Sulphur on 25/7/2010 at 18:07
I don't see any reason or excuse for the guns in the dreams except for the fact that escalation would make it more of a comedy than a heist movie. Yeah, the logic of using guns to fight back doesn't work. It even contradicts itself when Eames pulls out the grenade launcher.
It's strange that you bring up Eternal Sunshine, Stitch. That was a movie that I thought was smart as all get out, but didn't ever end up connecting. I absolutely hated Joel and Clem as characters, and while I could understood what they were going through, I never really related to the characters themselves. Except for the final scenes in the house in Joel's memory, where there finally was some chemistry and wistful sweetness before the wrap. But for what was supposed to be a romantic comedy... it wasn't very romantic, or comedic. Interestingly enough, I felt the exact same way about Adaptation, and Being John Malkovich. I guess that's just the way Kaufman writes.
But yes, Inception lacks the power even to make you despise the characters: despite Leonardo's acting chops (and boy this was somebody I'd decided to hate forever after suffering through Titanic and Celine Dion for seemingly forever), the characters evoked as much emotion as a sheet of cardboard would.
But god-damn if it doesn't blow your mind with what those sheets of cardboard, a premise, and cleverly arranged situations can do.
jimjack on 25/7/2010 at 18:25
I don't really want to sift through all this but I had one question that maybe was answered already.
If Joseph's character was suspended in zero-g in the hotel because he was the one dreaming and his body was also suspended in midair in the van, then wouldn't they also be suspended in zero-g in Cillian's snow dream because they were suspended midair in Joseph's dream? Or would it be that by the movie's rules, you only feel things one layer deep. That's why they need several layers of kicks to wake them up - otherwise the van crashing into the water would wake them up out of the ice station dream. But wait,they were suspended in two layers...The van, AND at the hotel.
I absolutely love flicks that make you think but trying to understand this movie too deeply makes my head hurt.
demagogue on 25/7/2010 at 18:54
Quote Posted by jimjack
wouldn't they also be suspended in zero-g in Cillian's snow dream because they were suspended midair in Joseph's dream? Or would it be that by the movie's rules, you only feel things one layer deep. That's why they need several layers of kicks to wake them up -
So yes, in the movie's rules, you needed an independent kick in each world for the world directly beneath it, to bring the people back up that one layer ... And then they would have to be sequenced like 4->3, 3->2, 2->1, 1->real world ... because, e.g., if you're still in world 3 (snow) when the world-1 kick comes (van), you won't feel it and still be stuck in world-3 indefinitely (until you wake up in real time). Actually that was the whole point of the zero-g problem. They weren't finished in the snow-world in time to be kicked back into the hotel-world by exploding the floor from under them while they still had gravity. They missed the deadline for the world-1 freefall, so the guy had to improvise another way to get g-forces felt in the snow world and kick everyone back up to the hotel (before the van hit the water and kicked them up to the city) ... and of course Leo and Saigo missed getting kicked to the snow-world to catch the hotel kick, so had to wait decades until they actually woke up (or at least Saigo did; wasn't quite sure why Leo didn't age but Saigo did). Got it?
jimjack on 25/7/2010 at 18:59
Quote Posted by demagogue
Got it?
Sort of..at least I'll sound smarter than the rest of the lot who were chewing on this after watching it.
Thanks!
thefonz on 26/7/2010 at 05:31
Best movie I've ever seen - complex enough to make me wanting to discuss it, but simple enough so that it's definitely re-watchable.
Oh and the music was epic - qudos to Hans Zimmer, he knows how to score a Nolan movie!
Yakoob on 26/7/2010 at 07:08
I'm with stitch on this one. I left the theater rather disappointed.
[spoiler]
Firstly, the whole idea of idea theft, entering/building/sharing dreams, multi-layer dreams and a heist taking place in such a world is really awesome and I definitely loved that aspect of the movie. But I still it was plagued by a lot of factors that brought it down.
The action scenes, honestly, bored me. "Oh no their van got shot at! Again... and agian... and again... and again..." and "oh they fell down the slope of the ice mountain and shot someone... and another one... and another one... and another one..." Ok I get it, they are super badass A-team capable of singlehandedly killing hundreds of elite soldiers, going into wild car chases and attacking hidden fortresses AT THE SAME TIME ("whoa these guys are soooo cooool!!!"), so can we please get back to the actual interesting idea of dream-invading?
I could understand the over-the-top action scenes being clearly a "this is a dream world, shit is crazy here!" if it didnt seem so painfully obvious they werent going for "this is a crazy dream world" but rather "LOOK HOW BADASS COBBS IS! LOOK AT HIM!!!!! LOOOOKKK!!!!"
And the whole love/guilt thing with Cobbs was just... blah. It did not only fail to grasp me, it actually annoyed me. Im not sure if it was the cliche "my lover died because of me ergo I hate myself and I must forgive myself to move on," the acting, the characters themselves, or the fact you cant go on for two minutes without Cobbs going "HURR MY WIFE" but for some reason I found it really forced and unengaged. I feel the movie would've been better with no emotional arc, rather than a crippling one.
And then there were the glaring plot holes, inconsistencies and general "what the fucks?" such as:
* the vans free-fall not penetrating to the deeper layers (wheras other things did, like the avalanche)
* Why was Cobbs the only one whose subconscious could come into other people's dreams?
* Why did they go into the rich kid's dream, instead of making the rich kid come into one of theirs? Clearly its possible (and infinitely safer), as thats what happens in the beginning on a traing.
* Also, I thought from the initial explanation that a "kick" happens at a higher level to get you out of a lower level? That is, if you are dreaming, you need a kick in REAL WORLD to wake up from DREAM (as it happens in beginning when they drop him into the bathtub. Notice there is no kick required in the japanese mansion place, only one level up, where he falls in the tub). Yet later on this logic flips and you need a kick both IN the dream AND the real world simultaneously (i.e. they all need to fall in the hotel AND the van in order to wake up)
And of course the movie is (typical to hollywood) also chockful of convenient "ah, but of course..." coincidences like "Oh btw if we die in this dream we die in real life" or "only the protagonist can project his subconscious in other people's dreams because hes special!"
Great movie no doubt, but not the 2nd coming of christ people seem to call it. It felt like it was trying to do a few different ideas and stories and really botched combining them together into a complete whole.
[/spoiler]
Sulphur on 26/7/2010 at 07:49
Sorry Yak, buddy, but apart from the lack of proper emotional subtext, which is a valid gripe, a lot of the issues you have are either due to your misunderstanding the logic, or have already been discussed earlier in this thread.
It pains me to say this, but you clearly need to see the movie again. :D
Scots Taffer on 26/7/2010 at 09:54
Well, Inception is great and all, but as an overall movie Toy Story 3 definitely dethroned it for best of the year so far.
It's funny, when I said Inception is the best movie I'd seen in cinemas since The Dark Knight and all year, that really isn't saying much because the movie landscape has been pretty barren for some time and I'd been out to see maybe a grand total of five movies this year (until recently). My view is somewhere between the disappointment of lost opportunity that registers for Angel Dust and Stitch and the gleeful giddiness of Alchemist and others at the construction of the puzzle and what the overall conclusion is.
The one thing that definitely clicked with me this time more than in any other Nolan movie is the criticism that he's a cold and calculating mechanic. Inception has an emotional core, but its weak, and it has a fantastic central idea, but its overall execution leaves a lot to be desired. The fact that you're left with theories to puzzle out is nice because not enough movies do that, and there were some indelible images impressed on my brain, which is also pleasant in another summer filled with familiar sights and sounds. However, it was bursting with potential to be so much more than it was, the ideas had so much more room to play than the fairly conventional way that things played out, and while the vagueness of environs and surroundings helps add to the mystery of the puzzle core, it keeps the audience's emotion at arm's length.
SubJeff on 26/7/2010 at 09:56
Seconded. As I was reading your post Yak I was thinking"he needs to see it again" as you clearly misunderstood lots of it.
Shug on 26/7/2010 at 11:44
Look at you cowards buckling at the first sniff of Stitch's disapproval
Due to his review I'm now sure that Inception is the best film ever MADE :mad:
