Inception

[pete]

the best dream film in the last 10 years is Spirited Away, which doesn't even have a character dreaming - but it's one that follows the dream logic most closely.  I use P's comment as a springboard because this film, while it's about dreaming, actually doesn't feel very dreamlike.  instead it invents its own world, much like the matrix, with its own logic, based on observations Nolan's made about dreams.  reminds me of Waking Life that way: both are about dreaming but really have a much more pronounced cinematic style that uses "dream" as an excuse to get there.  nothing wrong with that though; it's just an observation and in my opinion, a difference between this and the gondry movies about Dreaming.

I do like myself a well-put together thriller though, and this one is very much that.  only complaint I have is the climatic action sequence in the snow feels a little random/ video game-esque and not particularly relevant to the rest of the movie in terms of tone or visuals.

[72teeth]

only complaint I have is the climatic action sequence in the snow feels a little random/ video game-esque and not particularly relevant to the rest of the movie in terms of tone or visuals.

He had the "Chase Dream" and the "Floating Dream," i kinda thought he was trying to go for the "Movie Dream" here. Are those not as common as the other two types of dreams or did Noland just indulge all us cinephiles?

[picolas]

my friend has a funny theory that Eames wishes he was Bond.
- he's really british
- he gambles
- he loves disguises
- Eames is one letter away from James
- his dream is straight out of goldeneye

[S.R.]

my friend has a funny theory that Eames wishes he was Bond.
- he's really british
- he gambles
- he loves disguises
- Eames is one letter away from James
- his dream is straight out out of goldeneye

   

Plus, if my friend came up with that, I would have come on here and said "I have this theory..."

Kudos for honesty.

[adolfwolfli]

--SOME SPOILERS--

I thought this was neither the Kubrickian masterpiece nor the monumental folly it's been made out to be, but somewhere in the middle.  A good movie, not a great film.  My biggest problem with it was similar to what others have expressed: for a movie that keeps rattling on about the subconscious, and dream logic, and labyrinths and mazes and the strangeness of dreams – none of the dreams, or dreams within dreams, ever felt all that "dreamlike".  With the exception of the crumbling city shoreline towards the end (a haunting if not entirely original image), this movie kind of made it seem like dreams are slick Gotham city-like metropolises, or five star hotels, or mountain retreats defended by men on jetskis with guns straight out of an 80's action movie.  I don't know about you, but my dreams are not like this at all.  The movie completely ignores the psychosexual/Jungian/Freudian/symbolic/mercurial nature of dreams in favor of big action movie cliches.  I can't remember the last time I was attacked by a group of Bourne Identity-style euro assassins with automatic weapons in a dream.  More likely the attacker is unseen, unclear, ominous and omnipresent.  When was the last time you had a big car chase in your dream?  Why did they need to get in a van to go to hotel?  If it's a dream, why do you need transportation?  Characters keeping asking other characters, "You know how you know you're in a dream?  You don't remember how you got here," but then in the next scene they're all piling in a van to get to the next part of the dream.  Dreams can be very pleasant one second, then turn on a dime into nightmares, and then back again.  Nolan's dreams are far too consistent. 

I don't think Nolan is the auteur he's been made out to be.  He's a very competent director of action movies.  I give the movie credit for not patronizing the audience, and not fully insulting my intelligence.  I think it's audacious, and somewhat original.  But it's no "2001: A Space Odyssey".  Nolan, unlike Kubrick, seems afraid of not spelling every last detail out.  One of the beauties of Kubrick's masterpiece is that it operates on many levels and is subject to myriad interpretations.  It's far more dreamlike than anything Nolan could muster.
 

[72teeth]

--SOME SPOILERS--
The movie completely ignores the psychosexual/Jungian/Freudian/symbolic/mercurial nature of dreams...

i have a feeling hope that they are in there, just very well hidden. susequent viewings should makes these easier to find...

[ddiggler]

just saw it today, not much to say that hasn't already been said, except that i think Christopher Nolan is a very sad person.

[pete]

explain?

[cronopio 2]

The movie completely ignores the psychosexual/Jungian/Freudian/symbolic/mercurial nature of dreams in favor of big action movie cliches. 

Oh man, i feel you. I was disappointed that it didn't talk about polar bears losing their homes due to global warming. How was that possible?

[RegularKarate]

SPOILERS

how did you question the entire film? all it implies is that at the end he didn't make it out, and he created it all to remain sane in the dream world. and why the shit do we need to question the entire film, or part of the film at the end. the emotional and intellectual pay offs were fufilled. it's a clever gimmicky footnote.

That's all it implies TO YOU.  Maybe you're not reading the rest of this thread and the articles linked, but there are theories that question the reality of the entire film, which then brings up further questions about why this isn't considered a cop-out (people shoot the theory down as one, but I think this is a rare exception).

The movie completely ignores avoids the psychosexual/Jungian/Freudian/symbolic/mercurial nature of dreams in favor of big action movie cliches. entertainment
 

fixed

[socketlevel]

SPOILERS

how did you question the entire film? all it implies is that at the end he didn't make it out, and he created it all to remain sane in the dream world. and why the shit do we need to question the entire film, or part of the film at the end. the emotional and intellectual pay offs were fufilled. it's a clever gimmicky footnote.

That's all it implies TO YOU.  Maybe you're not reading the rest of this thread and the articles linked, but there are theories that question the reality of the entire film, which then brings up further questions about why this isn't considered a cop-out (people shoot the theory down as one, but I think this is a rare exception).

i have read them, or at least the majority of them. the basis, even though backed up by trivia tidbits in the entire film, has far less weight without the final shot. even if what you (or the articles) suggest exists, then the previously mentioned cop-out becomes a slightly more elaborate cop-out. it enriches nothing in the film. actually it essentially ruins all the drama the same way it did with JR in Dallas, because the escalation of dramatic tension is gutted due to no real parrel. we are asked to follow a sequence of events to one desired outcome, yet at the last second it might have all not mattered. lame and obvious.  there is nothing in the film to make you question this until the surprise of the last frame, at that point you can go back and notice little things, but that's kind of cheap. the rest of the argument for the dream is comprised of these small observations on dramatic/aesthetic choices.

[S.R.]

I saw this again over the weekend and it didn't hold up as well.

Still the best movie of the year for me, but the initial viewing is the best because you're really not sure where it's going to go and that's the most fun. In my second viewing, I found myself just waiting for the cool parts to happen (and there are many cool parts)

[picolas]

oh yeah, spoils

i have read them, or at least the majority of them. the basis, even though backed up by trivia tidbits in the entire film, has far less weight without the final shot.

yeah but there is a final shot. so that logic is like "there'd be, like, far fewer lies in the world if there weren't any liars, maaaann."

even if what you (or the articles) suggest exists, then the previously mentioned cop-out becomes a slightly more elaborate cop-out.

how is it a cop-out? it's not answering a question in an unsatisfying way. it's posing a shitload of new questions in the space of a few seconds.

it enriches nothing in the film.

it makes people write long interesting theories about the true nature of the events of the film backed up by very clear stuff that happens that they may not have noticed otherwise. it makes people question the ultimate meaning/intention behind the movie. that's like the definition of enriching.

actually it essentially ruins all the drama the same way it did with JR in Dallas, because the escalation of dramatic tension is gutted due to no real parrel. we are asked to follow a sequence of events to one desired outcome, yet at the last second it might have all not mattered. lame and obvious.

i really question if you've read the articles at this point. it does matter for a variety of possible reasons. dreams matter! IDEAS matter! that's the cornerstone of the philosophy behind this movie.

there is nothing in the film to make you question this until the surprise of the last frame, at that point you can go back and notice little things, but that's kind of cheap. the rest of the argument for the dream is comprised of these small observations on dramatic/aesthetic choices.

again you're just refusing to acknowledge the evidence in the articles. it goes beyond aesthetics. there are very tangible suggestions throughout. the whole interruption of cobb spinning the top is not a dramatic choice. it's written into the script.

[Pubrick]

Everyone I know is seeing this twice.

I haven't had a second viewing yet but I'm pretty sure that even with its flaws this film is still better than the dark knight and better than fanboys and haters are giving it credit for.

Dream films, the good ones anyway, always suffer from the problem of everyone just focusing on getting the pieces to fit together and rarely ever get to the point where anyone discusses what the film was actually about. It has always been beyond the scope of interest for the average moviegoer in the most conventional of movies to care that a film may have some thematic considerations informing the creative choices evident in the final product, but even for cinephiles who are not averse to delving into the minutia of details it seems acceptable to somehow completely avoid a closer reading beyond solving the structural puzzle that a film like this may offer. The same can be seen with Mulholland Drive ten years ago.

The problem of communicating an interpretation of a film that goes into the MEANING of it to someone who doesn't think movies have any meaning outside of what's verbalized or literally shown on screen is exactly what's happening here.

[socketlevel]

***SPOILERS***

i have read them, or at least the majority of them. the basis, even though backed up by trivia tidbits in the entire film, has far less weight without the final shot.

yeah but there is a final shot. so that logic is like "there'd be, like, far fewer lies in the world if there weren't any liars, maaaann."

even if what you (or the articles) suggest exists, then the previously mentioned cop-out becomes a slightly more elaborate cop-out.

how is it a cop-out? it's not answering a question in an unsatisfying way. it's posing a shitload of new questions in the space of a few seconds.

it enriches nothing in the film.

it makes people write long interesting theories about the true nature of the events of the film backed up by very clear stuff that happens that they may not have noticed otherwise. it makes people question the ultimate meaning/intention behind the movie. that's like the definition of enriching.

actually it essentially ruins all the drama the same way it did with JR in Dallas, because the escalation of dramatic tension is gutted due to no real parrel. we are asked to follow a sequence of events to one desired outcome, yet at the last second it might have all not mattered. lame and obvious.

i really question if you've read the articles at this point. it does matter for a variety of possible reasons. dreams matter! IDEAS matter! that's the cornerstone of the philosophy behind this movie.

there is nothing in the film to make you question this until the surprise of the last frame, at that point you can go back and notice little things, but that's kind of cheap. the rest of the argument for the dream is comprised of these small observations on dramatic/aesthetic choices.

again you're just refusing to acknowledge the evidence in the articles. it goes beyond aesthetics. there are very tangible suggestions throughout. the whole interruption of cobb spinning the top is not a dramatic choice. it's written into the script.

Quote 1. because it's easy and cliche. A let down.

Quote 2. because it's easy and cliche. A let down.

Quote 3. not enriching by my standard, because their insights are easy and cliche; one could almost take a "philosophical" review of eXiztenz or the matrix and just replace the word inception in the title. it's a fun reality game, nothing more nothing less.

Quote 4. cool, dreams matter ideas matter, doesn't mean they're any good. it's just not as profound as the energy put into analyzing it. yes, that is like my opinion... man. it's just another example of paradox used to be cool, there is no meaning. and as i stated before i don't mind this by default, i just don't like the attention put on it suggesting genius strokes.

Quote 5. Cobb spinning the top is written in the script it's true, but it doesn't mean it was put in to question the entire film. though i agree there is a good chance it is. however, it possibly just comments on the ending when he's stuck with the client in limbo. that he created an ending to cope. but ya sure you're right 0.1% of the film could have been made to justify that last shot. still lame easy and cliche. walking into the film someone could have asked me "do you think it will all be a dream?" and i'd respond "I hope not, that's how it always happens"