Sulphur on 9/8/2010 at 07:57
Given the laundry list of issues you had, I can't see how 'a few tweaks to the script' would have made it a good movie.
For what it's worth, everybody could see the ending coming from a mile away, I agree. The dream layers and kicks weren't incoherent at all in my opinion, though; I thought they'd explained it all quite clearly (and at least twice during the run of it).
Matthew on 9/8/2010 at 10:32
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
*ahem*
well... not to distract the debaters but. I saw it last night and I have one question.
Who else thinks Joseph Gordon Leavitt could kick spidermans ass? That was some crazy stuff he was doing. I love being surprised by people like that.
There's a rumour going around that Nolan will use him as a villain in his third Batman film, possibly as The Riddler.
Scots Taffer on 9/8/2010 at 10:33
Levitt as Riddler would be pretty sweet.
SD on 9/8/2010 at 20:28
I just got back from seeing it, and unfortunately I'm striding manfully into Stitch's "Meh" camp. I did find it entertaining enough, but the whole thing's a mess, isn't it? I doubt even Nolan has a clue what it all means.
And for all its much-trumped originality, the false-reality-within-an-ambiguous-reality and grieving-husband-creates-shadow-of-his-suicided-wife-from-his-subconscious were done so much more elegantly in eXistenZ and Solaris respectively.
I guess when you make a movie about dreams, it's almost inevitable that, like a dream, you'll end up populating it with two-dimensional facsimiles. I say almost inevitable, because David Lynch somehow managed to avoid that pitfall with the rather excellent Mulholland Drive.
I did, however, enjoy the little in-joke of using Edith Piaf's music in a film starring Marion Cotillard.
Sulphur on 9/8/2010 at 20:59
Quote Posted by SD
I guess when you make a movie about dreams, it's almost inevitable that, like a dream, you'll end up populating it with two-dimensional facsimiles. I say
almost inevitable, because David Lynch somehow managed to avoid that pitfall with the rather excellent
Mulholland Drive.
I'd actually give Mulholland Drive a profound meh. Alienating the audience midway through might work in art film circles, but not for me. It's so profoundly mired and confused from that point on, with the lines blurring and colliding and taking the people on the screen along with them, that I couldn't be arsed to see it again (apart from the really fucking *hot* lesbian sex, that if you think too hard about it, might have simply been autoerotic).
That may mirror and evoke dreamworld logic almost exactly, but I'd rather puzzle out something with a measure of coherence than visit my waking nightmares in the form of a brainbending mindscrambleathon that works out to
maybe be some ill-conceived commentary on the role of actors and cinema. I didn't see or get a three-dimensional and rounded character out from that mess.
SubJeff on 9/8/2010 at 21:21
Forgetting the "commentary" bit for the moment; MD really wasn't that confusing.
Sulphur on 9/8/2010 at 21:26
I guess it's... subjective.
Erm.
Well, I'm not watching it again to find out.
Except to clip the sex scene into that *other* folder on my hard drive.
SubJeff on 9/8/2010 at 22:20
Quote Posted by Sulphur
I guess it's... subjective.
Not at all. If you know what the blue means anyway. And it's not like they don't tell you.
I don't think it was mess SD but yes Solaris did it soooo much better and I'm talking the Clooney version even.
