Inception

Started by modage, August 24, 2009, 10:21:41 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

modage

It's interesting to say there is no replay value but you'll revisit the film on DVD.  I'm curious to rewatch The Matrix now to see how much of the dialogue is taken up with explaining what the hell the Matrix is.  I'm guessing a lot of it.  Though I will admit it is noticeable in Inception, I'm okay with it.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

tpfkabi

I really enjoyed this. Even though I saw it at the cheaper theater with crummy seats and sound (it sounded like surround had been compressed into Mono) I got lost in the multiple storylines. No one talked at all until it was over and then I covered my ears as to not hear their opinions.


***spoils***

I brought up the kids not aging and wearing the same clothes on IMDB, but someone who had seen the film twice said there are actually multiple actors in the credits and that their clothing is not exactly the same. I wondered if Michael Caine is dressed the same as well. Nothing I thought to take notice of on first viewing.

For some reason I have the theory that it was actually Leo who felt as Mal did (that dream was reality) and the entire thing is constructed by Mal in order to give him peace. I would have to see it again to remember why this thought came to mind.
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.

socketlevel

***SPOILERS***

Quote from: modage on July 20, 2010, 07:24:53 AM
It's interesting to say there is no replay value but you'll revisit the film on DVD.  I'm curious to rewatch The Matrix now to see how much of the dialogue is taken up with explaining what the hell the Matrix is.  I'm guessing a lot of it.  Though I will admit it is noticeable in Inception, I'm okay with it.

well it's my hypothesis, because i've only seen it once. maybe it does have great replay value. i thought i was clear on this. however if i wasn't, the purpose would be to watch it again on dvd is to test the hypothosis, to see if it's enriching beyond the stuff that serves a first viewing. i doubt it will be, and i believe i'm correct in my educated guess. i'd actually put money on it, but can't say for certain because it's just me pontificating until i do :)

another side note, as some of you might have noticed i get this way with certain films. ones that tack on so much depth that reveal themselves as shallow. many people stop upon first inspection to infuse all this bullshit into them that i just can't seem to see. i attacked fight club, matrix and a few others in previous threads. so i guess i am bias, but i just hate when movies pretend to be something high brow when they're simply action movies. this is his first movie that did this kind of thing, dark knight was amazing, memento is great, and i even really liked the prestige (which had many similar tone based layers but never tried to come across as philosophy)

oh and the last shot is bullshit cop-out nonsense, it's been done so many times. the movie would be so much more rewarding if i'd never seen total recall or countless other films with the same device. i would have A: not included the shot (or end of the shot) or B: hold long enough to give the answer, it either keeps rotating or topples. i know this isn't the 'point', but a decisive ending would have been much more rewarding.
the one last hit that spent you...

john

Pretty tedious, but occasionally breathtaking.  Nolan is a bit adventurous, both intellectually and visually - he can construct a pretty decent action scene (that hallway fight!) - but it all seems so lifeless.

I can't knock the film too much, though. Anything with this many ideas executed at a grand level is admirable even if it doesn't totally succeed. Ultimately, I'm envious of anyone who this film completely won over... it would be nice to have more to say about it.

Doesn't reconfigure my perceptions of Nolan, though - just reaffirms them.
Maybe every day is Saturday morning.

matt35mm

This is fabulous:

(no spoilers)

SPOILERS:

I do respect the film for how intelligent it is.  There are few films of this scale that challenge your ability to keep track of information, and your ability to use that information to actively engage with the story.  I think most people are able to follow along, so it doesn't demand a high IQ or anything, but it does demand that you pay attention.  It makes you want to pay maximum attention, and for that, I say, "Bravo."

That said, my favorite films are ones where I don't have to pay that much attention.  It's fun to have a mental exercise like this, but it leaves little room for the mind to wander.  I do think that one's mind subconsciously projects things onto a film, but this film, by explaining that we're seeing the subconscious projecting this and that, robbed me of the opportunity to let that happen.  This is why my favorite films are ones with very simple storylines (or barely a storyline at all); I fill it with a million things upon every viewing, and the experience becomes very personal.  Because nothing in this film was significantly ambiguous (I agree with those who say that the ending is not that ambiguous, because there are only two, MAYBE three possible ideas that you can get from it), I must say that I never related to any of the characters on screen.  Cobb is the only one who I came close to caring for, but even then, not that much.  All of the other characters had no dimension to them, which Nolan kind of gets away with by casting very charming actors.  Everyone smiling at each other during the airport scene at the end was laughable to me, as they have every reason to hate Cobb for putting them in that kind of jeopardy.  Their whole motivation for the last half of the movie is to survive this situation that Cobb put them in for his own gain.  Maybe this part was a dream then; it certainly didn't feel like reality to be all smiles toward the guy who almost got your brains scrambled.

I suppose my main criticism of the film is that it all feels so calculated.  Most of the moments onscreen were there as a solution to a logical problem, including Cobb and Mal's dramatic relationship stuff (solving the problem of what motivates Cobb).  This is why I think some people are calling the film "cold" or "lifeless."  The only part that felt like a pure cinematic moment was the hallway fight, which kind of exists on its own as a set-piece (one of the most amazing ones I've ever seen).  It wasn't necessary.  Indeed, it was the only moment of the film that wasn't necessary, which is part of what makes it so damn fun, and the best scene in the film.

I did enjoy this more than The Dark Knight.  The editing in The Dark Knight really bothered me.  Too much stuff was happening all at once, and all too fast, linked together by Hans Zimmer's score.  Every scene felt just a bit too short.  There was a similar amount of stuff going on in Inception, with a similar intercutting-to-Zimmer's-droning-score strategy, but the pacing was better, and the scenes felt more balanced.

To me, this film was like an impeccably-dressed model, who exactly fits the size and proportion of beauty, and is measurably perfect.  She's gorgeous, but she's not the one who'll linger in your mind, or even be truly sexy.  And you'll never fall in love with her.

Fernando

You sonofaguns that don't live in méxico don't know how lucky you are.

This was supposed to premier today but apparently wb wanted a bigger slice of the pie and the cinemas didn't agree to it, only one company did and they have the crappiest movie theaters here, it's like watching an old vhs, and I know that because when I saw TDK on imax and later at one of those theaters the image and sound quality was horrible.

This is bullshit.

cronopio 2

they fucked us in the ass.
this could be the final straw in a series of colossal fuck you's the big theater chains and the latin american branches of hollywood studios pull in mexican cinemas.
it's to offensive to even explain it, i'm just glad piracy is a constant in my life, and if i ever get sued by the MPAA for downloading so many GBs of illegal material, it will be with a smile of cynicism.

©brad

Loved, loved, loved it. I'm looking forward to reading all the theories now (#1 of the ones Mod posted is what I assumed happened and I'm fine with it). This is such a tired cliche but this movie was a true roller coaster. I felt exhausted when it ended, which is good and bad. I definitely agree with the following:

Quote from: picolas on July 18, 2010, 02:41:00 AM
there's a long passage of the film as everyone's preparing for the job and giving exposition to set up the rules that is simply too relentlessly paced. every line of dialogue feels so crucial and it's just flying into your brain like encyclopedias and dictionaries off a treadmill on max speed. i think the score was going unbroken for like 30 minutes.

It was longer than 30 minutes. Hell the whole film has score! I can only recall a very brief 5 minute scoreless interlude. This was my same beef with the Dark Knight, that the film never stops to take a breath. Does Nolan just not have time to slow things down? Come on our attention spans aren't that short.

Quote from: RegularKarate on July 16, 2010, 04:53:01 PM
SPOILERS

ILaM, I was really fine with the way the majority of the dream-world was so realistic.  The only way the unnatural is going to really stand out is if the world surrounding it is natural.  If everything is nutty, crazy, dreamlike, we're not really going to notice the cool subtleties built into the dreams.


Agreed. I think by keeping the dreams real it raises the stakes for the characters. "Dreams feel real while we're in them" and that whole bit.

Quote from: samsong on July 19, 2010, 02:21:22 AMit capitalizes on a cool idea in terms of making for an immensely entertaining film. inception is there for awe-inspired gawking, of which it elicits much of.

Okay, and why is that not enough? Even if the film is as hollow as you say (and I definitely disagree that it is), I think we all have to remember that this was a freakin $160 million summer blockbuster that was not a sequel, a super hero movie, a sequel of a super hero movie, or any other of the very few formulas that are getting green-lit these days. The fact that this was an original and very complex film made on a grand scale for adults is a pretty outstanding and admirable feat.

As for the exposition-heavy script, I knew about that complaint going in and I have to say it didn't bother me nearly as much as I thought it would. It is at its core a heist movie, and part of the fun of those is learning the rules and whatnot. I do think it would have benefited if Nolan had added more humanity via humor. I'm not talking hard jokes or anything, but just little smiles here and there that let the characters (and us) come up for air.

socketlevel

Quote from: ©brad on July 23, 2010, 10:16:59 AM
Okay, and why is that not enough?

it's not enough because it's all we can hope for these days. the bar is set so low that anything marginally above (or in this case considerably above but still not too impressive) is herald by all.
the one last hit that spent you...

©brad

Quote from: socketlevel on July 23, 2010, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: ©brad on July 23, 2010, 10:16:59 AM
Okay, and why is that not enough?

it's not enough because it's all we can hope for these days. the bar is set so low that anything marginally above (or in this case considerably above but still not too impressive) is herald by all.

Maybe the bar isn't that low, maybe your expectations are just too high. I agree with some of your criticisms, particularly with the construction of the script. I just don't think the film is as empty as you claim. The blogosphere (ugh that word) is rife with debates and theories on this film. Hollow films generally don't do that.

Pubrick

quick review after one viewing, more thoughts later:

best heist movie of the last fifty years.
best dream film of the last 10.
best nolan film.
best use of special effects this century.

nolan is smart. even if the way some ideas are explained in the film might seem simplistic or even the opposite, overly convoluted to the point of being ridiculous, that is simply the dialogue. the films ideas are not in the exposition but in its structure and in the way he has used the most minimal of genre elements to make a hybrid film that epitomises originality AND perfection of previous material. his use of the heist genre is so genius that it makes it almost mandatory to revisit his entire filmography and reassess what exactly he has been doing all this time.

haven't read anything that says "spoilers" in this thread so i will come back after second viewing to join in the bullshit. just want to reply to this minor point:

Quote from: ©brad on July 23, 2010, 10:16:59 AM
Does Nolan just not have time to slow things down? Come on our attention spans aren't that short.

this doesn't make sense. how does not slowing things down = assuming ppl have short attention spans? you're confusing fast cutting (of say a tony scott or michael bay) with fast plotting (of say a top-of-his-game scorsese). if plot points come thick and fast, this means the complete opposite of a short attention span is required.
under the paving stones.

Alexandro

to the mexicans:

you mean this will not be released here on the IMAX CINEPOLIS THEATRES????

you mean we are stuck with cinemark or some crap like that for this?


©brad

Quote from: P on July 23, 2010, 10:57:59 AM

Quote from: ©brad on July 23, 2010, 10:16:59 AM
Does Nolan just not have time to slow things down? Come on our attention spans aren't that short.

this doesn't make sense. how does not slowing things down = assuming ppl have short attention spans? you're confusing fast cutting (of say a tony scott or michael bay) with fast plotting (of say a top-of-his-game scorsese). if plot points come thick and fast, this means the complete opposite of a short attention span is required.

You're right. The movie's relentless pace demands you keep up with it and someone with a short attention span would probably be either playing a game on his phone or twittering or something. I just wonder if the idea of giving the film some breathing room between set pieces was deliberate or some studio-mandate to keep things exciting out of fear of boring a mainstream audience.


socketlevel

***SPOILERS***

Quote from: ©brad on July 23, 2010, 10:33:49 AM
Quote from: socketlevel on July 23, 2010, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: ©brad on July 23, 2010, 10:16:59 AM
Okay, and why is that not enough?

it's not enough because it's all we can hope for these days. the bar is set so low that anything marginally above (or in this case considerably above but still not too impressive) is herald by all.

Maybe the bar isn't that low, maybe your expectations are just too high. I agree with some of your criticisms, particularly with the construction of the script. I just don't think the film is as empty as you claim. The blogosphere (ugh that word) is rife with debates and theories on this film. Hollow films generally don't do that.

true, but who is participating in the debating is also a factor for me. that sounds bad doesn't it. if 70% of the population's opinion i don't revere, and their the ones debating an issue, they win the numbers game but don't necessarily infuse meaning for me in the material.

it just seems to be a simple trick and a simple debate. is it a dream? are they still in the matrix? who is tyler derden? that kind of thing was cool to me once, but I've grown past it because I've come to realize there is no meaning in the debate and more importantly there is no answer to be found because it's constructed to not give one. it's as complex as a repeating record, which stimulates because you're in a maze with no ending, but at some point you have to abandon it.

debating a paul thomas anderson, or todd solandz, or a lars von trier film is much more interesting because it's not debating paradox. and paradox is just paradox at the end of the day. the fascination lies in the interplay of what is reality, yet there is no meaning. it's a simple trick and in inception it's all laid out in front of you. the only thing to debate in the entire film is the last shot, which is another manifestation of that simple trick. the last shot insults the entire film, and in turn the audience. it succeeds in spawning that age old boring debate, which agreed will make it money and get people talking about it, but it's the illusion of depth. paradox isn't meaningful, it's a formula with no answer. yet people love to get their bill and tedd's "whooa" every time they see it. being able to point out said formula and lack of answer over and over in different films never gets old sadly...

now I'm not trying to be like I'm above the film, instead i'm saying this element of the film is beneath us (yes there is a difference!) if it was what it was without the "debate" i would have liked it even more. in my mind a movie should have whatever depth is needed to tell the story and make the point (if there is one being made). but movies with very little depth that masquerade as profound really bother me.
the one last hit that spent you...

Fernando

Quote from: Alexandro on July 23, 2010, 11:08:14 AM
to the mexicans:

you mean this will not be released here on the IMAX CINEPOLIS THEATRES????

you mean we are stuck with cinemark or some crap like that for this?

yeah, only plaza real will have it here, and if you've been there lately you know what I talked about, so for the moment we're fucked, apparently mmcinemas will have it next week, if they hava a digital theater ill see it there, cinepolis OTOH hasn't said yet when they are going to release it.



here's an article in spanish about why this happened, I hope you non speaking spanish folks don't mind.

from elnorte.com

¿Es dinero 'El Origen' del conflicto?

Aseguran que no aceptan pagar Cinépolis y Cinemex a Warner Bros. la mitad de taquilla.

Ciudad de México  (23 julio 2010).- En un hecho sin precedente, un estreno de verano de 160 millones de dólares no acapara las salas cinematográficas del País.

"El Origen", cinta dirigida por Christopher Nolan y estelarizada por Leonardo DiCaprio y que durante sus primeros 3 días de estreno en Estados Unidos la semana pasada recaudó poco más de 60 millones de dólares, no se estrenó hoy en los complejos de Cinépolis y Cinemex.

Entre ambas cadenas de exhibición suman 3 mil 826 salas de las aproximadamente 5 mil que hay en todo el territorio nacional.

Ni Warner Bros., compañía productora y distribuidora de la cinta, ni las directivas de las dos cadenas de exhibición emitieron su postura al respecto, sin embargo, fuentes del sector revelaron que se trata de un conflicto de intereses.

Warner Bros., coincidieron los informantes, solicitaba a Cinépolis y Cinemex el 50 por ciento de su taquilla, cuando en títulos de esta categoría y temporada, los acuerdos suelen ser no mayores al 45 por ciento.

Las negociaciones no progresaron y, por ello, de las 800 copias con las que se pensaba lanzar la producción cinematográfica, sólo serán alrededor de 200, en complejos de Cinemark y Cinemas Lumiére, así como en otros más pequeños alrededor de la República.

Aunque no precisó el porcentaje que pagará Cinemark, su director de programación, Jean Pierre Leleu, comentó en entrevista que su compañía sí accedió a dar más dinero a Warner debido al potencial comercial que ven en el filme.

"Ambas partes estuvimos de acuerdo en la negociación. Es una película cara porque Warner le metió mucho dinero. Iba a salir con muchas copias porque en verano nadie se arriesga a perder".

Destacó que los 30 complejos de Cinemark tienen al menos dos copias de "El Origen", las cuales proyectarán en horarios preferenciales.

Allegados a la exhibición informaron que tan sólo Cinépolis, que es la cadena más grande en Latinoamérica, con presencia en la India, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras y Perú, rechazó 430 copias para sus salas en México, las cuales están resguardadas en una bodega.

Cinemex, perteneciente a Grupo México y que aglutina los complejos MM Cinemas en el País, tenía contemplado programar alrededor de 150 copias.

En ninguna de las cadenas mencionadas hay publicidad o cartelones del filme y empleados de taquillas informaron que no tienen registrado en el sistema el estreno de "El Origen" ni siquiera para la próxima semana.

Víctor Ugalde, director, guionista y presidente de la Sociedad de Directores de Cine y Medios Audiovisuales, explica cómo se reparte la taquilla en México en su análisis "El Reino de la Incertidumbre", que acaba de publicar la revista de cine Toma.

"De cada boleto, el Gobierno recibe el 16 por ciento por concepto del IVA, pagado por todos los sectores de la cadena; después se descuenta el 1.65 por ciento, por concepto de los Derechos de Autor en todas las películas mexicanas y de los países que hayan firmado la Convención de Berna (éste criterio no aplica en cintas estadounidenses)", detalla.

"El monto restante se divide entre exhibidor, con un promedio del 63 por ciento, y distribuidor, un 37 por ciento".

Según Ugalde, del pago que recibe la distribuidora se descuentan los gastos de publicidad y elaboración de copias, con lo que su ganancia es de alrededor del 25 por ciento de los ingresos brutos de taquilla de una película.

Por ello, resalta el trabajo del cineasta mexicano, el mayor beneficiado con este modelo económico es el sector de la exhibición, dañando así al resto de la cadena productiva en la industria.

"¿Es justo que los exhibidores hayan obtenido ingresos por 4 mil 111 millones de pesos sólo por concepto de taquilla, más otro tanto por ventas -con lo que superarían los 8 mil o 9 mil millones-, mientras que los productores sólo recibieron mil 810 millones de pesos aproximadamente, de los 340 estrenos que hubo en 2009?", cuestiona en el escrito.