ReZourceman Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Inception Inventive, exciting, breathtaking. Astounding. 10/10
Daft Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Good. Intriguing (and yet somehow quite shallow). Nolan's best film. Needless last 5 seconds. Not how sure it will hold up on a second viewing. I would definitely like to see some kind of follow on. The interplay of the characters could have been done much much better. I felt they covered DiCaprio's character comprehensively but Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Ariande (Ellen Page) were a painfully missed opportunity. I'm not sure how Nolan gets away with pretty much all his films having these same flaws - I guess because stylistically and conceptually they are always bang on. It's a real shame. I think he definitely needs a better editor, maybe even a co-director. Having said that, it is incredibly enjoyable. I wouldn't say it was critically stunning, though. Tom Hardy was excellent. I think he'd make an excellent Bond. Marion Cotillard was wonderfully dark at points. 7.8/10
ReZourceman Posted July 16, 2010 Author Posted July 16, 2010 I actually adored Arthur. Like his handsomeness, his style, his look, persona and attitude. Like....loved. Its 10 territory, lets not lie.
Daft Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Yeah, I thought Arthur was great. I actually loved all of the cast. I wanted more of all of them, not just Cobb. It's definitely not a 10. I no sense is it a 10. It's actually a very simplistic film (honestly, any who says it is complicated is a fucking retard - and I won't apologise to anyone who doesn't) masquerading behind this world of dreams. It's just a really pretty heist film (it almost reminds me of Ocean's 11 except without the sauve). You can't ignore its problems. That doesn't mean it's not very enjoyable. There's nothing really to mull over after you've seen it. It's a great experience but beyond the spectacle it is not memorable.
ReZourceman Posted July 16, 2010 Author Posted July 16, 2010 I totally disagree in that its not memorable. It was hugely awesome.
Daft Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 What was memorable about it? Arthur's fight in the rotating corridor. That was slick. But then that was visually memorable, which isn't the problem.
ReZourceman Posted July 16, 2010 Author Posted July 16, 2010 Just the overall concept and the awesomeness of the layered aspects, how certain people moved between blah blah. I just generally think it was a hugely unique, excellently acted, directed and played out movie. I was completely intrigued, gripped and excited the whole time. Havn't enjoyed a film as thoroughly as that in a while.
Daft Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) That was interesting, although personally I found the time difference the real ace. It was so superficial though, as a whole. Why was Ariadne naturally gifted? How exactly was she so brilliant? When they convinced Fischer he was in a dream why couldn't they just fly around shooting laser beams out of their eyes? Why couldn't they revive Saito the same way they did Fischer? How exactly is limbo shared between everyone who's been there? (My God, the most interesting question and completely ignored.) Why couldn't they touch each other's totems? I have no idea how you can think it was well directed. Edit: It was disappointing that the film gave us just a set of rules as opposed to any deeper questions to mull over. I did enjoy it a lot but I wanted more. Nolan just can't cut it as a screenwriter. Edited July 16, 2010 by Daft
ReZourceman Posted July 16, 2010 Author Posted July 16, 2010 That was interesting, although personally I found the time difference the real ace. It was so superficial though, as a whole. Why was Ariadne naturally gifted? How exactly was she so brilliant? When they convinced Fischer he was in a dream why couldn't they just fly around shooting laser beams out of their eyes? Why couldn't they revive Saito the same way they did Fischer? How exactly is limbo shared between everyone who's been there? (My God, the most interesting question and completely ignored.) Why couldn't they touch each other's totems? I have no idea how you can think it was well directed. Edit: It was disappointing that the film gave us just a set of rules as opposed to any deeper questions to mull over. I did enjoy it a lot but I wanted more. Nolan just can't cut it as a screenwriter. Well regarding the They couldn't touch each others because they were all specifically weighted and it would be the only item they know couldn't be replicated. Arthur explained it when he revealed his weighted dice. Regarding the other questions I'm quite happy them not being answered or just briefly touched on. They don't seem like game breakers to me. And I don't see how you could think it isn't well directed.
Daft Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) I remember the explanation but that doesn't explain why. I'd love to see a sequel where they actually dig into everything much more. Call it 'Extraction'. Bring some new elements in. They seemed to completely brush aside any ethical issues, too. He did affectively kill his wife. They also changed the life of this one man, taking away his free will. I can't believe you are satisfied with that limbo idea not being covered. It seems almost a key part of the overall idea that you love. I think Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind definitely dealt with pretty much exactly the same thing, albeit not as visually spectacular as this, a lot better. So much for originality. Except!! They explain the time structure (5 minutes in real life equates to 40 minutes in a dream), then he totally abandons the idea that drilling down into sub-dreams exponentially increases the time shift. We are told that a dream within a dream happens even slower than the original dream. The further down you go (they go 4 dreams deep), the slower time gets. But in the final heist, the only thing happening in slow motion is the van falling into the river. Everything else is happening in real time. Arthur is wrapping people up in the elevator, there's the gun battle in the snow, and then there's the kitchen showdown between Leo and his dead wife. In all 3 of those sub-dreams, things are just happening in the same time frame. We are told that Leo spent 50 years in the deepest layer of dreams, and then woke up as a young man. Yet, the team kept burrowing deeper into theoretically slower time frames and nothing happened any slower. According to Nolan, what happened in the snow gunfight should have unraveled over the course of days, and the kitchen scene should've taken weeks. So that failed, utterly. Edited July 16, 2010 by Daft
Ashley Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Just the overall concept and the awesomeness of the layered aspects, how certain people moved between blah blah. I just generally think it was a hugely unique, excellently acted, directed and played out movie. I was completely intrigued, gripped and excited the whole time. Havn't enjoyed a film as thoroughly as that in a while. Honestly have people not considered these things before? Maybe not in as much depth (and probably less likely in any kind of narratological manner) but I've certainly contemplated the notion of multiple layers within dreams and such as well as invading others dreams (as to be fair its been done numerous times before in other films/tv shows). As Daft said, the concepts aren't as complex as it makes it out to be. While watching it I thought "this is just an action/spectacle film with some issues thrown in", but that's not a bad thing. That was interesting, although personally I found the time difference the real ace. It was so superficial though, as a whole. Why was Ariadne naturally gifted? How exactly was she so brilliant? When they convinced Fischer he was in a dream why couldn't they just fly around shooting laser beams out of their eyes? Why couldn't they revive Saito the same way they did Fischer? How exactly is limbo shared between everyone who's been there? (My God, the most interesting question and completely ignored.) Why couldn't they touch each other's totems? Shooting laser beams would require Fischer to be dreaming lucidly, which he wasn't. It would be like most dreams, illogical things happen but its within a logic (of dreams) and you go along with that rather than questioning, particularly in such an intense situation anyway. You act on instinct and you try and survive, I don't think he'd have the time to stop and think "hmm, maybe I could just fly". I think ultimately you have to accept there was some "dream logic" that was controlling them, otherwise it would have just been two and a half hours of an 80's music video :p And as ReZ said, details of the totem are unique to the individual including weight and feel. If Cobb weighed up Arthur's die he may have then been able to replicate it in a dream, which defeats the purpose of Arthur being able to use it as an indicator of what is real and what is a dream. My contemplations anyway. Although going by what you said I'd like to see spin-off films exploring everyone else more, particularly as I prefer pretty much everyone else over DiCaprio I have no idea how you can think it was well directed. Edit: It was disappointing that the film gave us just a set of rules as opposed to any deeper questions to mull over. I did enjoy it a lot but I wanted more. Nolan just can't cut it as a screenwriter.
Daft Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Ah, k. That totem thing makes sense in that respect. I guess like the face carpet at the beginning.
Ashley Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Yeah. Which reminds me, there were a surprising amount of amusing moments/lines in the film. Some were corny but still, I expected it to be more 'serious business'. Felt like mentioning it as it hasn't been already.
Daft Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 I loved it when Arthur and Ariadne kissed. The film was gagging for more of that.
Ashley Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Ha yes. I also loved the sibling-like relationship between Arthur and Earnes. And all the slapping. Everyone loves a bit of slapstick
ReZourceman Posted July 16, 2010 Author Posted July 16, 2010 Daft I don't know what you're talking about when you say the time thing.... It was explained fine. It was like....for example the van falling off the bridge they specifically said like...twice about the time difference and what it was. Not every film needs to be deep or morally questioning to be amazing.
Daft Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) I enjoyed it, it was good. It just wasn't brilliant. My main issue being the under developed characters. And it not being that original, like I said, ESotSM seemed to mess with that world more successfully. Not every film needs to be deep or morally questioning to be amazing, this is true. It does have to be well written though, which this simply isn't. Edited July 16, 2010 by Daft
chairdriver Posted July 17, 2010 Posted July 17, 2010 (edited) Inception The anti-gravity hotel scene blew my mind. It was one of those moments when you consciously think "this is amazing". The character development and choice of actors really annoyed me. I hate Leo DiCap. I normally love Ellen Page but she left me more than dry this time around. I hate 500 Days Of Summer, and everything affliated with it. Edith Piaf, who I will always see her as, was amazing. Great film. Would have worked far better as a book; I hate the concept of explaining stuff through dialogue, because everything feels forced. Liked how they tackled the "is this real?" thing. The whole way through I was expecting at the end for Leo to wake up into the real world, where you can't mess about with dreams. In general it felt a bit shitly written. Plot holes everywhere, but the concept and idea was the best. CGI was superb. This was a thinking man's Avatar. I just need a Blade Runner remake/sequel done with the same scale and budget. 8.9/10 Edited July 17, 2010 by chairdriver
ReZourceman Posted July 17, 2010 Author Posted July 17, 2010 Massive lol. Inception interview. Aint It Cool News: Walking on to the set of a $200 million movie as just one actor, how do you not get lost in the machinery? Ellen Page: I guess some days you do. Especially when I first arrived. I'd really never been in a movie... well, I'd been in one big movie that's not even worth breathing in the same sentence... with a very different kind of a director...
Dan_Dare Posted July 17, 2010 Posted July 17, 2010 Hhaahaha that's brilliant. I actually love Ellen Page. She's ridiculously awesome in all ways.
James Posted July 17, 2010 Posted July 17, 2010 Daft how deep do you into watching films, like thinking about oh no that characters not getting developed properly, that part could have been wrote better, this directors shit, plot holes here, plot hole there. no wonder you don't enjoy films :p Personally I thought inception was amazin, but then again im stupid. 10/10 and I loved the ending.
Daft Posted July 17, 2010 Posted July 17, 2010 Well I said while I watched it I really enjoyed it. After, when I looked back on it, the flaws start to appear. It's hard not to see the flaws as soon as you look past the spectacle and engage your brain ever so slightly. So, for the third time, I did enjoy it. I enjoy most the films I rate here, actually. It is okay to be critical of a film. It is okay for a film to have flaws. It is perfectly fine that this film isn't perfect. That doesn't change the fact that it could have been better and that I enjoyed it. It's really not that hard to grasp.
Ashley Posted July 17, 2010 Posted July 17, 2010 I hate 500 Days Of Summer, and everything affliated with it. Have you checked out some of JG-L's other films? For a child sitcom actor he's done a surprising range of films (Manic, Brick, Mysterious Skin) and I really like him personally because he tends to pick cool and different films (I think 500 is actually the most mainstream film he's done in a long time). Daft how deep do you into watching films, like thinking about oh no that characters not getting developed properly, that part could have been wrote better, this directors shit, plot holes here, plot hole there. no wonder you don't enjoy films :p Personally I thought inception was amazin, but then again im stupid. 10/10 and I loved the ending. Well I said while I watched it I really enjoyed it. After, when I looked back on it, the flaws start to appear. It's hard not to see the flaws as soon as you look past the spectacle and engage your brain ever so slightly. Yeah this. Do people not mull over a film afterwards? Particularly one that tries to challenge you (I'd understand if you just watched Charlies Angels and had no response to it, as its pure bubblegum) but part of the joy of a film like this is to contemplate it afterwards, even if it results in finding flaws.
Dan_Dare Posted July 17, 2010 Posted July 17, 2010 Daft how deep do you into watching films, like thinking about oh no that characters not getting developed properly, that part could have been wrote better, this directors shit, plot holes here, plot hole there. no wonder you don't enjoy films :p Personally I thought inception was amazin, but then again im stupid. 10/10 and I loved the ending. You know, there's nothing wrong with engaging with a film. Analysing things critically is how we're supposed to discuss them. It's not an aggressive thing to do, thinking. Most people on this forum just want some bland praise and a generic number in bold though, so this thread will largely remain shit /10
Coolness Bears Posted July 19, 2010 Posted July 19, 2010 Inception Cool movie bro. :awesome: JGL looked odd with slicked back hair BIG EARS and definitely needs to have mid air sex with Amanda Seyfried. Ellen Page is still small. cheeky ending. also, trains.
Recommended Posts