Inception

[Frank]

I haven't read any of the comments because I was thinking of seeing it and didn't want any of them spoilers.

 

Is it really worth going to see, or is it just quite a misleading film like...Vantage Point *groan*

[dwarf]

I've just checked to see if I missed something horrific, but no:

http://screenrant.com/inception-spoilers-discussion-kofi-68330/3/

I was kind of hoping it wasn't a dream, guess we'll not know til sequelage

 

Edit: Obviously the cliff-hanger ending is intended that way, although I'm sure some pedant will deduce an actual outcome.

Edited July 26, 2010 by dwarf

[LukeLee]

Going against popular opinion, but once they have reached the 4th layer i didnt feel the film. It felt to me like it was being convoluted for the sake of it. Also, can someone explain to me why the 3rd layer took place in a snow mountain setting?

 

One other key thing for me....I felt nothing for DiCaprio's wife in the film or the emotional pain associated. But that was probably because in every scene she was in she was trying to kill or knife someone.

[Retro_Link]

Also, can someone explain to me why the 3rd layer took place in a snow mountain setting?

I think because it is a harsh environment with the hospital/safe at the very centre of it is just representative of the information they were trying to obtain being very well guarded/locked away in the mind. An impenetrable fortress type scenario.

[Paj!]

Finally saw it.

 

Semi-Spoilers Below

 

I enjoyed it.

 

It was like a really, REALLY cool film trapped in a worse film.

 

I loved that it made you pay attention, that you had to find out things along the way etc. And the cgi/visuals were awesome. The hotel was my fave.

 

And I loved the concept in essence.

 

However, I was so distracted by the CONSTANT OVERUSE OF RANDOM PEOPLE WITH GUNS/MOTORBIKES/SNOWMOBILES BLARING that I had to mentally keep going back and checking I had it all right. What boring weapons for a dream, and such a bizarrely ignored aspect of the film? Esme or whatever the british guy with big lips' name was proved you could dream up weapons and stuff, so why not something more than just machine guns? Fair enough dragons with energy-blasting eyes would have lowered the tone, but SRSLY.

 

It felt like the excessive gunfire/car chasing/explosions were put in there so it could "justify" being a summer blockbuster, and maybe keep those bored by it/lost completely entertained with FIRE, SHOOTING, OOH!

 

When in fact, the film would have been better with less. The best action scene was clearly Joseph-Godon Levitt's in the hotel, and that's because it felt like it tied into what was already established by the film itself RE: The rules.

 

Anyway.

 

Ariadne was bad. Firstly her name is like a slap across the face for anyone who knows who Ariadne was in Myth. It's like calling an action hero Hercules or something, and pretending like it's a coincidence (But then maybe her name is so bluntly obvious to add to the theory that "maybe it was all a dream!")

 

(On that note, I'm stung with reminders of the superior Blade Runner. )

 

Also, she's just never elaborated on as a character.

 

Marion Cottilard, Non Je Ne Regrette Rien, Cillian Murphy and the Air Hostess were the best damn things.

 

But yeah, I ENJOYED it. It just feels like it sacrificed coherence and overall a better finished product in favour of pleasing the masses with AWESUM ACTION when it only worked against them.

 

Unless Nolan wanted that in the first place.

[Sméagol]

Hmm, while this was the film I was most anticipating this year, it was very disappointing (although not dissapointing at the Iron Man 2 level). Too bad that the combination of me having a bad memory + the film made to look complicated, results in me not able to tell why, so I have to watch it again (and I'll probably will soon) to pick the details apart. Like mentioned by Daft, although I don't agree it's pretty much the exact same thing, I was also reminded by Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind, and also thought that film handled this matter much and much better.

 

Again, I can't remember the details, but during the film I constantly had the idea that it was intentionally made to look complicated just to hide all the errors. Things that bothered me was the whole limbo thing for example, but lots of other stuff too.

 

I'm also inclined to go for the "it's all a dream" ending, which would legitimize all the stuff that's bothering me, but I'm not happy with that.

I can choose between the cheap ending and the nonsense ending.

 

I really expected something better from Nolan, I love the guy normally, and the cast was great (Marion Cotillard. Anyway, I'll go watch it again before I draw my final conclusion.

[Charlie]

I saw this the other night and did really like it. However I do have one major complaint about it.

 

I could only tell you 2 character's names at the very most.

[Paj!]

..Why? Only thing like I that I found hard was hearing what Leo's name was, because american accents sound bad when they try to say Dom Cobb.

 

But yeah, from my memory only; Dom Cobb (or something like that), Ariadne (mentioned why that was memorable), Arthur, Eemes (or however your spell that), Robert Fischer, Syto/Saido, Browning etc.

[MoogleViper]

I thought it was very good. I don't get why people find it confusing to be honest. They explained everything well in the film.

 

I thought it was predictable how they were going to cut to the credits.

 

[Ashley]

Saito.

 

I kept thinking Leo's character was called Cod at first, which made me laugh.

[Pancake]

I just saw it last night. The first half hour or so, i felt like i was getting mind-raped. And i kind of resented it, cos i didn't care about the characters yet. So i had no motivation to try and work out what the hell was going on, inbetween a load of loud explosions.

 

I started to get into it once they reached the main plot involving Fisher. And also the introduction of an interesting character (um, the girl, forgot her name). And by that time i was starting to warm to the other leads too, so it was much easier viewing after that.

 

I have to say though, the whole snow sequence part left me cold. I couldn't help zoning out during that bit. It was just too much straight forward action for me. I know it was driven by the complicated goings-on, but on the surface it was still just a load of people getting shot and chasing eachother around in the snow, and i didn't think it was particularly exciting and went on forever.

 

Overall, good film and well cast. I was a bit dubious of Leo as the lead, but he was better than i thought. I'd definitely have to watch it again to grasp everything, it was information overload for me on 1st viewing. Maybe i'm just dumb. :P

[Shorty]

I thought it was very good. I don't get why people find it confusing to be honest. They explained everything well in the film.

Agreed! The film had lots of brilliantly placed cuts to constantly remind you how everything was working. The first time the weightlessness occurred, shots switched seamlessly between the van and the hotel room so that you could easily keep up with what was going on.

[Retro_Link]

..Why? Only thing like I that I found hard was hearing what Leo's name was, because american accents sound bad when they try to say Dom Cobb.

I kept thinking Leo's character was called Cod at first, which made me laugh.

Yeah seriously!!... it was difficult to get a grasp on his name at the start!

 

At first I was thinking, is it Cod... Carp... nah can't be... then they mentioned 'The Architect', so I thought OK maybe he's known as 'God' in this whole dream get up!

I have to say though, the whole snow sequence part left me cold. I couldn't help zoning out during that bit. It was just too much straight forward action for me. I know it was driven by the complicated goings-on, but on the surface it was still just a load of people getting shot and chasing eachother around in the snow, and i didn't think it was particularly exciting and went on forever.

 

Overall, good film and well cast. I was a bit dubious of Leo as the lead, but he was better than i thought. I'd definitely have to watch it again to grasp everything, it was information overload for me on 1st viewing. Maybe i'm just dumb. :P

Yep I found the snow part the least interesting aswell, just loads of shooting, chasing, grenade chucking... sure they were trying to 'break into' the deep recesses of the mind, but after some great set pieces before this, the 3rd layer felt lacking in depth and meaning... and I felt the pacing, which had been fantastic, dropped a bit here. Though the scene between father and son in the 'hospital' was touching.

 

Yeah I definately want to see it again (though probably on DVD) to understand it a little better.

[Slaggis]

I adored Ellen Page in the film. For me, such a good casting choice. Anyway, brilliant film. Had me captivated throughout and the visuals were terrifyingly stunning.

[Aimless]

When I left the cinema earlier I was confident I knew exactly what was going on, but as it turns out I was in for a twist ending when I came home and read through this thread: I hate Daft. Good work, Nolan, I didn't see that one coming!

 

In all seriousness I really enjoyed it. It sits in the same space as The Matrix for me: fantastic action and cinematography wrapped around a plot that requires some attention but isn't out to have you questioning your life view.

 

The ending didn't seem particularly ambiguous to me. I don't think the film gave much reason to think...

...that the very end wasn't the real outcome. The only avenue that really springs to mind is that Cobb 'died' in the fourth layer when his phantom wife stabbed him, causing him to become a prisoner of his subconscious in limbo — trapped in an ideal dream — whilst his real body was reduced to a vegetable. That's a pretty big stretch, though.

 

[Paj!]

I adored Ellen Page in the film. For me, such a good casting choice. Anyway, brilliant film. Had me captivated throughout and the visuals were terrifyingly stunning.

 

Her character did nothing and had nothing to say. I thought it was a wasted casting choice. Ariadne was just there, neither adding nor taking away from the story.

[chairdriver]

Michael Caine was the worst. He had literally no reason to be there -- it just made no sense how he has a really broad English accent, and then his daughter was obviously French. It was like they were casting big names for the sake of casting a big name.

 

I hate Michael Caine, but at least in Batman he actually added something to the film.

[Daft]

I hate Michael Caine.

 

[Mundi]

Her character did nothing and had nothing to say. I thought it was a wasted casting choice. Ariadne was just there, neither adding nor taking away from the story.

 

Here only purpose in the film was to provide exposition to the audience because she knew nothing about what they were doing.

 

Which annoyed me a bit, most of the dialogue in the film was explaining everything, rarely felt like a natural conversation.

[triforcemario]

[Daft]

[Ashley]

I hate Michael Caine

 

 

Now now.

 

(and have you not heard of an Englishman marrying a French woman?)

 

Here only purpose in the film was to provide exposition to the audience because she knew nothing about what they were doing.

 

Which annoyed me a bit, most of the dialogue in the film was explaining everything, rarely felt like a natural conversation.

 

And she was there to alleviate the homoerotic relationship between Codd and...every other male in the film. A classic film staple :p

[Jonnas]

Just watched it and loved it.

 

The concept is great. It certainly offered new possibilities for the "Action Film" genre while allowing us to suspend disbelief. The pacing of the film was excellent, too.

 

I thought it was pretty straightforward, except for the whole "limbo" thing.

 

I do wish they'd fleshed out the other characters a bit more, but it's fine as it is.

 

Also, out of curiosity, I decided to take a look at time passed in the layers:

 

(Of course, taking into account that "1 week --> 6 months --> 10 years" is true, as well as "5 real minutes = 1 hour in first layer")

 

Car chase --> Hotel --> Snow Fortress

10 seconds --> 4:15 minutes (approx.) --> almost one hour and a half

5 days --> 4 months --> 87 months (7 years)

 

-10 seconds is the time it took from Edith Piaf's singing to the van crashing into water

-10 hours from the plane trip = 5 days in first layer

 

That sounds about right.

 

 

[jayseven]

One thing I've loved about finally being able to read this thread; people saying "can't believe people think this is complicated" only to evidently prove that they, themselves, didn't quite get it :P

 

I loved it. Went with a party of 4 and was the only one to enjoy it, to 'understand' it and to not think it was too long. I think the script should be praised for not explaining everything immediately at the start, though faulted for the cop-out "oh, by the way, if you die here then LOL tough shit" to add extra TENSHUN!!!!

 

What I think needed more understanding, and certainly not any demand for more character intel because as has been pointed out, Leo's perspective, whether the film was a dream in whole or part, was paramount. I don't like it when we have to have all relationships and characters totally explained to us.

 

No, what I think was stupid was how the whole entering people's minds thing came about. There was a vague "oh, the military did this whole bunch of stuff.." stuff, but it never felt, for those brief moments we spent in reality, that we were witnessing an entire society that lives and deals with such powerful technology. Corporate sabotage appeared to be the only use.

 

Earlier someone suggested a list of movies that were better than inception, including The Machinist. personally I think that's chosen for its cult status, and would happily argue that inception is far more thought-provoking.

 

I could blabber incessantly about this. I went in knowing I'd like it, and was surprised by how much so!

 

Loved this film, just went to see it tonight.

 

I'll give this a try:

1) I think there were supposed to be years of searching in between.

2) Saito didn't know he was lost in Limbo so he just lived his life, Cobb knew so he never aged.

3) Err... no

4) The first dream layer didn't last very long, they ultimately woke up from that on time like they were meant to, when the clock on the device ran down.

RE point 2: Not sure if that fits due to there being a brief 'flashback' of 'leo' and Moll strolling through DreamTown as an old couple, and he says to her "and we did [grow old together]" -- they knew they were there, yet they aged. I think the idea is that the limbo Saito went to appears to have been 'another level down', though, of course, I can't say for sure!

 

I agree with your logic for the 4th point, and in regard to Jonnas's timeframe, I don't think they utilised the entire 10-hour flight to get the Job done, but still a nice observation.

 

I think one maxim to remember of the film is "you never remember the beginning of your dream" so while we can assume that the beginning to each layer is somehow immediately subsequent to the previous layer, it is not necessarily so.

 

Edit: Obviously the cliff-hanger ending is intended that way, although I'm sure some pedant will deduce an actual outcome.

The ending was obvious, but also mostly necessary. The extra focus on the spinning top wasn't. Leo's character had already accepted the reality and clearly cared little about whether the top would cease spinning or not, so why spin it? Personally I'd lean towards it not being a dream, because I'm a hopeless optimist... I think.

[The Lillster]

I'm wondering did anyone stay until after the credits where the woman (the one that kills herself by jumping off a building) wakes up?