Fun Stuff > ENJOY
Inception
KvP:
Y'all need to read some fuckin' books.
TheFuriousWombat:
Interesting point though about the names. As far as characterization goes, Inception was undeniably weak. My question is, would it have been better if we had gotten backstory or exposition or a deeper examination of the main figures (i.e. what it is they do exactly as part of the dream heist team and why and how they met and how they got into that line of work...the list goes on), or if they had at least been a little less unidimensional? I'm not sure I know the answer to that question, to be honest. I'm not entirely sure how necessary it would have been and if an extra, say, 20-25 minutes was spent expanding upon the characters (who, I must admit, are nameless in my head right now so good call on that one), would I really have enjoyed the movie more? It's a summer movie, as you said, and I went into it and came out of it with that mentality. To me, that actually does excuse it from some of the standards I might apply to something I expected to be more serious. Maybe Nolan had some pretensions to depth and provocation with Inception and, if so, he fell short, but if you look at it like an action movie (which is how I approached it), underdevelopment of characters kinda ceases to be an issue in a critique of the film, to be replaced by a sort of "gee wiz!" excitement at the things he did pull of well (the visuals, the fight scenes, the playing with layers of time thing (that van falling for half the movie was damn cool)).
The names though, I'm actually in the same boat as you with Rubicon (a show I like less and less the more I see it) while in something like Mad Men for example I could easily name the entire main cast and several of the secondary characters as well without even seeing their faces.
Blyss:
I've waited a bit before posting in here, because I've been trying to figure out my feelings on this movie.
To be honest, I still don't have what I'd call a final assessment. I've seen this twice now, and I do enjoy it. I have some problems with the actual happenings in what is supposed to be the 'REAL' world, but that doesn't mean that I can't like the movie. I have problems with flow in a lot of movies, and it doesn't take away from my ability to enjoy them. I look past it, and just try to take the story for what it is.
There are two things that stand out quite a bit to me, or rather, there's two sides of the same coin - because really they are very connected.
It seems fairly obvious to me that a lot of the information is very vague, especially concerning characters, and how they do what they do. Now, some have stated that this is a genius stroke by Nolan, because that's how it would be in a dream. Point taken - BUT - I'm not completely convinced. It's been the case many many more times that this is simply a product of a writer that gets into a corner and isn't sure how to get out. One of the major problems with writing something that is so new, so original, is that as a writer you can get lost. I know. I've done it myself. I always look at a story that I've done this to myself in, and go, "Wow, I have just completely fucked myself, my characters, and my plot right into this corner, and there is no fucking way out. At all." I'm wrong about this though. There is an easy way out, and that is to be vague. The problem with this solution is that before this, you were likely being very specific, and there are parts of Inception that are VERY specific. Then it goes back to being vague. That's kind of where I start to fall off with how much I like it.
Inception is a good movie, and with Hollywood churning out so many sequels, and remakes of old 70's tv series, and conglomerating 80's action heroes (Yes, I like 'The Expendables too, but come on...) Inception is actually a breath of fresh air comparatively. Is it the greatest story ever told? Not to me, but I'd be hard pressed to make a choice on what is, so take it for what it's worth. Is it the worst story ever told? Hell no. Not by a long shot.
It's a good movie, that I will probably enjoy watching a few more times for one simple reason. It makes me think about things from different perspectives. That's my particular cup of tea, and I like it. If it's not yours, you'll probably either find it bitter, or bland, but you're not likely to enjoy it as much as me.
SonofZ3:
While I certainly won't deny the one dimensional nature of the film's characters, it didn't really bother me. After seeing Inception I felt like I had seen a film that was essentially the same in most ways (as far as plot, character motivation) as the simple fantasy stories and fairy tales I had read as a kid. The hero is on a quest to reach a morally friendly goal (reach his children to take care of them), he has a loyal sidekick, and needs to assemble a team to attain the goal of his quest because this time things are harder than they have been in the past. Theres nothing wrong with that at all, that basic formula is one that we're so used to that using it in a film that has potentially confusing concepts makes sense. We don't really have to question why all these people will help the hero, they will simply because thats what happens in stories/movies/video games/books like this. Given how visually stunning the film was, and that the audience had a lot to take in and understand in relation to the "rules" of the dream world, using an age old formula for the characters makes perfect sense. Let the audience focus on the visual elements and wrap their heads around the different levels of dreaming and accept that Arthur helps Cobb because Arthus is Cobb's sidekick.
Thats just what I thought though.
beat mouse:
My biggest argument against the "lazy" writing comments is that at no point do they leave out information you need. How the dream machines work doesn't matter, aside from the nerdy fanboys that want to know so they can write stories about Cobb and Ariadne. The fact that you see them in use lets you fill in all of the little blanks you want, but it changes nothing in regards to narrative. Would you have really preferred another half hour of expository conversation about the physical world or allow the focus to remain on the emotional and psychological levels of the film, which has been the entire focus all along. The characters can go either way, on one side the lack of development can be percolated into an argument that it is all a dream, or simply again, that they aren't required to have depth as the film is not about them. The first portion of the film is spent talking about all of the different jobs they are required to do, which when you are given someone's job description, and you watch them fulfill that job, you can start filling in the little blanks yourself. It is mentioned throughout the movie that when you are put into someone's dream (or film) that your subconscious will fill in the small details to allow your brain to accept it as real. This is what makes Inception feel much more deliberate than lazy to me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version