|
Post by Tyler Smith on Jul 16, 2010 20:36:10 GMT -5
In what is promising to be the movie event of the summer, Christopher Nolan's Inception opens today. There has been a lot of talk on-line about the film's generally great reception by critics (and a fair amount of backlash). I've not seen the movie yet, but I'm intrigued. For those that have seen it, go ahead and let us know what you thought of it here.
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Jul 16, 2010 22:44:26 GMT -5
I was going to start this thread myself but honestly there's a lot to unpackage. I'll begin this post sans any major plot spoilers:
This is one spectacular movie. It's really well crafted and by the time you get into the thick of the movie it's a wonder Christopher Nolan's able to hold it all together.
His use of effects is wonderful and through a clever blend of ingenious practical effects and computer generated spectacle I can say that I rarely saw the strings. There are a couple of amazing effects that made me feel like I was watching a magic trick.
The editing is astonishing. In Film Comment Christopher Nolan claims the movie cut to script which is even more amazing and I guess a real testament to the writing. I really really want to read this script.
I’ll go and dig into the plot in another post just as soon as I get the chance to type that all up.
|
|
|
Post by bouncingbrick on Jul 17, 2010 22:00:58 GMT -5
Pretty good movie, absolutely the highlight of the summer season. Pretty much what I expected of it!
I agree completely with the good Dr. about the effects. Some of the best effects I've seen in a very long time.
It also had one of the best cast's I've seen in a while. Leo, Joseph Gordan-Levitt, Ken Wantanabe, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page, etc. Everyone, even the small roles like Tom Berenger and Lukas Haas were a delight.
MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD!
I'll be the first to post negative comment, though. There's a whole ton of expostional dialog spoken to Ellen Page because she's the obligatory audience stand-in. It's sort of clunky for the set up of what's actually going on. But this is a minor nit-pick.
A major problem I had was more with the "science" of what was going on. I never fully understood how it was that people could share dreams. I'm pretty sure there has to be something going on other than simply being sedated for me to actually travel into someone else's dreams. This film requires a very big suspension of disbelief, but once you get over that it's a terrific ride. To be honest I never really did get over this particular hump. I accepted it, but I still felt it nagging at the back of my brain throughout the film.
That said, Nolan is a true craftsman and an outstanding entertainer. I can't wait to watch this movie again.
|
|
|
Post by AsherFord on Jul 18, 2010 11:15:52 GMT -5
I've spent most of the past three days just talking about the film and trying to determine what happened. Here's the full, complex theory I ended up working out with my roommate:
asherford.blogspot.com
MAJOR SPOILERS. Normally I hate spoiler warnings, but in this case, with this film, it's actually more about spoiling/changing your personal understanding/interpretation of the work. Anyway, the explanation is heinously long, but interesting I think. And having the theory in my mind made the second viewing a much more satisfying experience.
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Jul 18, 2010 21:04:28 GMT -5
This time my post will be a bit more spoiler-riffic:I agree that strictly speaking it’s not a masterpiece but I still consider it a fantastic movie. The problems I had with it aren’t enough to warrant A.O. Scott’s reaction which was essentially “good, not great.” I really did love it. The supporting cast could have been given more opportunities to stretch. Maybe they could have taken a page from the heist-movie-handbook and worked off each players motivations or gotten the rest of the gang more involved in Leonardo’s personal struggle. Ellen Page is really the only one who’s able to have those interactions and, plotwise, is the strongest supporting character. The opening stretches of the film have some great qualities but I’d agree with you Brick about it being a bit clunky. Though I never really felt myself questioning the technology during the movie like you say you did. I’ve heard some people say the final shot ruined the film for them- that even the insinuation that the story was all a dream invalidates the entire plot. I would agree if there weren’t so many other possibilities. Massawyrm over at Ain’t It Cool News explains it so I don’t have to: One: that everything we’ve seen is above the board and is a solid, internally consistent film. The top is about to wobble and fall.
Two: that the movie has been mostly honest with us, but Cobb never actually made it out of Limbo and, now - lonely from of Mal’s departure - has constructed an elaborate fantasy involving his escaping. It doesn’t matter whether the top falls or not.
Three: most or all of what we’ve seen is real until Cobb descends into Limbo to save Saito, but everything after that is an elaborate construct to ease his suffering before he goes mad and scrambles. The top does not fall.
Four : most or all of what we’ve seen is a fiction and Cobb is a dreamer in some dream world that may or may not involve dream invasion technology at all. It also does not matter whether or not the top falls over. I can see why some people might not be able to escape the notion that the whole movie didn’t actually happen but personally I’m willing to accept it as not-my-intepretation. I’m also willing to accept it as a less literal indicator- an allusion to the movie’s concept. I think I’ve already said too much so... I’ll let someone else talk. It’s fun being able to go back and forth and I can’t help but imagine how neat a Battleship Pretension movie club would be. Just sayin' is all. I’ll read your blog post Ash once I get around to finishing Ulysses. Which is to say that you’ve provided me with a nice chunk of before-I-go-to-sleep reading tonight.
|
|
|
Post by bouncingbrick on Jul 23, 2010 18:49:34 GMT -5
|
|
vulpix
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by vulpix on Aug 7, 2010 13:38:54 GMT -5
I loved the premise of Inception. Here we have this grand notion of entering other people's dreams and manipulating their subconscious thoughts--something not quite like anything we've never seen in any film before--but what does the film ultimately become other than a series of car chases and gunfights, something we've seen many times before? Granted, the special effects were excellent, but those superb effects are used in the service of a mundane plot centered around a gratuitously labyrinthine script with unconvincing dialogue delivered by actors whose performances were so melodramatic that I found myself chuckling in all the places that were intended to be anything but funny.
Ultimately, I just ended up feeling disappointed by the wasted potential of the film's premise. Inception could have taken us to amazing places but chose to remain safely in generic heist film territory. To borrow a phrase from one of the characters in Inception, I wish Nolan would "dream bigger."
|
|
|
Post by bouncingbrick on Aug 7, 2010 22:45:12 GMT -5
I just want to say that no matter this films flaws, and it has many, I'm very happy to see it doing well at the box office. I felt a bit of the same thing about Avatar because (if we're lucky) it means studios will take more chances with original ideas. And, hopefully, it will mean we'l see more of them giving money over to artists along with that elusive idea of artistic freedom. It would be great to see more films like Inception in the theater than films like Transformes 2, G. I. Joe, horror remakes or the millionth comic book adaption. So complain about Inceptions flaws all you want, at least we had an original artistic vision in theater this summer among all the s***.
(is this a swear friendly forum or is it family oriented?)
|
|
vulpix
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by vulpix on Aug 8, 2010 15:06:53 GMT -5
I just want to say that no matter this films flaws, and it has many, I'm very happy to see it doing well at the box office. I felt a bit of the same thing about Avatar because (if we're lucky) it means studios will take more chances with original ideas. And, hopefully, it will mean we'l see more of them giving money over to artists along with that elusive idea of artistic freedom. It would be great to see more films like Inception in the theater than films like Transformes 2, G. I. Joe, horror remakes or the millionth comic book adaption. So complain about Inceptions flaws all you want, at least we had an original artistic vision in theater this summer among all the s***. (is this a swear friendly forum or is it family oriented?) I agree with you there. I do admire Inception and even Avatar for trying to do something new, and I'm glad both of those films did well at the box office for that reason. That said, we have occasionally seen some originality come out of franchises. Christopher Nolan's previous film, The Dark Knight, is a prime example of that.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler Smith on Aug 8, 2010 18:58:33 GMT -5
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Aug 8, 2010 22:10:19 GMT -5
It's going to be strange hearing Pat Francis' voice again, I'm very far behind on Never Not Funny. I was just thinking about purchasing the episodes I haven't heard yet. I really do miss listening to them every week.
I'm not sure that CHUD article is the key to the movie but the connections they point out seem to have been conscious. I believe they mentioned the Film Comment article where he confirms those facts.
The first Iron Man was an exciting twist on the formula and had a really cool energy and I'll admit that I really did love Kick-Ass so I can't say I'm against franchises and adaptations. I think it has more to do with Hollywood's instance on finding some formula for success instead of relying on the quality of the films.[/cynicism]
Going to listen to the supplement before I say anything more.
|
|
vulpix
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by vulpix on Aug 8, 2010 23:57:04 GMT -5
That was a very entertaining show. After hearing virtually nothing but praise for Inception from other sources, I feel not so alone now. All of you said the things I was thinking but nobody else brought up in their reviews of the movie. I wouldn't go so far as to give the film a 1/4 as David and Pat did--it's more like 2.5/4 for me--but it was refreshing to hear an intelligent critical analysis of the film from all of you.
|
|
|
Post by siege121 on Aug 9, 2010 0:50:01 GMT -5
First off I want to say that I think Tyler, David and Pat all gave reasonable, intelligent opinions on the film. That said I disagree with almost all of them. I really feel like this is Nolan's best work and a great film in any situation.
I feel first and foremost this is a story about Cobb's guilt for what happened to his wife. I bought into that relationship and was invested in it. The science does not matter to me and I do not think it matters to Nolan. To me this is not a film about the history of this new (old?) technology. Whenever a film has to explain how a piece of technology has affected the world it always takes the emotion out of the film for me. This film to me is about how the technology is affecting THIS man's life. To explain it's place in the world, to me, would cheapen our understanding of how it affects Cobb. It would make his experience one of many in the world. By excluding this information it allowed me to focus in on Cobb's story. I am more forgiving of a film that drops me into a world and doesn't need to explain everything to me than I am to a film that gives a laundry list of how this technology has changed the world. I want to know how it affected Cobb and I think this film did a great job showing how it did.
I feel like the criticism of a lack of "imagination" in the dreams themselves was clearly explained when they said you can't make things all crazy and goofy because the subconscious will know there is a foreign invader in the mind and will want it gone. I feel like the term "dreams" if being taken far too literal. This is a manufactured scene taking place in another mental plane within someone's mind. Things from someone's own subconscious and past cannot come up because they have not manufactured the "dream." Cillian Murphy's character has no control over anything. Things he has seen or experiences in his past can't just burst in because it really isn't his "dream" anymore. Cobb's team created this "dream" so they are the only one's who can change it (hence Cobb's train bursting through the streets and Marion Cotilliard showing up). Murphy's only defense is then to have his mind trained to attack anyone creating a manufactured scene in his mind (I'll admit that is a bit of a narrative leap but I am willing to go along with it because I feel it fits in with this universe).
That's all I want to say right now but if anyone has any response I'd love to discuss further. I agree with vulpix that it was great to hear, in my case, a contrary opinion to the film. Great and interesting episode.
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on Aug 10, 2010 23:02:18 GMT -5
I think I might listen to the full episode tomorrow morning (listened to some of it but I wasn't in a place where I could concentrate on it) but here's a couple of comments based what I heard and the assorted comments in this thread.
I was glad they sidestepped the long winded explanation of the technology's history. There's probably an interesting story in there but it wasn't crucial to my own enjoyment of Inception.
I'm not sure I'm willing to write off “lack of imagination” to some rule but I wasn’t nearly as disappointed as others seem to be. There were more than a couple of clever effects that put a big smile on my face and the editing seemed to echo that dreamlike experience. It’s may not reach the heights of Mullholland Drive but personally I felt some of Lynch’s influence in the editing.
I think I might go see this one more time, a matinee, this Thursday. Mostly because I genuinely enjoyed the movie but also to give it the revisit it seems to be asking for.
|
|
|
Post by siege121 on Aug 11, 2010 8:50:00 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'm willing to write off “lack of imagination” to some rule but I wasn’t nearly as disappointed as others seem to be. I guess my point was that I don't think it's fair to hold it against a film for not being as imaginative as the viewer would like it to be. I was just saying that to fit what Nolan was doing he used this rule to set up a lack of "craziness" within the dream. Having animals running through the city or whatever would have been completely out of place from what Nolan did. I don't think you can fault him for not "dreaming bigger." He did what he did and thats what I try and have an opinion on, not what I would have liked to see. But I am completely with you on not being disappointed with what he did think up. I was constantly surprised and interested with what Nolan showed me (I only watched the very first teaser trailer that came out. I had to avoid those trailers like the plague).
|
|
lennart
New Member
I don?t see race. On that subject I am very enlightened, and equally endarkened.
Posts: 23
|
Post by lennart on Aug 12, 2010 18:06:46 GMT -5
Ultimately, I just ended up feeling disappointed by the wasted potential of the film's premise. Inception could have taken us to amazing places but chose to remain safely in generic heist film territory. To borrow a phrase from one of the characters in Inception, I wish Nolan would "dream bigger." I agree very much with that point. I can't exactly pinpoint what I would've liked to see. However, for a film that seemed to portray itself as something deeper or more engaging than the average film I was pretty bored in that final snow dream sequence. Also, someone I know remarked that Inception is 'a great movie, if you like to think,' which really annoyed me when I ultimately saw the film. The film is very easy for almost anyone to understand (except perhaps the idea of Cobb's guilt, which I daresay no one really got) and it's not even a tenth as thought-provoking, thoughtful, or confusing (in a good way) as any film which I'd describe as 'great, if you like to think.' As someone relatively scientifically-minded, this movie also bothered me. I'm perfectly fine if a film doesn't want to explain how a technology or phenomenon works, it's under no obligation to do so. However, if a film decides it should try to scientifically explain something, it better do a decent job. If it doesn't, their half-assed quasi-scientific explanation just bugs me to no end. And that's what happened with this film for me. Saying that people can dream together when they are in close proximity or whatever is just lazy. As well, I never really understood what was going on with the sedatives, or why the time-scales seemed to, for no clear reason, multiply exponentially. One qualm I felt wasn't talked about in the BP supplement is the fact that this entire mission is basically done so that Greedy "Kaito" McMoneybags can keep his company afloat. Some passing mention is made to the idea of a monopoly or something, but it's so casually mentioned that we really have no reason to believe Kaito's justifications. For all we know he just doesn't like Cillian Murphy's haircut. I understand that Cobb probably wanted to go through with it for his own satisfaction, but that reason was only barely implied. In any case, whether they did it for Kaito or for Cobb I felt there wasn't nearly enough explanation as to why these people would do it. The lack of nearly any character development really bored me as well.
|
|
|
Post by justinkemp on Dec 10, 2010 0:57:07 GMT -5
INCEPTION. 9 of 10! It was amazing~ The only complaint I have is that it's such a thinker that I'll need to watch it again. It's really creative and makes me want to dream share.
|
|
|
Post by camillabee on May 19, 2011 12:38:03 GMT -5
so i *thought* i loved this movie until i listened to tyler, david, and pat's discussion. the points they made were really great, and though i still think the movie is wildly entertaining - perhaps because i don't always think about the details and am not frustrated with the time issue within the movie - it made me wish christopher nolan had instead made an amazinging movie intead of had a potentially good idea he made into a movie that didn't quite add up.
as always, bp makes me question better, and *almost* makes me want to rewatch david lynch films.
|
|
Dr Handsome
Full Member
...but you can call me Eric.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Dr Handsome on May 25, 2011 16:00:22 GMT -5
Honestly, I haven't seen the movie since the midnight screening but I sense more than a little backlash in many of the criticism. It's certainly not some infallible masterpiece but it's still thrilling and creative enough.
|
|