Inception

love it or hate it, if a movie can get this many people talking about it, then THAT's the point.

understand/love the story or not, it wasn't a bad film. it entertained, it engaged, and it sold.

i think filmmaking offers a sea of opportunity outside the comfort-food type of narrative that we all love and are accustomed to.
 
Digigenic said:
I can't agree with your assertion that the elements of this story would be irrelevant.
You wouldn't have even arrived to your conclusion of the story being irrelevant without those elements of the story having guided you there.
So, the question I have for you is, how can you derive a message of faith from a story that you have no faith in?
Click to expand...

I never said elements of the story were irrelevant... I said the details on whether a scene seemed "realistic" or how someone felt about how a plot device/character/line of dialogue being "good" or "realistic" is not very relevant. The reason is because if you feel a character like Ariadne was introduced in an unrealistic way or she was "too good" at what she did, you could argue that the reason is because it was a dream. The actual "elements of the story" are intentionally ambigious and dream-like yet real-like at the same time. To argue that it's too "dream-like" is to argue about the central element of the story itself.

So I guess I'm not sure what you mean about deriving "faith' from a story that you have no faith in? I love the story, the writing, and intentional and brilliant way it was contrived. The fact that you can't place "faith" in it (not sure what you mean by it) is kind of similar to saying "how can you derive faith from a life/reality that you can have no faith in" - that's part of what the film is saying... and it's showing the importance of doing so.

Besides, in real life, dreams often seem incredibly real, and real life can sometimes seem incredibly dream like (having your first kid, getting married, graduating, etc.) Sometimes "fate" seems to strike in real life - the perfectly timed job connection or relationship, the strike of luck, whatever. Sometime it seems dream like and surreal. Sometimes dream are so vivid and realistic it's scary.

I love how the film captures that and raises some many thematical questions.

So yes, I maintain that nitpicking a line of dialogue or a character or a plot construct for not being "realistic" misses the whole point of what Nolan was trying to achieve - creating something that seems real yet dream like and can spark debate. Creating something with no concrete answer.
 
filmguy123 said:
I never said elements of the story were irrelevant... I said the details on whether a scene seemed "realistic" or how someone felt about how a plot device/character/line of dialogue being "good" or "realistic" is not very relevant. The reason is because if you feel a character like Ariadne was introduced in an unrealistic way or she was "too good" at what she did, you could argue that the reason is because it was a dream. The actual "elements of the story" are intentionally ambigious and dream-like yet real-like at the same time. To argue that it's too "dream-like" is to argue about the central element of the story itself.

So I guess I'm not sure what you mean about deriving "faith' from a story that you have no faith in? I love the story, the writing, and intentional and brilliant way it was contrived. The fact that you can't place "faith" in it (not sure what you mean by it) is kind of similar to saying "how can you derive faith from a life/reality that you can have no faith in" - that's part of what the film is saying... and it's showing the importance of doing so.

Besides, in real life, dreams often seem incredibly real, and real life can sometimes seem incredibly dream like (having your first kid, getting married, graduating, etc.) Sometimes "fate" seems to strike in real life - the perfectly timed job connection or relationship, the strike of luck, whatever. Sometime it seems dream like and surreal. Sometimes dream are so vivid and realistic it's scary.

I love how the film captures that and raises some many thematical questions.

So yes, I maintain that nitpicking a line of dialogue or a character or a plot construct for not being "realistic" misses the whole point of what Nolan was trying to achieve - creating something that seems real yet dream like and can spark debate. Creating something with no concrete answer.
Click to expand...
Except the possibility of it all being a dream does not excuse sloppy writing and bald exposition.
 
agcohn said:
Except the possibility of it all being a dream does not excuse sloppy writing and bald exposition.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree... but I absolutely disagee that there was an sloppy writing or bad (or bald, heh) exposition in the film. Those who call it such, I believe miss the reason why the film was written or presented in the way it was. I consider the writing and exposition to be brilliant in context of it's goal.
 
just saw it ...and it's a very good movie. I was still suprised by the ending .( even though I scanned a few comments here.)
Honestly it feels like I just came out of an 8 hour nonstop editing session
It's not for everybody, a guy a few seats next to me fell a sleep and a few A holes were talking through the movie but that didn't keep me from keeping my eyes wide open .....I don't need to see it a second time....just gonna wait for the DVD.
This one is very well directed and edited !
And LD was excellent .
 
Going back through Nolan's films. Momento def shows a much more disciplined camera. I guess he's just trying diff stuff. I mean, it's a different movie, of course, but I can see very close similarities between the style of Batman and the style of Inception. Momento is noticeably different.

Have not gotten to Prestige or Insomnia yet.

Just a curiosity.

Oh yeah, one thing that would have made Inception rock off the charts: Guy Pearce. Damn, that guy is good.
 
yeah there were a few moments when i thought i was watching the dark night again. nolan doesn't seem to be a fan of wide-angles.
 
THE PRESTIGE is much closer to INCEPTION in visual presentation than the rest of his features.

Pfister's style definitely tailors to wide compositions, as just about everything he shoots is Anamorphic and more. He composes in a way that creates a very busy frame, rarely ever finding seems like negative space, although if you study his frames, there's plenty. Inception had a lot of wide compositions going on.

Thanks to always incredible set design, it always has the feel of a "medium", however, there's a fair balance of wide.

Mark, on handheld, Pfister is a shoulder guy. Nolan and He work like this ritually. I love his work, personally, and the way he tackles handheld. It's not for everyone, though.
 
One thing interesting, I was watching SHUTTER ISLAND last night and was like "wow, talk about DiCaprio having such similar acting roles in two movies" Dealing with a wife and reality.
 
***SPOILERS***

Is this a plot hole?

In the dream there is no inner ear, therefore the gravity in the second dream level should be unaffected by that in the first dream level. The zero g hotel is below the van level which is below the 747 (reality). Therefore the zero g in the hotel shouldn't even happen since there is no inner ear in the van dream.

 
Didnt the chemist say that sedative does not make one go def as in you can hear anything that happens outside ?
 
My point was, the gravity in the dream changes because your inner ear in reality detects the change. In the first dream level there is no real inner ear to detect a change in gravity, therefore the gravity in the hotel which is the second dream level shouldn't be affected by the gravity in the van which is the first dream level.
 
Finally saw this and man I love when a film makes you think. I'm a sucka for good men thinking movies. I loved everything about this movie. When I saw the trailer way back I knew this was gonna be something special. Even though I went in not really knowing what the plot was about, I don't think anyone really knew what the plot was about until they actually sat down in the theater.

Some mention Nolan is highly overated, I couldn't disagree more. I always knew he was a special kind of director, but when I saw Batman Begins that's when I knew he is actually something special. And the fact that he actually wrote this story, I have even more respect for him. As far as him being overated I think its quite the opposite, I don't think he is rated enough, I thought Dark Knight was overated as a movie, but back to Inception, I think if some feel he is now overated after this movie then this is the right movie for him to get that recognition.

I definitely plan on seeing this a few more times. I was reading some of the posts on here and a lot of people had some theories which makes me question a lot about the whole ending and the entire movie as a whole. This is some brilliant stuff.

Since I've seen so many people give their interpretation of the ending, here's mine

SPOILER ALERT!!!

At the end I really think it is a dream, I think the two things that give it away are 1. The top spins for a mighty long time, too long. And for me what gives it away the fact that its a dream the most are the kids, same position, same clothes(even though someone mentions shoes are different), same time of day, just everything about the kids seem too dream like from he's previous dream/memory of them.

From reading the many post, a few people mention that the whole movie was an actual dream itself. Now that opens a whole other can of worms. Maybe I'll get more answers on the 2nd viewing.

One thing I'm surprise no one mentions is the actual creation of that dream machine. Not anyone is curious about who created that machine? I would of loved to get maybe a 5minute moment of the story dedicated to the creation of that machine, but you know what it works without it, because right when the movie starts it heads straight into the meat and potatoes. But I would of love to see even a whole separate movie about how that machine came into creation.

And though I've seen some people compare this to the Matrix which is understandable, I think this is much more of a Thinking Man's movie than the Matrix.

If I can pick one thing that bothered me about the movie, it was the Action Snow sequence. I personally will take dialogue over action any given day.
10/10.
 
Everts said:
I don't believe our brains uses to many wide shots in dream mode unless we are floating or flying .
Click to expand...
I don't know. My dreams present themselves in a wide variety of aspect ratios. Lately, they have been remarkably lucid, too. I often dream and am fully aware that I am dreaming. It make it much for much more enjoyable dreaming, even during nightmares....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top