn't that all designed by her?

 

it was 3 levels because for the inception to work it needed to be planted deep.

 

but yes one should assume that the landscapes were done by her, one was a city one was an hotel and another was a snow fortress. how is that a maze? that's what i'm trying to say, they tell you it's a maze but it is never shown how it is so, it makes no difference at all if the city was carefully planned or not.

[zazen]

to elaborate a bit more, yes, they said why they needed her, that is, the movie tells why they needed her but it's never actually shown, like the "maze" itself. the only significant thing that character does is at the end of the movie, all that happenes before with her is irrelevant and in no way connected to what her role actually was.

 

I thought the 'maze' was the arrangement of three nested dreams and the landscapes, images and layout of each dream - the city, the hotel and the snow fortress - wasn't that all designed by her?

 

it was 3 levels because for the inception to work it needed to be planted deep.

 

but yes one should assume that the landscapes were done by her, one was a city one was an hotel and another was a snow fortress. how is that a maze? that's what i'm trying to say, they tell you it's a maze but it is never shown how it is so, it makes no difference at all if the city was carefully planned or not.

 

I took it to mean like a psychological maze - they lead that businessman through a series of very confusing nested dreams and then manipulate his actions so that it seems like the incepted idea is coming from him. Thats the maze.

[remy marathe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cineVP_slE

[Guest mafted]

overbloated pile of shit

 

you want an intellectual thinker type movie? watch some underground stuff, this is hollywood bullshit. thanks. the whole fast-paced-omg-what-we're-doing-is-so-important mentality that you see in CSI or Law and Order is wayy over done.

[Guest Hanratty]

overbloated pile of shit

 

you want an intellectual thinker type movie? watch some underground stuff, this is hollywood bullshit. thanks. the whole fast-paced-omg-what-we're-doing-is-so-important mentality that you see in CSI or Law and Order is wayy over done.

 

 

precisely.

[Guest Mirezzi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cineVP_slE

 

Hilarious...and also a bit sad:

 

‘South Park’ Apologizes for Lifted Material in ‘Inception’ Parody

 

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/inception-parodies-seem-to-share-more-than-inspiration/