Batutta
Major Contributor
I was totally caught up in Cobb's dilemma. Maybe because I'm older and deal with my share of guilt, but I found it heartbreaking.
Inception
- Thread starter Jon Starr
- Start date
I was totally caught up in Cobb's dilemma. Maybe because I'm older and deal with my share of guilt, but I found it heartbreaking.
Richard J. Johnson
Joystick Member
Thank you. I thought Mal was absolutely mesmerizing. It really doesn't help that Marie Collitard is gorgeous to me.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)SPOILER!! If ya aint seen it, don't read!
The thing I could not figure out is why she kept trying to sabotage him. I think I missed something.
Batutta
Major Contributor
She was a subconscious projection of Cobb's guilt, a hostile emotion he couldn't control in the dream state.
Richard J. Johnson
Joystick Member
Digigenic
Well-known member
You can't trust any review of this film if it's based on only one viewing.
Thus, the implication I'm making is that in order for you to appreciate this movie, you'll more than likely require multiple viewings, but in order to simply be entertained, one viewing should do fine.
With that said, don't trust my review or the opinions contained within it.
I'm typing all the words below in a futile attempt to justify my confusion after one viewing.
So, after viewing once and contemplating the film, it's probably among the most highly admirable imperfect films I've seen in recent years.
As noted above, it is basically required re-viewing - and you shouldn't have a problem doing this if you have a desire to understand why things happened the way they did. I figure 3 additional re-viewings per dream level (you'll know what I'm talking about once you see it) and by my calculations that's [arguably] 15 additional viewings - Holy $4!t is a polite understatement.
Inception is a pretty powerful film but I'm not sure I could specify why without detailing various parts of its architecture.
Acting is pretty damn good, and it isn't just because of DiCaprio or Page & Levitt; the entire cast is on top of their game - particularly worthy of note is Tom Hardy's performance as Eames. Dude can be a plug and play actor in damn near any major film for next 5 years easy.
I can't fault the FX & SFX, very well done although some more experienced FX/SFX guys may recognize discrepencies that are worth elaborating on.
Artistic design and direction: one round standing ovation. Some serious lines are blurred in this movie, and it flows so beautifully without calling too much attention to itself and I think the art design - direction - or 'architecture' played a significant part in framing the viewers' collective minds and making it work. I still think they could have done a little more to separate the darker aesthetic moments of this film from what we've been accustomed to seeing in the Batman movies. They aren't identical, but you can still tell you're watching something by the same guy.
Story: I'm in limbo on quite honestly. Because I don't know if the story was told exactly as it was intended. One of the reasons this movie requires re-viewing isn't because it's necessarily complicated by nature, it's complicated by the circumstantial confines of traditional cinematic story-telling. Like somebody tried to make soup in a toaster. It was as if Nolan went and unearthed a story in his head that didn't belong in today's viewing environment. Like it wasn't supposed to be shared with people until it could be experienced in a different manner outside traditional cinematic experience. It kind of had me wondering if this film should have been directed by somebody else. Yeah, I know that's an extreme statement to make for a film that's already perceived as visionary, but I only say that because I know there may have been a couple other technologically advanced paths a different director like [example: James Cameron] could take to find a way to present it in a fashion that optimizes its impact. Other people have expressed similar sentiments about The Matrix.
With Inception, I'm really beginning to think audiences are prepared to peel away at the bandages that adhere our perception of what's real and what's entertaining - translation: this isn't a film for people who commonly find themselves consumed by reality television. The success of this film reassures me that there are more people out there with an open mind. I'll be watching it again...and again......and again............and...........
Thus, the implication I'm making is that in order for you to appreciate this movie, you'll more than likely require multiple viewings, but in order to simply be entertained, one viewing should do fine.
With that said, don't trust my review or the opinions contained within it.
I'm typing all the words below in a futile attempt to justify my confusion after one viewing.
So, after viewing once and contemplating the film, it's probably among the most highly admirable imperfect films I've seen in recent years.
As noted above, it is basically required re-viewing - and you shouldn't have a problem doing this if you have a desire to understand why things happened the way they did. I figure 3 additional re-viewings per dream level (you'll know what I'm talking about once you see it) and by my calculations that's [arguably] 15 additional viewings - Holy $4!t is a polite understatement.
Inception is a pretty powerful film but I'm not sure I could specify why without detailing various parts of its architecture.
Acting is pretty damn good, and it isn't just because of DiCaprio or Page & Levitt; the entire cast is on top of their game - particularly worthy of note is Tom Hardy's performance as Eames. Dude can be a plug and play actor in damn near any major film for next 5 years easy.
I can't fault the FX & SFX, very well done although some more experienced FX/SFX guys may recognize discrepencies that are worth elaborating on.
Artistic design and direction: one round standing ovation. Some serious lines are blurred in this movie, and it flows so beautifully without calling too much attention to itself and I think the art design - direction - or 'architecture' played a significant part in framing the viewers' collective minds and making it work. I still think they could have done a little more to separate the darker aesthetic moments of this film from what we've been accustomed to seeing in the Batman movies. They aren't identical, but you can still tell you're watching something by the same guy.
Story: I'm in limbo on quite honestly. Because I don't know if the story was told exactly as it was intended. One of the reasons this movie requires re-viewing isn't because it's necessarily complicated by nature, it's complicated by the circumstantial confines of traditional cinematic story-telling. Like somebody tried to make soup in a toaster. It was as if Nolan went and unearthed a story in his head that didn't belong in today's viewing environment. Like it wasn't supposed to be shared with people until it could be experienced in a different manner outside traditional cinematic experience. It kind of had me wondering if this film should have been directed by somebody else. Yeah, I know that's an extreme statement to make for a film that's already perceived as visionary, but I only say that because I know there may have been a couple other technologically advanced paths a different director like [example: James Cameron] could take to find a way to present it in a fashion that optimizes its impact. Other people have expressed similar sentiments about The Matrix.
With Inception, I'm really beginning to think audiences are prepared to peel away at the bandages that adhere our perception of what's real and what's entertaining - translation: this isn't a film for people who commonly find themselves consumed by reality television. The success of this film reassures me that there are more people out there with an open mind. I'll be watching it again...and again......and again............and...........
Richard J. Johnson
Joystick Member
did you see it at a 'REAL' Imax? If so, I'm jealous!
diego1235467
Well-known member
A little off topic, but where is there a "real" IMAX here in LA?
Richard J. Johnson
Joystick Member
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...6c5915161c3667
Here is great link to find out which is which:
Digigenic
Well-known member
Yes, the one in Katy off I-10 is the only real one (to my knowledge) in Houston. Me and my buddies venture about 45 minutes away from the AMC 30 (with fake IMAX) theater that's within walking distance from our neighborhood to go there. We saw Dark Knight at the Marquee too.
You shouldn't feel that jealous. A movie as complex as Inception may actually be better appreciated and understood in regular viewing because in IMAX you can easily get overwhelmed with the spectacle and lose track of the story.
That's just my opinion though.
I saw it at Citywalk, which I believe is real IMAX.
Digigenic
Well-known member
btw....
btw....
On a side note,
We entertained the idea that Inception was nothing more than an elaborate casting call for the next Batman villain with Leo, Levitt, Page, Hardy, Berenger, and Collitard all vying for a role in #3.
We kind of figured whoever Nolan felt the most fondest of after the entire production he'd pick for the next Batman. Then we thought, unless there was some hidden animosity, he'd have to pick them all because they all did excellent jobs.
Although, I will add that Ellen Page should never wear ski goggles and try to act serious again, unless it's for comedic effect - because that's the result they got from me on this film.
btw....
On a side note,
We entertained the idea that Inception was nothing more than an elaborate casting call for the next Batman villain with Leo, Levitt, Page, Hardy, Berenger, and Collitard all vying for a role in #3.
We kind of figured whoever Nolan felt the most fondest of after the entire production he'd pick for the next Batman. Then we thought, unless there was some hidden animosity, he'd have to pick them all because they all did excellent jobs.
Although, I will add that Ellen Page should never wear ski goggles and try to act serious again, unless it's for comedic effect - because that's the result they got from me on this film.
Richard J. Johnson
Joystick Member
If that is in a multiplex it is probably a "liemax"
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...6c5915161c3667
Here is great link to find out which is which:
Well, he should definitely bring back Scarecrow, because Cillian Murphy is awesome.
And I think he should cast Levitt as Joker. He's a great actor, and I actually think he looks a lot like Heath Ledger. I know Nolan has said he won't do it, but Batman is lame without Joker.
What makes a theater IMAX versus LIEMAX?
I know that they have a film IMAX projector there, because the first time I tried to see The Dark Knight in IMAX at Citywalk, there was a fire alarm in the middle of the show and they had to cancel the screening because they weren't able to start the film projector back up again where it left off with the sound in sync, because the sound was running on a separate machine.
Digigenic
Well-known member
Cillian Murphy is awesome. And I feel guilty leaving Lukas Haas off, because even though his role was limited at the beginning, he's still worth considering in an upcoming Batman movie.
As for Joker, that's almost untouchable IMO.
For countless reasons, they just wouldn't go there.
But if they did, I've always been of the opinion that James Franco would be a fit for the Joker. I certainly don't mean to diminish Levitt's chances, because he's good enough to not only play it, but he could take to another level.
Regardless, I don't see them trying to bring the Joker back for the foreseeable future.
Richard J. Johnson
Joystick Member
Nolan has already said that the Joker and Two face are NOT coming back. He also said that Robin would not appear in any Batman that he is directing. I hope they bring in The Riddler.
Plot Holes? Tell me one. PLEASE show me a plot hole in this movie. That's an out-and-out dare. =D
Rick Meyer
Veteran
Okay. If you cannot kill someone when they are heavily sedated lest you push them into a state of limbo, why not give them a "kick?" I realize that the van going over the bridge was the initial kick, hitting the water would be the second, but the sense of urgency should have been kicked up a notch and once the businessman was shot, they needed to wake him up. The fact that didn't happen was a bit silly. Being shot at 1 billion times by dozens of gunmen and no one besides the businessman getting hit is kind of weak. I'm sure there are others but I gotta think about it...
Last edited:
Thank you. I thought Mal was absolutely mesmerizing. It really doesn't help that Marie Collitard is gorgeous to me.
SPOILER!! If ya aint seen it, don't read!
The thing I could not figure out is why she kept trying to sabotage him. I think I missed something.
DAMMIT! thank you! that makes perfect sense. I feel better now.
Not just that (spoiler, highlight to read) ...
They explicitly stated in the film that she represented his guilt over her death, that was the source of her hostility towards his endeavors, he was punishing himself as his agent for his feeling of responsibility over the death. Projections are generally only hostile from someone else's dream. Remember the projections bum rushed Ellen Page but would not harm DiCaprio in his dream. So since she was his projection she wouldn't harm him just because she sensed a glitch in the matrix (cough) I mean irregularity in reality / dream state. But she was a more specific projection, a "guilt projection" that tried to punish him.
Richard J. Johnson
Joystick Member
SPOILERS!
who could "kick" the busines man? The driver of the van? he could not be "kicked" and even if he could how could the chemist know to do it when the projections were not supposed to be violent? The mission had a blueprint that went south, there would be know way to know to "kick" him out. I think that makes sense.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
Last edited: