Inception

so i saw the movie the other night, it was entertaining, different, etc...

i usually have vivid dreams, but last night...i dreamed about one of you!

Originally Posted by tomgirl

Click to expand...

so i saw the movie the other night, it was entertaining, different, etc...

i usually have vivid dreams, but last night...i dreamed about one of you!

I N C E P T I O N

Originally Posted by Riio

Click to expand...

I N C E P T I O N

lulz

Originally Posted by joelmthw

Click to expand...

i like this explanation of the movie in his blog post

http://www.theadamwhite.com/

I like it as well.

*SPOILER* However I believe his logic for explaining how the whole movie was a dream until Cobb wakes on the plane isn't quite bulletproof. If it were all a dream, I find it to be too big of a coincidence that Seito and Cobb should wake up at the same time (after Cobb pulls Seito from limbo) and that Seito would then immediately hop on the phone to make a call (and it is never shown in the movie what is said, though it could have been in Japanese so Cobb wouldn't understand anyways). If following Adam White's logic about a near catastrophic event on the plane that Cobb slept through it's true Seito could be making a call to tell his family about it or something, though still too convenient.

Originally Posted by whiteslashasian

Click to expand...

I like it as well.

*SPOILER* However I believe his logic for explaining how the whole movie was a dream until Cobb wakes on the plane isn't quite bulletproof. If it were all a dream, I find it to be too big of a coincidence that Seito and Cobb should wake up at the same time (after Cobb pulls Seito from limbo) and that Seito would then immediately hop on the phone to make a call (and it is never shown in the movie what is said, though it could have been in Japanese so Cobb wouldn't understand anyways). If following Adam White's logic about a near catastrophic event on the plane that Cobb slept through it's true Seito could be making a call to tell his family about it or something, though still too convenient.

Hmmmmm

*SPOILER* I could see an explanation along the lines of how when you first wake up, you are still piecing together memories in your dream. If Cobb was looking back on the dream, I could see him connecting Seito to the dream where before he had only the dream image of a person but no specific face....

Originally Posted by joelmthw

Click to expand...

i like this explanation of the movie in his blog post

http://www.theadamwhite.com/

that explanation makes the movie kinda pointless.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

A little disappointed that JG-L didn't have more of a character. He was just sort of window dressing.

That being said, I liked the movie.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

Pretty much the extent of his character though. I dunno. I guess having a bunch of really great, versatile actors in your movie, and then using them as you would as model/actors just kinda bugs me.

Gordon-Leavitt is a good actor but allows himself to be overshadowed by the people around him. Maybe it's his youth. His best scenes were (SPOILERS):

a) alone with Ariadne, explaining the rules or Cobb's backstory
b) alone in the 2nd dream level, preparing the others for the kickback (I appreciated the way he played it completely straight and business-like, as if he were solving an engineering problem. Didn't smile or talk once except to let us know that the lack of gravity was going to be problematic.)

The scene where Eames pops up beside him and emasculates him by killing the projection with a grenade launcher instead of a rifle is basically a metaphor for his place alongside the other actors, though.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

I can't believe someone would make a movie about dreams without exploring the logic of dreams and the unconscious. In this movie they were nothing more than the exotic locales of action movie sets; they could have been the Hollywood version of Cairo for all we care. Nolan is such a sad geek lost in the intellectual precision of his 4 levels editing.

Thankfully my dreams aren't directed by the dude who made Goldeneye...

Some of the scenes taken as isolated moments were nice visual accomplishments, especially the dream construction walk through we get with Ellen Page, however it served to remind us how procedural the movie was. Sure he showed us how the dream world was set in hyperreality but aren't all blockbusters (and his movies)?
This is probably the most popular criticism of the film: that it doesn't deal enough with dreams. A.O. Scott complains about the same thing in the NYT. He acknowledges, at least, that Freudian interpretations of dreams posit that subconscious elements are built out of real-world experiences. And since movies are part of that experience, it makes sense that dreams would or could reflect their structure and elements. I'm surprised that you allude to the meta-analytical aspect of the movie without following up on the logical conclusion: that by poaching elements from films like 2001, Blade Runner, the Matrix, James Bond, and Heat, Nolan is commenting on both the recycling of old tropes and the way in which our fantasies have become procedural as a result. This works on a literal, action-movie level (which is good for box office revenues) but equally well as a critique of modern narratives (which tends to get ignored by most movie-goers).

To illustrate the tendency, one of the loudest criticisms of The Dark Knight was its grade-school morality and cheesiness (the criminals throw the detonator in the water, Bruce Wayne destroys the surveillance technology at the end, Batman martyrs himself to save Dent's reputation, etc.). But if you consider the film in light of the speech the Joker gives to Two-Face in the hospital -- where he explains that people seek comforting narratives that work "as they're supposed to," and are not shocked even when horrible things happen so long as those things are anticipated -- as a key to interpreting the rest of the film, you can see that Nolan is commenting on the entire structure of the superhero/action genre, where countless extras may die, buildings be blown up, etc. but so long as there is a clearly defined hero and villain who get their just desserts and the status quo is preserved, people will be satisfied.

Here is the quote: I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

I think Nolan is a fan and frequent employer of mise-en-abà me in his films. I think you underrate him because he is also an extremely competent technical filmmaker and produces for a mass audience.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

The guy is obviously not an idiot but it's like he has no dreams, both of the sleeping and awake kind. In other words I don't think its a stupid movie but it is definitely not an engaging or interesting one. An empty exercise in technical prowess just isn't fulfilling.
An uninteresting film merely leaves you indifferent. That's clearly not the case here.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

I'd have liked it to be a totally different movie so I can't answer that. I guess the interesting part could have been the relationship with the wife (oh and the ******* name, "Mal" means Evil in french).
I'm not sure there's much signficance to her name, even though 'Ariadne' was a bit heavy-handed.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

They design the levels but the subconscious of the dreamer directs what is going on. Not that it matters, its a scenario, he could have written something else if he wanted. To have a dreamworld that is a 5 star hotel and that's about it is pure crap. It was ok to leave the mechanics imprecise, who cares. He just wasn't able to run with the idea of dreams in any interesting form.
To return to dreams, I don't see why people consider this the most philosophically signficant aspect of the film, nor why they insist it should have been better developed. Filmmakers that focus on this theme tend to produce works that are visually interesting but shallow and flat, cf. Michel Gondry and Terry Gilliam. This is also a foolish critique because it rejects all attempt to judge films according to what they attempt to be. It's the equivalent of panning Mean Streets because it is isn't a buddy comedy about misfit immigrants in Little Italy. Telling us that it isn't the film you would have made is pointless because it's detatched from everything the film actually is.

Instead, what makes the film interesting are the rules that you find render it so procedural. From a purely dramatic point of view, the laws governing entrance to and exit from the various dream levels create an impressive amount of tension that is sustained without relent for the final 40 minutes of the movie. As a thriller, it is near-flawlessly executed. It is likewise far from unimpressive that Nolan was able to create a rule-bound structure that allows the audience the understand the various transitions and cause/effect relationships without getting lost in the action. In that sense, it reminded me of Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down, which managed to make the unfolding of synchronous events perfectly clear even amidst the chaos of the battlefield.

From a thinking point of view, the essential issue does not concern the difference between dreaming and being awake, the subconscious or the ability to create worlds, etc. All that is window dressing for the central dilemma confronting the main character, which is the value placed on living in the "real" world combined with the inability to distinguish between what is real and what isn't. Now, I'll be the first to admit that this isn't necessarily dissertation material but it has room for enough intellectual interest that there's no need to complain that secondary themes weren't sufficiently developed. It goes all the way back to Descartes' scepticism in the Meditations and the question of how we evaluate authenticity of experience.

Originally Posted by rnoldh

Click to expand...

I saw it ( at least the first 35 minutes) today at the Edwards cinema here in Houston, Tx.

It was incomprehensible BS.

I saw the manager and got passes for any future movie since I felt I had wasted the admission price.

"Dinner with the Schmucks" opens on July 30th. That will be better.

BTW: I went with a female MD friend who is extremely smart ( obviously much smarter than I ). She thought it was silly pretentious crap too.

Originally Posted by rnoldh

Click to expand...

No

I doubt my friend who is both an MD and a PHD "Faked" idiocy for a free movie pass. We didn't demand anything but just let the manager know how we felt. He offered the passes.

Overly pretentious BS is probably more descriptive than "incomprehensible".
lol what a turd. What's pretentious is you mentioning your friend's degrees twice as a justification for her dislike of the movie. "Oh, my friend -- who, by the way, doesn't happen to like Shakespeare -- has an MD and PhD you know, so her opinion is obviously very important." Uh huh, okay.

What's even more pathetic is that you don't actually have a coherent critique of the movie aside from admitting that it was beyond your ability to comprehend so you justify your dislike of the film by relying on her supposed expertise (because I guess doctors spend 9 years analyzing Buñuel and Scorsese and not, you know, learning to diagnose illnesses). Maybe next time I go see an adaptation of Beckett I'll bring along my buddy with a doctorate in computer science and solicit his expert opinion on 20th century theatre to buttress my own.

The best part was when you registered your complaint with someone who has absolutely no involvement whatsoever in the film, "just to let him know how you felt." Did you also let the popcorn vendor know how you felt? And the guy who cleans the bathrooms? I hope they were very concerned by your feelings. Did you get free toilet paper, too?

Originally Posted by joelmthw

Click to expand...

i like this explanation of the movie in his blog post

http://www.theadamwhite.com/

Originally Posted by whiteslashasian

Click to expand...

I like it as well.

*SPOILER* However I believe his logic for explaining how the whole movie was a dream until Cobb wakes on the plane isn't quite bulletproof. If it were all a dream, I find it to be too big of a coincidence that Seito and Cobb should wake up at the same time (after Cobb pulls Seito from limbo) and that Seito would then immediately hop on the phone to make a call (and it is never shown in the movie what is said, though it could have been in Japanese so Cobb wouldn't understand anyways). If following Adam White's logic about a near catastrophic event on the plane that Cobb slept through it's true Seito could be making a call to tell his family about it or something, though still too convenient.

Originally Posted by otc

Click to expand...

Hmmmmm

*SPOILER* I could see an explanation along the lines of how when you first wake up, you are still piecing together memories in your dream. If Cobb was looking back on the dream, I could see him connecting Seito to the dream where before he had only the dream image of a person but no specific face....
Terrible "explanation," largely because it violates the cardinal rule of film critique which is not to invent information that the filmmaker doesn't give us. It is moreover intellectually uninteresting to approach the film from this point of view, contrary to what he claims.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

lol what a turd. What's pretentious is you mentioning your friend's degrees twice as a justification for her dislike of the movie. "Oh, my friend -- who, by the way, doesn't happen to like Shakespeare -- has an MD and PhD you know, so her opinion is obviously very important." Uh huh, okay.

What's even more pathetic is that you don't actually have a coherent critique of the movie aside from admitting that it was beyond your ability to comprehend so you justify your dislike of the film by relying on her supposed expertise (because I guess doctors spend 9 years analyzing Buñuel and Scorsese and not, you know, learning to diagnose illnesses). Maybe next time I go see an adaptation of Beckett I'll bring along my buddy with a doctorate in computer science and solicit his expert opinion on 20th century theatre to buttress my own.

The best part was when you registered your complaint with someone who has absolutely no involvement whatsoever in the film, "just to let him know how you felt."

Did you also let the popcorn vendor know how you felt? And the guy who cleans the bathrooms? I hope they were very concerned by your feelings. Did you get free toilet paper, too?

the movie is decent, there's one part i didn't understand, maybe someone could enlighten me. **spoiler** when they were in the snow scene(dream level 3), how did Leo and Page went in to limbo by just entering another dream state. i assume Leo is the dreamer for the next level, so Leo's dream world = limbo? i thought the only way to enter limbo is to die in a dream while being too sedated to wake up in reality. If they simply went into Leo's dream world, why would Fischer be there?

Interesting points Holymadness, I'd be equally interested in reading your interpretation as well. I agree with you that the Adam White explanation is very unsatisfying, making the movie seem quite pointless and dull and that it doesn't work logically as it involves making up facts that have not been referenced at all in the film.

Originally Posted by WSW

Click to expand...

My Understanding, with spoilers:

They enter Leo's dream, following Fischer a level down. Fischer is not dead, but simply unconscious from his wounds in level 3, so they need to go down to level 4 to get him back. Leo dies in level 1, when he doesn't get out of the van and travels to limbo on his own. Ellen Page's character references this, saying that he'll be fine even though the others wanted to get him out. She knew he was going to limbo to get Saito and had prepared by bringing along his totem.

**spoiler**
thank you for the explanation, i don't remember very clearly, but i thought they said that he was killed by Mal. if Fischer was simply unconscious, why wouldn't they just "revive" him with the defibrillator?

Originally Posted by rnoldh

Click to expand...

I saw it ( at least the first 35 minutes) today at the Edwards cinema here in Houston, Tx.

It was incomprehensible BS.

I saw the manager and got passes for any future movie since I felt I had wasted the admission price.

"Dinner with the Schmucks" opens on July 30th. That will be better.

BTW: I went with a female MD friend who is extremely smart ( obviously much smarter than I ). She thought it was silly pretentious crap too.

Congratulations on your trolling skills.

Originally Posted by laughwithm3

Click to expand...

**spoiler**
thank you for the explanation, i don't remember very clearly, but i thought they said that he was killed by Mal. if Fischer was simply unconscious, why wouldn't they just "revive" him with the defibrillator?

Spoiler:
They do revive him, but they have to synchronize it with the kicks in level 1 and 2 if they want to have enough of an effect to get Ellen Page and Fischer back to level 1.

Originally Posted by rnoldh

Click to expand...

As usual ( with your 28 posts ) you miss the point.

Forget pretentious, this is the most simplistic, immature forum reply possible... and your initial post just cried for attention

Also enjoyed it. It wasn't overly intellectual, so I don't know what people are complaining about. In terms of current movies, what do you haters recommend? And no obscure french indie films from 5-10 years ago kthx.