Inception

[jakobnicholas]

AMAZING movie-going experience.

 

Just wow.

[Synthesizer Patel]

AMAZING movie-going experience.

 

Just wow.

 

i briefly skimmed through a review of it in the sunday papers, and the review didn't give it a good write-up. the jist of the review was that concidering it concerned dreams - it was amazing how predictable and undream-like it all was.

 

anyway, is it as good as dreamscape? baring in mind dreamscape has got max von sydow & dennis quad (when dennis quad was really good) in it, and inception has got leonardo dicaprio.

[jakobnicholas]

i briefly skimmed through a review of it in the sunday papers, and the review didn't give it a good write-up. the jist of the review was that concidering it concerned dreams - it was amazing how predictable and undream-like it all was.

 

anyway, is it as good as dreamscape? baring in mind dreamscape has got max von sydow & dennis quad (when dennis quad was really good) in it, and inception has got leonardo dicaprio.

 

 

Haven't seen Dreamscape. And was neutral to Dicaprio as an actor (with exception of Gilbert Grape).

 

I'd ignore that review you read. It's a thrilling ride and is what great cinema is all about. And Dicpario gives a really good performance.

[u2roolz]

This weekend over a 48 hour period I saw Inception twice. And let me tell you folks: IT IS 1,000 TIMES BETTER THE 2ND TIME!!!

 

I don't want to spoil anything, but from my above statement it should allow some insight into the narrative. It really isn't that convoluted, if you give it your 100% focus and attention.

 

What can I say about it: The cinematography is breathtaking. The special effects are old school traditionalist with lots of in camera tricks. The acting is all top notch. The pacing is flawless. There is not a moment wasted or a space on the screen wasted. The score is fucking beautiful and hypnotic and enters your bloodstream. The story is fantastic: both cerebral & emotional. This redefines and pushes few a few genres and subgenres.

 

This is Nolan's masterpiece. Never have I seen a film so soon and not be bothered by it by checking my watch or waiting to get out like most films. You know, you see an action movie twice. Maybe an action movie or a comedy with different friends and it isn't the same as the 1st experience. You know the jokes and the action set pieces and usually the story doesn't hold up as well. With this film it is the complete opposite. Everyone owes it to themself to watch this film at least twice in the theater, especially if you find it flawed or don't like it on your initial viewing.

 

Edit: I should clarify that I felt this way upon my 1st viewing.

 

It's quite unbelievable actually that a film like this got made with the budget that it did ($170 million). It's a brilliant move for Nolan to push this after The Dark Knight's artistic & financial success where Warner Bros. would probably give him the money to do anything. It's also amazing how much respect Nolan has for his audience and their intellect. (Edit Part Deux: I read that he wanted to do this after Insomnia, but the studio would only give him $30 million. He passed and put it away while finishing the script over 8 years.)

 

RE: That writeup & their big gripe: All that I can say about Nolan's aesthetic decision is that it is brilliant. It's bugging me to not go into detail about this certain decision or other little things etc.

[TCP]

Best movie I've seen since probably ........ The Dark Knight.

[jakobnicholas]

What can I say about it: The cinematography is breathtaking. The special effects are old school traditionalist with lots of in camera tricks. The acting is all top notch. The pacing is flawless. There is not a moment wasted or a space on the screen wasted. The score is fucking beautiful and hypnotic and enters your bloodstream. The story is fantastic: both cerebral & emotional. This redefines and pushes few a few genres and subgenres.

 

It's bugging me to not go into detail about this certain decision or other little things etc.

 

 

Yes.

 

It's maybe been since Goodfellas that I left the theatre so amped up....walking out feeling like a I saw a movie by a master director who used every movie tool he knows to its fullest effect.

 

I defintitely want and plan to see it again.

[TCP]

Inception was incredibly refreshing. In a summer filled with remakes and adaptations, it was great to see such an original storyline.

[u2roolz]

Another refreshing thing about this film that I don't really want to get into, but for the people on here who have seen it and loved it I think we can all agree on one thing:

for the people who do not or will not like it they can not blatantly throw around words like "it was trying too hard to be smart" or things like "it was too convoluted" because Nolan has created such an air tight film that there are no "Oops! Mr. Smarty Pants Nolan, you fucked up here so it doesn't work." Everything in here is so perfect and Nolan is so aware of the world that he created singlehandedly that he has left no room for error. Sure there is ample room for interpretation via ambiguity, but for the people who don't like it they simply aren't putting on their thinking caps, checking out of the movie early or simply want to bash the film to seem somewhat superior by the means of a Mary Contrary or a Negative Ned or an Angry Hipster who hates everything just for the sake of bashing art.

 

In fact, Nolan has given us a road map or a rule book for how the movie works as it goes along. This is something that David Lynch has never done and that has made his films so frustrating for some and amazing for others (I am proudly in this camp). Sure you can not like the film, but don't pull the "illogical" card on this one because it simply doesn't work. I'm sure and I fucking hope that fans o f the film will defend this very fact to its naysayers. I would dare these people to see the film again for this very reason. For example, a friend of mine didn't like it and he threw around the "token catch phrases" (that I listed above) to me via text. He also notified me that he fell asleep during it. WTF! This is one film that you don't show up casually to or tired to, you need to be prepared to do some leg work. I can kind of understand falling asleep to something light like The Hangover and liking it still, but don't bash a film of this scope for your reasons especially if you spent a good part of it asleep. Although, it had me crack a joke to my sleepy friendL so while you were sleeping during Inception did Leo come into your dream and extract $10 bucks from your wallet.

 

[PopTodd]

Another refreshing thing about this film that I don't really want to get into, but for the people on here who have seen it and loved it I think we can all agree on one thing:

for the people who do not or will not like it they can not blatantly throw around words like "it was trying too hard to be smart" or things like "it was too convoluted" because Nolan has created such an air tight film that there are no "Oops! Mr. Smarty Pants Nolan, you fucked up here so it doesn't work." Everything in here is so perfect and Nolan is so aware of the world that he created singlehandedly that he has left no room for error. Sure there is ample room for interpretation via ambiguity, but for the people who don't like it they simply aren't putting on their thinking caps, checking out of the movie early or simply want to bash the film to seem somewhat superior by the means of a Mary Contrary or a Negative Ned or an Angry Hipster who hates everything just for the sake of bashing art.

 

In fact, Nolan has given us a road map or a rule book for how the movie works as it goes along. This is something that David Lynch has never done and that has made his films so frustrating for some and amazing for others (I am proudly in this camp). Sure you can not like the film, but don't pull the "illogical" card on this one because it simply doesn't work. I'm sure and I fucking hope that fans o f the film will defend this very fact to its naysayers. I would dare these people to see the film again for this very reason. For example, a friend of mine didn't like it and he threw around the "token catch phrases" (that I listed above) to me via text. He also notified me that he fell asleep during it. WTF! This is one film that you don't show up casually to or tired to, you need to be prepared to do some leg work. I can kind of understand falling asleep to something light like The Hangover and liking it still, but don't bash a film of this scope for your reasons especially if you spent a good part of it asleep.

 

 

One thing that I think that I noticed, but have to see the movie again, to make sure that I saw it correctly:

 

Did the top actually fall down in the opening scene with the old man, but keep spinning in the later scene?

I think remember that was the way it went down.

What that means, I'm not totally sure, but I think that means that it kept it all in dream state.

 

 

Damn that was a good movie!

 

WARNING: My spoilers are major ones. DO NOT READ THEM UNTIL AFTER YOU SEE IT!

[u2roolz]

One thing that I think that I noticed, but have to see the movie again, to make sure that I saw it correctly:

 

Did the top actually fall down in the opening scene with the old man, but keep spinning in the later scene?

I think remember that was the way it went down.

What that means, I'm not totally sure, but I think that means that it kept it all in dream state.

 

 

 

You know it's funny that you mention this. On the 2nd viewing, all of the spinning top scenes seem a lot shorter and it's just enough to show it spinning. Except for the scene at the hotel where Leo speaks to his children. In this scene it definitely shows that it stops.

I would greatly assume that it indeed is a dream state (limbo actually) because Leo is talking to Ken Watanabe who is stuck in Limbo due to dying in the dream state. It's also interesting why Nolan decides to begin the film this way. It almost creates a circularity to it. Leo waking up in the ocean of his subconscious.

 

[u2roolz]

For the eyes of jakobnicholas, PopTodd & The Cowboy Poet only...of course, anyone else who has seen it and wants to read what I have to say about my theory:

I have to type this damn thing up again because I'm on a different computer right now and it won't let me use the spoiler tag twice.

 

Anyways, I think that there are actually two Inceptions in the film. Let me explain: I believe that Michael Caine's character is behind the heist, so that he can let his son Leo move on from his wife and return to his children and Caine's grandkids. Although, it's an agreement between Ken Watanabe and Leo that if he Incepts/plants an idea subconsiously into Cillian Muprhy's mind, so that he can break up his father's company & Watanbe can take control of it. While the epic & economic scope of that makes more sense on the 2nd viewing, it seems like there's more behind it in an emotional sense.

 

Michael Caine singlehandedly recruits Ellen Page to be the dream architect and as a result Leo gets to move on from his dead wife. It's also interesting that Caine is never seen on the heist, but why would he be? Perhaps he is a forger just like Eames? But who would he be? Ellen Page or perhaps Ken Watanabe? It just seems like Caine has planted an idea subconsciously into Leo's mind that he can now move on from his dead wife instead of dwelling with her in his dream state of memories & dreams and be reunited with his children. One big flaw in my theory is that it makes everything out to be a dream state. But the overall theme of the film represented the best by Leo and moreso Marion Cotillard is trying to find the distinction between what is real and what is a dream.

 

Anyone else think about this or feel that there was a bit more to the overall heist?

 

One big clue, if I remember correctly is Ken Watanabe telling Leo that he was testing him and that he has failed. I found this odd because Leo found the info that Watanabe had stored away, but I was more concerned with him saying that he "tested" him. Then if I recall correctly, Watanabe talks about planting an idea instead of extracting one.

 

I think the most obvious filmed evidence to support this is the simultaneous coming to terms of Cillian Murphy with his father which was pretty emotional for some rather cold people (this explains why they were in Murphy's subconscious and it was covered in snow/ice)and the coming to terms between Leo & Marion which was rather bittersweet.

 

I also should note that this doesn't take away from what I have written here. This is just something that I am working out in my own head for myself.

 

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I really liked it. And even though I had to explain large portions of this movie to downtown, she liked it too.

 

I migh add that it has a 9.4 rating from IMDB users...an insanely high user rating.

[The Inside of Outside]

Just read the above posts and the review in Newsweek. First movie in ages that I want to go see immediately.

[jakobnicholas]

For the eyes of jakobnicholas, PopTodd & The Cowboy Poet only...of course, anyone else who has seen it and wants to read what I have to say about my theory:

 

 

I'm not sure how to do the spoiler button, but I'll just say your Caine idea is interesting and COULD be possible, though I definitely lean towards that idea NOT being the case. I think the movie is pretty straight-forward (with possible exception of the one detail, which I happen to think is Nolan playing with the audience a little bit.)

 

Maybe you can answer this....

 

 

(*WARNING* ---- THE FOLLOWING HAS A MINOR SPOILER...)

 

 

 

There's the explanation throughout the movie that when in free-fall in one level, there would be no gravity in subsequent levels. But that wasn't really true. Levels lower than the hotel level didn't suggest ANY problems with gravity.

[u2roolz]

Spoiler button is under Other Styles on the top left under Post.

 

Edit: I'll try to answer your question in your 1st paragraph. I'm not sure about the 2nd one.

 

Ok. The ending. I love how Nolan sets up the final shot. Leo spins the top then doesn't care to see if he is in a dream state or reality, but on the other hand the entire audience cares. Then everything cuts to black before we see the top fall over.

 

I think there's good evidence to support that it was a dream state and here is why: Not a big one,but everything seems to go smoothly after the heist which had a lot of fuck ups in it. The most important thing is the children's clothes and appearance/age. Not only are they wearing the same clothes as in Leo's dream projections of them, but they haven't aged either. So either he wasn't away too long or these are projections of his children except this time he wants to look at them and be with them. I think this is why he never looked at his children: he doesn't want to believe that they are real because he'd never leave them.

 

Although, I do recall that he told Caine that he was extradited from the U.S. to France for 8 years. It doesn't mean that 8 years had passed, since his wife's death.

 

 

 

[jakobnicholas]

Spoiler button is under Other Styles on the top left under Post.

 

 

 

I think Nolan left a few things debatable purposely. But I definitely lean towards one interpretation.

 

 

I probably need to see it again to be sure, but to me the kids aged. In fact, doing a Google search, it seems that there were 2 actors for each kid. IMDB suggests as much. I read one place that the kids shoes are different in the final sequence. Also, Cobb apparently does not have a ring on his finger at the end, nor does he in other moments of reality.

 

Killing yourself on level 2 or 3 could send you to Limbo. Killing yourself in Limbo sends you back to reality. It took Cobb a long time to figure all this out....he was in Limbo for 50 years with Mal.

 

Mal's knife to Cobb at the end sent him to Limbo. There, he found Saito. Saito, like Mal, thought Limbo was reality and never tried to kill himself for he mostly believed he was in reality and didn't want to risk dying. Cobb, with his totem and using phrases like "leap of faith" was able to crack through Saito and convince Saito that he was still dreaming.

 

I think Nolan left in the spinning totem, as well as not showing Cobb talk with any other characters, to leave it a little open for intrepretation. And maybe there's a wasy to argue that the movie was all Mal's inception on Cobb, but it seems near impossible to have that make sense. If the ending's reality, it all seems to tie together perfectly.

 

[Synthesizer Patel]

I just read all those spoilers! muahh ha ha! I don't think i'd like this film, it all sounds a bit like you're all talking about Lost or the Matrix or something. Am i right in thinking that, or is it just the way you're all describing it?

[jakobnicholas]

I just read all those spoilers! muahh ha ha! I don't think i'd like this film, it all sounds a bit like you're all talking about Lost or the Matrix or something. Am i right in thinking that, or is it just the way you're all describing it?

 

 

I actually think Inception is really straight-forward. But the director appears to have purposely left it a little open to interpretation.

 

Don't watch Lost. The Matrix was WAY over-rated, in my opinion and nothing like Inception.

 

Inception, to me, is just cinema at it's finest.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I actually think Inception is really straight-forward. But the director appears to have purposely left it a little open to interpretation.

 

Don't watch Lost. The Matrix was WAY over-rated, in my opinion and nothing like Inception.

 

Inception, to me, is just cinema at it's finest.

 

Agree on the Matrix. Loved Lost.

 

And agree TOTALLY on Inception.

[u2roolz]

For the folks out there who want to compartmentalize everything in pop culture, then ok yeah it is a teeny tiny bit like The Matrix. In both films they "jack in" to a different reality: in The Matrix it was the virtual world and in Inception it is a dream state. I like to say Inception is the psychological cousin to the philosophical Matrix, if someone has a gun to my head.

 

It did piss me off though when the old ladies with their quiet husbands said as they walked out "Well, that was just like The Matrix. Even the music is/was the same." Thanks a lot critics for calling this "The Matrix meets James Bond". I mean, ok yeah, the action scenes are probably the most mind blowing since anything like The Matrix in 1999.

 

And to Joss Ackland: Well, Nolan plays a pretty fair game with his audience. He gives us a rule book as you go on. In Lost you don't realize whether you're watching a flashback or a flashforward, unless if something tips you off like someone's look or where they are. If you don't like the idea of a "parking lot film" where you have to talk things through with some people or yourself first to not be swayed by what you saw as opposed to others, then I'd skip this one. Although, Nolan has left the only logical things in the story to be open for interpretation. The lot of us on here are kind of pushing things to the limit. I guess what I am trying to say is that you can enjoy the film without our analysis. It really works on a 1st time viewing, although it's even better the 2nd time around since you're familiar with the territory.

[Synthesizer Patel]

And to Joss Ackland: Well, Nolan plays a pretty fair game with his audience. He gives us a rule book as you go on. In Lost you don't realize whether you're watching a flashback or a flashforward, unless if something tips you off like someone's look or where they are. If you don't like the idea of a "parking lot film" where you have to talk things through with some people or yourself first to not be swayed by what you saw as opposed to others, then I'd skip this one. Although, Nolan has left the only logical things in the story to be open for interpretation. The lot of us on here are kind of pushing things to the limit. I guess what I am trying to say is that you can enjoy the film without our analysis. It really works on a 1st time viewing, although it's even better the 2nd time around since you're familiar with the territory.

 

i don't mind analysing films. memento has that about it, and i liked it, but then blade runner has that element about it too - and i don't like that film (even though i can certainly see it's a brilliantly made film, i just don't like watching it). i don't know what i am trying to say here, actually. i guess i'll just have to see it to make my mind up!

[u2roolz]

RE: That writeup & their big gripe: All that I can say about Nolan's aesthetic decision is that it is brilliant. It's bugging me to not go into detail about this certain decision or other little things etc.

 

Since we're using spoiler tags now, I figured I'd come back to this.

 

 

Nolan's best decision is to film everything the same. There is no vaseline on the lenses to make it look dreamlike much like a daytime soap opera and there's no special filters or color effects used either. This completely reinforces Nolan's main underlying theme as I stated earlier: to question reality vs. our dream state.

 

[theashtraysays]

Saw it, loved it, ready to go see it again... (and I haven't paid to see a movie in a theater twice in a looong time!).

 

Major spoiler / hypothesis below.

 

 

So, what's wrong with the following hypothesis:

 

Everything from the very start of the film till Leo wakes up on the airplane is a dream. There is no 'dream sharing', there is no corporate espionage, there is no warrant for his arrest back home. There is only a guy who's coming home from a far-too-frequent business trip who misses his kids. He has a weird dream on the plane which includes the strangers he happens to be in first class with. He's a widower (maybe or maybe not with all the suicide baggage), and his dad or FIL (Caine) watches the kids. What if it's just some normal businessdude having a James Bond fantasy dream on a plane? Is there anything in the last 10 minutes of the film (post-Leo-wakeup) that prohibits that?

 

[jakobnicholas]

For those who have seen Inception, this article and the reader comments afterwards add great fuel to the fire of debate...

 

http://chud.com/articles/articles/24477/1/NEVER-WAKE-UP-THE-MEANING-AND-SECRET-OF-INCEPTION/Page1.html

[u2roolz]

Saw it, loved it, ready to go see it again... (and I haven't paid to see a movie in a theater twice in a looong time!).

 

Major spoiler / hypothesis below.

 

 

So, what's wrong with the following hypothesis:

 

Everything from the very start of the film till Leo wakes up on the airplane is a dream. There is no 'dream sharing', there is no corporate espionage, there is no warrant for his arrest back home. There is only a guy who's coming home from a far-too-frequent business trip who misses his kids. He has a weird dream on the plane which includes the strangers he happens to be in first class with. He's a widower (maybe or maybe not with all the suicide baggage), and his dad or FIL (Caine) watches the kids. What if it's just some normal businessdude having a James Bond fantasy dream on a plane? Is there anything in the last 10 minutes of the film (post-Leo-wakeup) that prohibits that?

 

 

Follow me into the great rectangle of information:

 

I like the idea, but it seems like a copout for the audience. It sounds like something my dad would say if he saw the film and didn't want to buy into the sci-fi dream heist world that Nolan beautifully creates. "it was just a dream right?"

 

Well, if you want to play that game then how do you explain the looks that everyone gives each other on the plane? You mean to tell me that these people all flew 1st class and slept the whole way. What a fucking waste! "Stewardess, I need you to massage my hand because I hurt it while lugging around my luggage. Pierre my assistant had a touch of the cold." You don't spend that type of money to fly 1st class and sleep and not take advantage of the freebies.

 

Plus, each character has a look that fully backs up what went on during the dream heist. Levitt gives Leo the hunter's nod, Page has this really perplexed look on her face and so does Watanabe. Maybe by avoiding the reality that Nolan creates, you are leaving yourself susceptible to a loop that he has created for you: ok..the whole thing was a dream and everyone else on the flight in 1st class had a similar dream. Did they share a dream collectively? Isn't that a bit odd? I've seen tons of beautiful women and haven't been able to dream about them at all. So I don't know how each one of them would dream about everyone else in that tight proximity after allegedly seeing each other for the 1st time.

 

If Nolan only showed Leo waking up and then cut to the scene where he walks out to meet Caine and saw all of the people on the flight and doesn't say bye, then I could buy into this theory more. Although, it is kind of mischievous why there are no shown goodbyes. Only glances and nods in that silent scene. It doesn't mean that a formal goodbye didn't happen before all of that and Nolan decided to NOT show it.