THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: KvP on 29 Dec 2009, 12:41
-
So the second trailer is out for Christopher Nolan's new movie Inception (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/inception/) and it looks to be going for the same feel as the first Matrix, which can only be good as far as I'm concerned. Leo plays a CEO type who invades people's dreams to steal ideas, Ellen Page is a neophyte assistant who needs to learn the rules of dream invasion, Joseph-Gordon Levitt is some sort of fighter dude (another assistant?) and Ken Watanabe is a villain of some sort. Apparently Luke Haas and Cillian Murphy are also in the film, though in what capacity I can't say.
Looks pretty good.
-
Gave me a Dark City vibe and it looks to be pretty amazing. I'm a little torn though, I'm not sure what I'm more excited/happy about: Seeing a trailer for Nolan's new film, or seeing Leonardo DiCaprio choose some amazing film roles. Seriously, the guy has churned out some amazing movies recently: Aviator, Blood Diamond, Departed. I remembered when a lot of people thought his career was over after The Beach.
-
You forgot Revolutionary Road.
-
Never saw it and I heard some people say some bad things about it so I didn't include it. I take it he's good in it?
-
yeah.
I think he stole the show in blood diamond though. There should have been more focus on the black dude.
-
I thought Revolutionary Road was the best movie of 2008.
-
This looks pretty okay. The title is stupid though. Sounds like a Dan Brown novel.
-
There should have been more focus on the black dude.
Story of Hollywood.
-
The trailer I saw in the cinemas was so fucking obscure it was aggravating.
Typical-Nolan-Strings-Instrumental-Slide ala The Dark Knight, Film-By-Christopher-Nolan-Small-Credits-Reel Bunch-of-Guys-Punching-The-Shit-Out-Of-Each-Other-In-Midair No-Dialogue Zoom-Out-Of-City BAM-Turns-Out-To-Be-Inception
"Whaaaaaatttttttttttt" crappiest teaser ever.
That said the premise sounds interesting enough for me to wiki the plot.
-
This is not the teaser, this is the trailer.
-
I think he stole the show in blood diamond though. There should have been more focus on the black dude.
Djimon Hounsou was still pretty fantastic in it and I don't think Leo stole all the focus. (Also Revolutionary Road was really good, whoever didn't see it.)
I saw the trailer for this before Sherlock and I was utterly confused by it. I remember seeing DiCaprio and Paige and a bunch of weird ass stuff, but that's it. I'm not sure if I should be excited about it or not because I didn't know what this was even about until I read the OP. It looked cool, just very confusing.
-
I saw the trailer for this before Sherlock and I was utterly confused by it. I remember seeing DiCaprio and Paige and a bunch of weird ass stuff, but that's it. I'm not sure if I should be excited about it or not because I didn't know what this was even about until I read the OP. It looked cool, just very confusing.
Basically this. No doubt the actual trailer probably would have explained a lot more, but it was so pretentious I didn't know what to expect.
-
Just FYI, this movie is fucking awesome.
EDIT: I don't want to say much about it because I don't want to spoil anything, but suffice to say it's extremely complex and detailed without at any point being confusing or overwrought.
-
Based on the cast, the director, and the fact that it's not a goddamn franchise or sequel movie, i don't think there's any way I'm not seeing this movie. The premise is pretty interesting, but I don't always necessarily put too much stock in that. A movie can be based on a great idea and be hideously executed. Anyway, this will be the only movie I've seen in theatres all summer besides Toy Story 3.
-
If this film is not a success, it will be the end of original cinema. At this point, I don't care if it's shitty. It's something new.
-
Will it be in 3D?
-
No, thank god. Nolan is staunchly against shooting in 3D until he feels the technology is readily available to not turn 3D movies into a dark suckfest.
Disclaimer: drunk
-
I am excited for this movie. One of my favorite directors, and also I completely cream myself when I see Cillian Murphy's name attached to anything. I would let a guy who's name sounded similar to Cillian Murphy rim me for hours.
-
Every time I see the trailer for this I think for a few seconds that I'm seeing a trailer for Shutter Island again. I see Leonardo DiCaprio and I hear BUUUUUUAARRRMMMMMMM and it's just like watching the beginning of that film all over again. I didn't realise this film was done by Christopher Nolan, though; I have trouble getting behind him ever since that massive cop-out ending to Memento where all of a sudden Guy Pearce's memory lasts about three times longer than we know it's supposed to, just because Nolan and his brother couldn't be bothered thinking of another way to finish the movie that was actually contiguous with the movie's already well-established internal logic.
I guess this film sounds interesting, though. I'll probably see it if they show it at my local cinema.
-
I was ok with the ending for Memento because it does have a bit where if he concentrates hard enough he can remember stuff for a bit longer. Granted that's probably me rationalising what was, really, a cop-out. That said, that's one of his earlier films and his efforts since then have been even better.
-
It just pisses me off because it's such lazy writing.
-
It's best not to think too hard about the plausability of Lenny's condition in Memento.
-
Some scenes were a lot shorter than others in that movie, the ending was hardly the worst offender.
That said, I didn't care, because that movie is fucking ace.
-
It's best not to think too hard about the plausability of Lenny's condition in Memento.
Dude you know that anterograde amnesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterograde_amnesia) is a real condition right?
-
Spoilers?
Wasn't it implied in the film that Lenny doesn't actually have amnesia but was subconsciously manufacturing his condition to escape from the fact he was responsible for his wife's death?
/Spoilers
-
Spoolers!
There is an implication that his condition might not be genuine as he is aware of another case of anterograde amnesia from his insurance agent days where the guy is deemed to be faking and there are huge similarities in the circumstances between the two men. However given that anterograde amnesia can be caused by severe emotional distress (like having your wife die) I never found any solid reason to view the film from the position that Lenny was faking it, even subconciously.
-
this will be the only movie I've seen in theatres all summer besides Toy Story 3.
-
It's best not to think too hard about the plausability of Lenny's condition in Memento.
Dude you know that anterograde amnesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterograde_amnesia) is a real condition right?
Memento's amnesia has been tailor fit for a film narrative. Back when it came out the consensus was that the way it's shown isn't the way it's actually experienced.
-
Really? I mean, it's not perfect but the impression I've got (in particular from a lecturer in psychology) is that they did a much better job than most films. Also, Wikipedia agrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_(film)#Scientific_response), citing a handful of pretty reputable sources. I'm sure there are other, equally reputable, dissenting voices, but it strikes me that Memento is far from the worst offender when it comes to the depiction of amnesia in movies.
-
More realistic than, say, A Beautiful Mind.
-
Random question jimbunny is your avatar Tim Roth, from the movie legend of 1900? if so takes on the movie? I know its older just wondering havn't seen it in a while but i remember liking it
-
Correct. Beautiful man, beautiful film.
FUN FACT
1990: In the film version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Tim Roth as Guildenstern has a monologue professing a desire to spend his whole life on a boat. 1998: In The Legend of 1900, Tim Roth plays the character 1900, who spends his whole life on a boat. This man is somehow special.
-
I practically peed my pants when I saw the trailer a few months ago, and now I'm actually somewhat worried my high expectations will spoil it for me. :o(
-
Yunior! Nice to see you again.
Looks like the backlash has already started. The 2 reviewers I initially turn to (AV Club and Ebert) are both highly positive (A- and 4 stars, respectively) but there have been a small-but-likely-to-grow number of prominent critics (not including Armond White) who have panned it. They're calling it the "anti-Avatar" (the big money one, not the shit one), which seems a bit premature.
-
What's a better compliment than 'anti-Avatar'? That suggests to me a well written story full of complete characters and actors how are competent at their job. A lot of the negative critiques remind me of when The Prestige, my favorite of Nolan's films, came out. Most, not necessarily all, of these critics seem upset that the film was even some what cryptic.
Though honestly this looks like a less imaginative, but better written Paprika.
-
Anti-Avatar? If that's the case this might be my favourite film of the year. Seriously though, I was expecting some bad reviews but some of these critics are calling the story boring and un-engaging which is a direct contradiction of everything I've heard about it.
I was totally sold on this film when it was just Nolan and DiCaprio. But then I heard that Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy were also in it and now this might be one of the first films I've seen on opening weekend. This movie is filled with ridiculously fantastic actors.
-
Wouldn't anti-avatar also mean terrible special effects? That doesn't seem to be the case from the previews I've seen.
-
I think he means that they serve a purpose instead of the audience saying, "Oh man, look at that flower, it's coming out at me"
How come I just found out Cillian Murphy is in this?
-
Hearing David Edelstein rip into this movie on Fresh Air today was a highly cathartic experience for me.
Siiiiiiiiiiigh.
-
http://www.observer.com/2010/culture/can-someone-please-explain-inception-me
Possibly one of the most venomous movie reviews I have ever read. Now I really have to see Inception when it releases in the UK.
-
That was one of the most horrifyingly idiotic reviews I've ever read.
I'm actually very very sad that that person is employed, and will probably reproduce.
-
i do believe that person was panning it just to pan it and be different. anyway, i saw it last night and i thought it was fantastic. and no, it's not nearly as confusing as the trailer would have you believe
-
also i am pretty sure he got the actual plot wrong, which is kind of funny to me
-
http://www.observer.com/2010/culture/can-someone-please-explain-inception-me
Possibly one of the most venomous movie reviews I have ever read. Now I really have to see Inception when it releases in the UK.
Rex Reed is old. Ronald Reagan old.
-
rex reed is fascinating to me
-
oh my god here's a real headline from that page
Why the Police Kept Pitchfork's Ryan Schreiber From DJing Last Night at the Wavves Party in Bushwick
-
Anyone who doesn't get 'it' by the end of the first hour is simply dense. The entire first part of the movie seems tailored to show how the film works and hint at the later character stuff.
Spoilers: The thing I'm most impressed with in this movie is how the exposition is handled. This part of things could really get bogged down, but Page's character acting like how a scientist/architect would mixed with most of the exposition being shown really helped to keep up the pace. The movie on the whole reminded me of eXistenZ, especially with the ending. A lot of the film seems to be commenting on itself as a film. Ellipses being an important story element is just sort of an example. I also liked how Nolan seems to be going back on himself with DiCaprio's predicament being very similar to Lenny's. The highlight for me was the second section though which really managed to show Nolan's psychological side as expertly as ever.
Also the hallway battle is just some pure awe, as fun as can be that one.
-
I thought this was great.
I also feel that if anyone came out of the movie confused, they were trying way too hard. The plot was extremely straight forward. It was very good, but it was no harder to understand than The Dark Knight or anything like it.
Also, that review above does get the plot incredibly wrong, which makes me feel that the reviewer either didn't watch the movie, or was far too dense to understand the relatively simple plot.
-
Saw it! It was really good, with a great cast. I had heard a lot of "James Bond meets the Matrix" but it was really more "The Italian Job meets Existenz". It's a surprisingly conventional heist movie with an unusual premise and a lot of metaphysical gobbledygook used to expand the conventions of the genre. I really, really enjoyed the nesting-doll approach at the end, that was very very clever. I don't think that's really a spoiler.
I actually thought the two leads are the weakest part of the film despite their having the most backstory, but the movie is so fast-paced you don't stop to think that we know next to nothing about Joseph Gordon Levitt's character. Strong work by the supporting cast. And it's nice to see Ken Watanabe getting a juicier role after being wasted as a bait-and-switch in Batman Begins. Also who would have thought we'd see Tom Beringer in a big-tent movie again? I guess he finally cut away (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stn8JKp5zAY).
-
I saw it again tonight with the lady, and actually enjoyed it more on a 2nd viewing. There are some nifty subtleties to it that I missed the first time while I was digging on the general plot.
-
The biggest flaw I saw in the movie was the abundance of on-the-nose dialogue between DiCaprio and Page. It just seemed like anytime they were talking to each other, their dialogue consisted only of plot exposition.
-
Despite me seeing the midnight showing high I was really satisfied with the movie and the plot in general. It didn't feel like a two and a half hour movie because you were consumed in the plot the entire time. I'm really looking forward to my second sober viewing.
-
seeing this in like 40 minutes, so stoked
-
OH MY FUCKING GOD
-
i've never been in a packed theater where everyone collectively gasped and said "AWWWWW" as the film cut to black before.
-
i think i heard a bigger "aww!" gasp when we went to the opening of no country for old men, but that one was way more fucking frustrating
-
There were gasps at the end.
Holy crap, that was an amazing movie.
-
The ending was kind of cheap. Come on.
-
Why? SPOIlER: Because everyone ended up ok? But the thing is, they left you not knowing if everyone was really ok or not, which is why I kind of liked it.
-
Yeah seriously what the fuck is wrong with you
-
That ending is really the only way it could have have gone. Nothing else would've been dramatically sufficient or cause the audience to audibly gasp. It definitely helps to drag up discussion, sort of like eXistenZ or Videodrome.
-
I just got back from seeing this. I liked it! In terms of narrative structure and filmmaking technique it was almost cheekily self-conscious, but the cheek was kind of charming. I dunno if the way it was self-conscious would be fully apparent to everyone who watched it either, so getting it (or at least feeling like I got most of it) was kind of rewarding, on top of the natural catharsis of the film's story.
-
Definitely not going to be a big budget flop (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=inception.htm)
It won't pull Dark Knight numbers, no, but it will be one of Nolan's most successful films.
-
Hey guys do you remember Insomnia? It was basically Nolan making a conventional thriller. It isn't as bad as a lot of people thought it was but it's not much of a hidden gem, either. Robin Williams does solid dramatic work.
-
I wanted to see this movie again right after seeing it.
-
I'll admit, I went in with low expectations. I'm not sure if it was because I've become pretty jaded with Hollywood productions or because the trailers really didn't provide me with a concrete reason to see this flick. My friends had to practically drag me out of the house to see it.
Maybe that's why I enjoyed it as much as I did. Not only was I pleasantly surprised by a piece of great story-telling that didn't need over-the-top CG to redeem a piss-poor plot, but it was a movie that required my conscious attention. I rarely go to see a movie a second time in theaters but I will definitely be back for this. What's more, Hans Zimmer did the score for Inception and I have to say that I'm a big fan of his.
-
One important thing about this movie, I feel, is how little CG it used. Sure, there was CG, but anytime they could, they used physical sets. Some of the things they built for this film were crazy.
-
That ending is really the only way it could have have gone. Nothing else would've been dramatically sufficient or cause the audience to audibly gasp. It definitely helps to drag up discussion, sort of like eXistenZ or Videodrome.
SPOILERS:
No, that's exactly it. Even if it is a dramatic and well done moment, it doesn't inspire discussion, precisely because it's the same knee-jerk, "OMG it's like not real!" play that you get in almost every movie of this sort. Elsewhere in the movie, it's clever because it works. (I loved most of the movie, by the way - just not this part.) However, there's absolutely no reason given the internal logic of the film (that I could tell, anyway) that the ending scene should not be in "real life." I don't think anything that happened up to that point left that possibility open. So it ends up feeling like a cheap parting shot from the director, who's saying something like "No, it doesn't actually have to be this way...because I'm the director and I say so. So, nyeh!" In fact, I think the uncertainty in the last scene undermines discussion, because it gives you a free, "well whatever, doesn't matter anyway, it's just his dream" pass from the moral reality of the film. And this is a film that relies on its moral cruxes.
-
i think you are discussing it right now actually
-
SPOILERS!
Considering the top was spinning, but it wasn't a smooth spin and it was jolting like it was going to fall over soon, I do not think it was a dream. However, giving a perfectly happy ending would not match up with the rest of the film and I like the slight unsettled feeling at the end that there is a slight possibility that it could not be real. Like they say in the movie, sometimes it becomes hard to tell what is actually real. If it's a dream, that dream has become his reality. I like open ended endings because it gives me the chance to imagine what happens after the story ends.
END SPOILER!
-
SPOILERS (not really)
Really? That doesn't seem to you to break into the reality of the film, just so the movie maker can have a nod at the audience? If there was a point to be made, it should have been made in the two and a half hours previous. Just saying.
-
SPOILER OILERS
They did though, sort of. In the "assemble the team" part of the movie Cobb uses his spinning top to try and discern whether he's dreaming, but he's interrupted by Saito before he completes the test. The question is raised then.
Also I'm not sure how much time has passed in "reality" since Cobb's wife punches her own ticket, but it certainly seems like their kids haven't aged at all since he went on the lam.
END SPOILERS.
-
Yeah, there's subtle hints throughout the film as to whether or not the whole thing may or may not be real, so I feel it was appropriate to end it that way. And filmmakers give nods to the audience at the ending of movies a lot. I don't see how this should be any different, considering it doesn't detract from the story at all.
-
EVERYTHING IN THIS THREAD FROM HERE ON IN IS SPOILER
ok anyway yeah that was one thing I did notice, his kids were the exact same age (and were wearing the exact same clothes) when he "got home" sooo hmm
-
It's obvious that it was reality, had they still been in a dream then his wife would've woken him up to say i told you so just after killing herself.
-
I kind of thought the point of the top spin at the end was that, really, the hypothetical result of the "test" was irrelevant. It was just a parting shot on how easy it is to suggest doubt. It wasn't even a fully formed idea, just the kernel of one, so to speak.
-
Whatever happened to the top is irrelevant, as the whole point of the object is being the only person who knows how it's weighted and moves, and as he mentioned in the movie, it belonged to his wife. So the results are moot.
-
I was of the understanding that he took it after she died and made it into his totem. So really, no one alive other than him knows how it feels.
-
The point of the idol is to make sure you're not in someone else's dream. So if the top continued spinning, of course it's a dream. But if the top doesn't stop spinning, it doesn't mean it's not a dream. Because the point is not the spinning of it, but just if it feels right to DiCaprio's character.
I was only mentioning the fact that his wife knew the weight and feel of it, because if we were to take the "It's all a dream" route, there's nothing to say that his wife was in fact dead, as we would have no idea where the dream began.
-
new theory: inception is the sequel to shutter island and really dicaprio's character just hallucinated all of this
-
Holy fucking shit, that was amazing. I can't describe how awesome that movie was, and how much my head hurts thinking through all the things.
-
Scarred, that's actually pretty close to my theory. The whole film is just the dream of some guy. The symbolism, rules, and other not reality qualities matter to him, but from our view it's just abstract. That makes the movie to a degree very reflexive and needs that final shot. The events are false to the characters as it is to us as an audience. It's almost like asking why should we care about a fiction. DiCaprio's answer by turning away from the totem suggests to just live with it as it will leave him happy and without regret and obsession. For us obviously those aspects don't go into play and that's just another level to the film, but still has some significance to what I'm talking about.
-
Nothing precludes Joseph Gordon Levitt's character from being a robot, either, but that doesn't mean there aren't subtle hints to that effect.
And I noticed the kids as well, but my objection isn't just to the spinning top, it's to the suggestion that everything might actually be a lie. And that, by the way, is how the rest of the movie frames it - as a distinction between truth and lies; the force of the movie is behind the idea of truth - reality, consequences - as the thing that must be returned to, no matter how enticing the lie. The movie's sudden "eh, maybe not" moment undercuts all that with an idea (reality is an illusion, it's all in your head, etc.) which is, pragmatically speaking, useless. If I can compare this movie to The Matrix, they're thematically very similar. It's just that the latter films (even after two disastrous sequels) still held on to the "real world" as its core value component. I feel like Inception sacrificed (or at least toyed with sacrificing) its quest for "what is important" for the sake of that gasp from the audience. That's why I thought it was cheap; it makes the rest of a good movie cheaper.
-
I saw it again last night.
As to the kids, they are definitely older. As they're played by different actors, which is backed up by the credits. With:
Phillipa (3 years)
James (20 months)
Phillipa (5 years)
James (3 years)
And I still think it's important to sit back and realize what the totems are meant for, as far as I understand it. They're purely to know that you're not in someone else's dream. It has nothing to do with the spinning of the top, but just if it feels right to Cobb. If he was in someone else's dream, which he would be if he never got out of the Inception, he would not be comfortable with the idol.
So this leaves three options:
He's not dreaming.
He's in his own dream.
He's in Mal's dream.
Even if the top does stop spinning, it doesn't preclude any of these possibilities, as there's nothing saying that the top has to keep spinning if it's a dream, Mal just had it do so when she was dreaming.
Though, another possibility is that limbo doesn't really work under the limits set by the movie. They kept mentioning that Cobb had been to limbo before, but they had never actually shown that in the film as far as I could see. The world Cobb and Mal created was just in a nested dream. So, if he did go to limbo, it would be when they killed themselves by train. In which case, I would say our best option is that the entire movie takes place in that limbo, since he doesn't ever mention actually going.
I am putting way too much thought into this.
-
Sorry, RM, didn't see your post.
If he's still in a dream, though, Cobb should still be in Limbo (we assume that Cobb and Saito shoot themselves in order to wake up, just as Cobb and Mal killed themselves on the tracks to wake up the first time). Cobb washes up onto the beach even though he was already in Limbo (after talking to/being knifed by Mal for the last time), which implies that you just keep going back each time you die, unless something happens to allow you to wake up. Therefore, showing up on the plane would be absolutely unlike previous experience. To me, if the movie is held to be consistent, this suggests that either: a) Cobb and Saito succeed at waking up (possibly as a result of the 10-hour dream ending), or b) dreaming operates differently than how we've been told, and the whole movie has taken place in someone's (probably Cobb's) subconscious where there are actually no rules as such. I won't lie: I think, at least for how this film was made, Movie A is great and Movie B sucks.
-
I took the totem at the end to be representing everything being back in balance in Cobb's life after being reunited with his children. The totem isn't spinning perfectly like in an earlier dream and, looking at it, it seems possible for it to spin evenly on its axis in the real world (sort of like in the film Truth And Consequences: New Mexico).
-
SPOILERS
I don't think the ambiguous ending cheapens the film. Nolan isn't going for an 'twist" ending; he's just toying with the themes of reality and perception that have been in play for the whle movie. One of the many different readings you can take away from the film (in my opinion) is that the whole movie is a reflection on movies in general. Movie and dream logic often behave the same way. The team Cobb assembles and the preperation they go throgh is not unlike a film crew. What Nolan's ultimately saying is that the catharsis found in a dream is as real as the catharsis found in a movie is as real as the catharsis found in life. The revelation Fischer has with his father in the fortress is real for him, even in the journey and circumstances aren't. Same with the denouncement; Cobb may not be in reality anymore, but he is finally able to let Mal go and return home to his kids again. Like the old man says in the dream dungeon earlier in the film; "The dream has become their reality. Who are you to say otherwise?" People may say it cheapens the film because everything is "fake," but that's exactly what Nolan is arguing against. Dreams are like a movie; both are fictional and "don't matter" but the catharsis we feel at the end is the same.
-
For what ever reason I half expected the kids to turn to him all those times, but not have faces.
Also the two women in front of my cousin and I said this at the end, "The top looked like it was about to fall"
-
Had a conversation about Inception with a friend of mine recently via facebook and I think some good points were made on both sides. In case you care to read a fair bit:
Me: Either of you guys see Inception? Got around to it earlier today and I gotta say I loved it. I don't remember being wowed by a movie in the same way since I saw The Matrix when I was a wee lad. It's rare that I see a movie and immediately want to watch it again when it cuts to black but I could have definitely sat through this again. There's so much cool stuff going on visually and while the whole premise runs the risk of being ridiculous and gimicky I think it's too much fun and too much of a joy visually that it manages to avoid getting bogged down by some of its more obvious potential flaws. It's a darn cool interpretation of a heist film and a pretty sublime action flick. Plus it's a huge relief to see DiCaprio in a role similar to his from 'Shutter Island' but in a film far less overwrought and yawn-inducing than that clunker. Thank god this summer has produced one good movie. Thoughts?
friend: I saw Inception last sunday, and feel mixed. I had a great time actually watching it, but it began to sour on me as soon as I left the theater. It inspired a lot of thoughts, both positive and negative about the movie and about Nolan's career in general, that I hadn't been able to consider until I saw Inception.
I think part of the problem was that, following all that endless exposition regarding what can and can't happen in dreams, Nolan was ultimately just writing the rules to install regular action movie standards, so that our heroes face real death, must adventure to various striking locales, and face anonymous henchmen at every turn. It's interesting that you mention the Matrix, which also used the alternate reality device to permit otherwise implausible action sequences and special effects in our own recognizable world. But the Matrix, to me, felt so connected to the concerns of its time and also mixed a really smart cocktail of its influences that ultimately made the film's rules feel like more than just excuses for cool fight scenes. Inception is way more insular, and its expository rule-book feels precisely like that set of excuses that the Matrix avoided but that Nolan makes to allow for silly scenes of extreme-sport shoot-outs, death within dreams, and the like.
I've noticed that every Nolan film, sans the Batman series, ends on a moment of self-awareness. In Memento, it's Leonard Shelby's final line, "Now, where were we?", a question that seems rhetorical but actually signals the audience's long-awaited inclusion into the truth of Shelby's condition, and thus the narrative as a whole, following a fragmented sequences of intentional confusion. In The Prestige, Michael Caine's mentor character (essentially reprised in Inception) reiterates the structure behind a professional magic trick to remind viewers that, if they had been attentive enough, they could have spotted the twist ending well before it its ultimate revelation by the magician/director. Inception follows suit, further revealing Nolan's take on the film director as a con-man, a liar, who withholds and discloses information until his manipulation of the audience is complete. This is incredibly, bewilderingly cynical to me, and so it is no wonder that Nolan's protagonists (Shelby, Cobb, Alfred Borden of the Prestige) are all self-deceiving obsessives who will gladly forgo their deepest convictions to maintain a gratifying charade. Which I think ultimately means that Nolan is pretty out of touch with our own real emotional nature even as his screenplays make their claims over the human condition.
That said, I still had a great time watching it, and I loved the whole cast. I think they did an excellent job bringing weight to all the tension. The movie sucked me in, which is exactly what, to me, Nolan is good at. Being the con-man, the dreamer, getting me absorbed into something so that only after its over (and I've "woken up", so to speak) do I feel my doubts. The ending scene, right before the cut to black, is proof of that. Dimwitted viewers will scour this scene for meaning and turn it into message-board fodder in the hopes of increasing their understanding of Nolan's convoluted world. But that's missing the point. It's simply one of the film's exciting moments, when we of the audience get to acknowledge the instinctual thrills of Nolan's deception, even if we disapprove. I think it's also a self-aware moment, saying very blatantly, This film was a dream, get up and go back to reality.
And I agree that the visuals were just absolutely striking. Old Ken Watanabe was pretty haunting ("Come back and let's be young men together") and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's whole zero-gravity fight was just so much fun to watch. On a level of tried-and-true craftsmanship in an era of clunky CGI, it begs a question that I haven't had the pleasure of asking since possibly Terminator 2 made the action genre look real: "How did they do that?!", which is a thrill that I doubt I'll ever consider myself above. As far as summer moviegoing goes, it was definitely worth my money.
me:
A lot of valid points there. My reaction too was a gut one, a visceral response based upon that awe that both you and I already mentioned. That "how'd they do that?!" wonder is something I'm finding increasingly rare these days. Rarer still is the implementation of those moments in such a way that I only asked myself that question once the film ended - before that it had absorbed me too much to take the time to speculate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling this some triumphant masterpiece. It's an action movie, a heist flick, a somnambulant Italian Job. And while I think there may be a bit more to the film's world than an series of excuses for cool action sequences, I would probably still have really like this movie even if things were that simple: The shootouts and fight scenes were just that mesmerizing and fun to watch. Good action sequences are so hard to pull off, especially in today's cinematic climate where over the top CGI has come to be confused with well done and interesting combat. I think it's safe to say these were by far the best since Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon's lush, near balletic bamboo forest sword duel.
Maybe praising this movie so much for that alone is being narrow minded but I do think there was more to it. The acting was all spot on for the most part. I was surprised that Ellen Paige was pretty good, Leo redeemed himself from that aforementioned travesty that was Shutter Island, and Michael Cain, even when his inclusion is token and largely pointless like it was here, is always fun to watch. That's to say nothing of Marion Cotillard, whose menacing, almost operatic femme fatale performance was the film's best.
I have to wonder if Nolan see's the director either as a con man or as a magician. I think there's a difference. Inception, and Momento as well, have this surface level trick that sounds like it would make for an endlessly confusing movie but neither are. They both make complete sense. I found Inception pretty effortless to follow. I think Nolan acknowledges that the potential for confusion is there - "Wait, so whose subconscious are we going into?" asks Ellen Page at one point - but he somehow seems to make it make sense in the world of his films (speaking of which, I really appreciated that this movie was a piece of speculative fiction, not sci-fi. Just because we have the technology to enter dreams doesn't mean we need flying cars and laser guns and I'm so pleased that Nolan realized that). To me, that line and several other moments indicates that he isn't pretending that he's not playing a game, fabricating things, playing with the audience in a way that builds expectations, breaks them, surprises them with bells, whistles, finales that leave you wondering. Like any good magician, that is. I don't see in Nolan's film some cynical attempt to baffle the viewer until a final "gotchya!" moment. I think his motives are more pure. Like I said above, I'm not much of a Nolan fan but I think I see his sleight of hand tricks, his manipulations, as more of a magic trick that is Nolan's way of reveling in what he thinks cinema can do. To me, accusing Nolan of cynical manipulation would be like accusing the guy who pulls the rabbit out of a hat and cuts his assistant in half with a saw of the same: sure, both are out to "get" the audience, to elicit that big gasp, but they're also out there to make you feel awestruck, to give you a sense of wonder in the same way movies did when you were a kid. Like I said, Inception struck me in a way that I haven't felt since I saw The Matrix opening night on the big screen. To me, that's a hugely redeeming quality. It's gotta be worth something, in any case.
me, again:
Speaking of the Matrix though, I will grant that Inception did feel more insular, less connected in any real way to our world, less a product of our zeitgeist. There was an whisper of something - Wattanabe insists that the inception must be a success to prevent Fischer's firm from gaining "total energy dominance" - that seems like the potential for a more clear cut eco-friendly, anti-corporatist, "look at the dangers and depredations of big energy" kinda message was there. Or it coulda just been corporate intrigue, one big energy mogul trying to stop another from becoming even bigger in the same of self preservation. There wasn't much more than a whiff of either. Maybe Nolan had no interest in being political which shouldn't necessarily be a criticism but yeah, in this case, the stakes maybe could have been higher. Why, for example, am I really rooting for these guys? I don't know much about them, their motives (for the most part), or the stakes of failure other than no pay day for most of the team, no reunion for Leo - and that's a lot of weight on DiCaprio's shoulders since the only reason we therefore truly want the mission to succeed is for Cobb to get his life back. A dangerous move on Nolan's part, that, and since you mentioned it I do wish there had been a bit more there, some kind of genuine relevance to our current situation.
-
it is no wonder that Nolan's protagonists (Shelby, Cobb, Alfred Borden of the Prestige) are all self-deceiving obsessives who will gladly forgo their deepest convictions to maintain a gratifying charade. Which I think ultimately means that Nolan is pretty out of touch with our own real emotional nature even as his screenplays make their claims over the human condition.
Ha! Ha. As if living in the social and political realities of the Western world did not involve countless self-deceptions for the purposes of gratification. I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Tell your friend to take a trip to Nicaragua for a few weeks. His "emotional nature" will disintegrate.
-
i've never been in a packed theater where everyone collectively gasped and said "AWWWWW" as the film cut to black before.
I'm glad I walked into Inception without knowing anything about it.
These two quotes sum up my experience of this film. I absolutely loved it, even though I can't stomach violence in films - it was good enough to offset that. There were no plot holes papered over, no stupid explanations that didn't fit the film's reality, and the ending was perfect.
Also, it was the first time in my entire life that I've ever seen a cinema full. We had to sit on the absolute front row because we arrived a little after the ads started and it was totally packed. Some friends tried to get in and had to pre-book tickets for the later showing instead because they were full.
-
It wasn't even that violent! It was basically Ocean's Eleven in metaphysical space.
-
You misunderstand me: I felt ill watching the bird explode in Shrek. I cannot stomach ANY violence in films.
-
I saw this again tonight and I have to admit enjoying it so much more than I originally did (my first take on the film was something along the lines of, "It looked really good! I barely noticed it was sort of a dumb movie.") It absolutely has its flaws (should I expound on this or is this thread retired already?), and I am basically always bothered by the overly self-serious tone Nolan takes in all his work, but I don't think I gave it enough credit for being a 'smart' movie on the nature of filmmaking and reality. I went with a friend who thought the ending was a total gimmick and I wanted to smack him the face because it is totally thematically in sync with the rest of the movie. All the stuff about "telling yourself what you know, but what do you believe", that is totally the ending! Cobb's not a slave to reason anymore, he's taken a leap of faith and chosen a reality etc. etc.
Also, I think it's pretty easy to take a lot of these performances for granted, especially because of some of the astoundingly stupid dialogue, but I'm really impressed with how Marion Cotillard makes her pretty pretty face so hostile and threatening. Considering the handicaps of the role (a lot of her lines don't register in the first viewing, and she's less a character and more a construction of Cobb's memory), I think she was really quite terrific in this.
-
I loved this moment, in Fischer's second dream:
Ariadne: Everyone suddenly started staring at us.
Arthur: I see. Quick, give me a kiss.
- They kiss -
Ariadne: They're still staring.
Arthur: Well, it was worth a try.
- Arthur walks away -
I almost missed it, if it weren't for the rest of the audience laughing. Anyway, what I thought was exceptionally well executed was the handwaving, in the sense that there was barely anything that needed to be handwaved. What completely made the suspension of disbelief in this one is all the assumptions that went in the basic premise. Think about it: They never mention how it is possible to enter someone else's dream. They never say what the buzzing machine in the metallic case does. Everything they explain about how the dream world works overshadows how they get into the dream world in the first place. The whole concept is so engraved in the film that there appears to be an entire college education dedicated to the science of dreams, which Ariadne came from.
As a whole I really enjoyed the movie, especially its theme of "You don't control your mind, your mind controls you", but in some places it was indeed a bit obvious how the dream-world rules existed to give you a pretty show. Needing a 'kick' to awake from the dream, what better excuse to make everything end with a big bang?
-
I don't think the implication was that there is a "science of dreams" that people are trained for. The impression that I seem to get was that dream manipulation is taboo and/or illegal, certainly in terms of extraction and inception, but there's also the telling scene in the chemist's basement that is essentially an opium den for dreamers. Dream manipulation is insinuated to have long-term effects on faculties ala psychedelic drug use. Also there's the fact that Ariadne is apparently unaware of the technology prior to her integration into the group. I think it's more the case that the architect controlling the dream on the macro scale is just that, an architect, someone with a very high spatial intelligence who can make sense of complex structures and designs.
Even though the answer to the question is probably beside the point of the film, I keep going back to the beginning of the film and weighing how what we see impacts the "reality" of the film. I think there are definitely a lot of elements that keep the question open - knowing that on some level the film would toy with the perceptions of the characters and the viewer (as all Nolan non-Batman films have) I watched the film like a hawk for things that seemed off, and there was quite a bit. Perhaps it's just an unintentional byproduct of how break-neck the pace of the movie is and how little is explained prior to the beginning of Cillian Murphy's dream, but I did notice the faceless and ruthless nature of Cobalt Engineering, and how they seemed to come out of nowhere, not unlike the antibody-like entities of the subconscious. As noted in this spoilerific discussion (http://www.avclub.com/articles/salt-inception-indepth,43413/), there is a certain weird quality to the entire excursion that Cobb takes to acquire the aid of Ames and the chemist, beyond the sudden appearance of Cobalt / Saito. The aerial shots of the city are especially labyrinthine (which, granted, could be a simple visual motif throughout the film in and out of dreamspace, but there might also be a greater significance).
But more than that, the first point at which I figured something was off was when Cobb was speaking to his children over the phone. I suspected that it was over the phone was important - at that point I began to question whether there was something going on with Cobb, whether he was conjuring up the voices of his children (my first guess was that his children died in whatever calamity befell his wife). I remember him using his spinning top but I also seem to remember him handling his gun with some uncertainty - I'll have to look again on second viewing but in retrospect I think it's certainly a moment of doubt, with Cobb wondering if he might wake up if he shot himself.
-
Of course he wonders. He's coming unglued from the unresolved trauma of Mal's psychosis/suicide and his own frequent contact with the idea of unreality. But his victory at the end isn't that he overcomes an obsession with reality and is content to live in a dreamworld; it's that he has persevered and attained that reality. If, after the end of the movie, Cobb comes back and sees the top spinning, or is somehow unable (as he might already be) to fully convince himself of reality, I think it crushes him. The movie becomes a tragedy.
Here's a theory: Nolan wanted to make (or should have made) this movie more of a tragedy (more along the lines of Memento) but for some reason (studio pressure, for example) didn't. Thus, being neither one thing nor the other, it's a bit of a mess, but unique and intriguing all the same. This is actually why I hated The Prestige the first time I saw it - it's such a genre free-for-all. But that improved after a few viewings, so maybe I should give this one the same chance.
-
I don't think it was supposed to be a tragedy. The rules of inception are important thematically - as the team has to bring Cillian Murphy to a place of resolution and catharsis in order for it to work, so does Cobb come to a place of resolution and catharsis with his past.
That's not even getting to the fact that the move was essentially Ocean's Eleven, complete with elaborate, high-stakes heist and an escape that has to be pulled off with extreme precision in order for everyone to make it out.
-
I loved this moment, in Fischer's second dream:
Ariadne: Everyone suddenly started staring at us.
Arthur: I see. Quick, give me a kiss.
- They kiss -
Ariadne: They're still staring.
Arthur: Well, it was worth a try.
- Arthur walks away -
I almost missed it, if it weren't for the rest of the audience laughing. Anyway, what I thought was exceptionally well executed was the handwaving, in the sense that there was barely anything that needed to be handwaved. What completely made the suspension of disbelief in this one is all the assumptions that went in the basic premise. Think about it: They never mention how it is possible to enter someone else's dream. They never say what the buzzing machine in the metallic case does. Everything they explain about how the dream world works overshadows how they get into the dream world in the first place. The whole concept is so engraved in the film that there appears to be an entire college education dedicated to the science of dreams, which Ariadne came from.
As a whole I really enjoyed the movie, especially its theme of "You don't control your mind, your mind controls you", but in some places it was indeed a bit obvious how the dream-world rules existed to give you a pretty show. Needing a 'kick' to awake from the dream, what better excuse to make everything end with a big bang?
that part was great.
i believe the purpose of the case was two-fold. firstly, it supplied and regulated the drugs for inducing sleep. secondly, it connected everyone so they'd be in the right dream. i don't think there was any implication that you could just fall asleep without any sort of gear and wander into someone's dream.
-
I don't think it's been posted yet, but here's an Inception comic (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/inception-comic.html) leading up to the movie.
-
i saw this on saturday OH MY GOD it was awesome :D
-
It was really, really good. My only complaint was that the characters were a little bland; not in that they were poorly written, just unexplored.
-
spoilers ahead, yo
It was really, really good. My only complaint was that the characters were a little bland; not in that they were poorly written, just unexplored.
but that's because every single one of them was just a projection of what's-his-face's subconsious! depending on which version of the ending you prefer, I guess. I think either ending works so in the context of this discussion, it was all a dream and, as such, the characters weren't really real people. Then again, I didn't think the characters weren't explored enough. Most of them didn't really matter anyway, and the ones that did were explored plenty.
I would have liked to know more about the young guy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt (or whatever his name is), he was awesome but you never really learn anything about him.
-
Fucking hell. It might be even worse than I thought.
http://dijinn.deviantart.com/art/Inception-Dream-Layer-Map-172001314
-
I loved this movie, but you guys have seen this right? http://boingboing.net/2010/08/03/inception-ripped-off.html
-
I finally saw this. Aside from all the discussion about the ending, I came away feeling like this movie was the fulfillment of a promise made 11 years ago by The Matrix: that you can have a fun, reality-bending action movie without sacrificing plot or characters. The Wachowskis raised the possibility really well but, until now, no one could truly make it real- especially not them.
-
The more I thought about the movie, though, the more I did feel like it sacrificed a lot of its characters. Aside from Cobb and to a lesser extent Ariadne the bulk of the lifting for the characters is the acting, not the writing. The tricky thing is that you can make an argument that it's more intentional dream logic than weak writing. And like a dream the film really moves too fast for you to really notice how little you know about Joseph Gordon-Levitt or the Chemist or whoever.
-
It was hard to notice at first, because they all seem so realized as characters (both in the acting and in the dialogue) that backstory would seem weighty and unnecessary.
-
Also you can make the parallel with that line about how in a dream you start in the middle of the action, already right in the thick of it and you don't really know how you got there.
-
So Nolan also wrote a story that uses its own logic to justify any flaws in the story.
Which is also pretty impressive.
Suck it, haters.
-
So Nolan also wrote a story that uses its own logic to justify any flaws in the story.
It's not good logic. It's affirming the consequent, which is a common formal fallacy. It goes
If X then Y.
Y,
therefore X.
If a story uses dream logic it is inconsistent. The movie is inconsistent, therefore it uses dream logic. Inconsistency is a plot weakness whereas dream logic (presumably) is not, so "dream logic" within a film can be used to insulate inconsistency from examination. The problem is that it's (arguably) unresolved whether or not the "reality layer" of the film is a dream or not. If it is a dream, then the vagueness of character details and the like is actually consistent, since there can't be a lack of something if it doesn't exist. The "dropping in the middle of the action" explanation is an ostensibly clever thematic trick but it's not very good insulation. Think of it this way: If I'm making a film that's really a broad political allegory and all of my characters are really just simple mouthpieces for political ideas, then I've executed my goals as a polemicist but my movie is still likely to be a slog even if all my decisions are consistent with the framework I've made for my movie.
-
I don't know what you just said.
Shut up and suck a horse dick.
-
I think it's pretty obvious what he said but the implication that I'm getting from it (i.e. that Inception is poorly made and hides behind some gimmicky shield to protect itself from being criticized as such) isn't one that I agree with. It certainly isn't a "slog" in any case and, at its very worst, it's still a hell of a fun movie if you ask me.
-
I liked Inception a lot, it was probably the best film of the Summer. Using the word "slog" was a poor choice on my part (the film I described, which is pretty much an adaptation of Atlas Shrugged, would most definitely be a slog. As I wrote earlier, Inception is very fast paced), but the point was that if somebody were to criticize the film for poor characterization, "It's a movie about dreams" wouldn't be a counterpoint to that gripe. And I think there could be some pretty valid criticisms in that vein. A good (but rough) measure for how well a show or film presents its characters is the ease with which you can remember their names after you see it (moreso for shows than films, obviously). I could remember all of the names of The Big Lebowski's main characters after I saw it for the first time, and after the first three episodes of The Wire I had down everyone who had been introduced up to that point. By contrast, outside of Cobb and Saito I couldn't remember any of the main characters' names from Inception. Ariadne was pointed out to me afterward and it's a fairly unique one. I can't remember the names of Tom Hardy or Joseph Gordon-Levitt's characters. Likewise I'm three episodes into Rubicon and I only know the central character's name, which is worrying.
-
I don't know what you just said.
Shut up and suck a horse dick.
-
Y'all need to read some fuckin' books.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
When it comes to characterization, I think it's really a matter of length. Christopher Nolan is able to write great characters. All of the actors are able to portray a good amount of depth in their characterization. But the movie already runs near the three hour mark. I can't think of a single scene that I would want to be taken out of the film, so to really add any deeper characterization, you'd have to make a long movie much longer. When it's a choice between an excellent movie with some shallow characters that can also make a lot of bucks at the box office and give studios incentive to start making large budget original films again, or have an excellent movie with deep characters that runs so long you'd only be able to show it three times a day and have it bomb at the box office, I'd take the shallow characters.
-
I lol'd hearing some guy talk about how complicated it was in the movie theatre lobby.
"and like, you get it for a second, then it starts to not make sense, then you kinda get it again"
How is this movie "complicated" at all? I've been hearing the same thing from other people.
One thing that was a plot hole: If "real life" events such as movement and noise affect your dream, why do they only affect one *level* of the dream? That just makes no sense whatsoever. The entire thing is a fucking dream, so you hearing music or whatever in real life should affect the whole dream!
-
It does affect all levels, but with each subsequent level it becomes less pronounced. So as the van falls from the bridge, in Arthur's dream there is zero-gravity, whereas in Eames' snow fortress dream within that, there are avalanches. Similarly, when the chemist starts playing music to Authur, everyone in Eames' dream can vaguely hear some music in the "distance".
-
Fair enough, I didn't notice that.
-
The ending really reminded me of Stalker's ending. You know, the somewhat-ambiguous, but when you think about it, one of them makes a lot more sense than the other type of ending? For comparison (Stalker spoilers here), in Stalker, the stalker's daughter possibly telekinetically pushes glasses off of the table, or it is possibly a train that runs right by their house causing them to fall off. Except that a train wouldn't move one glass at a time, and they start moving before the train comes close enough to shake the house (as I recall, I can't find a clip of that part right now). In Inception, the top spins for quite a while without tipping, but near the end the base starts to wobble like before it falls over (we haven't seen that particular one fall over, but we all have spun tops as a kid, right? They do the same thing). On top of that, the kids are older and their clothes are slightly different.
-
I definitely made the same comparison the first time I saw it.
-
The first thing I thought when there was the flashback scene of them waking up from the limbo world where they got old together was "ok so that's one level, what about the next one/others?"
-
(Sorry for the necro btw, Han & I only just got to see this last night)
But yeah, my prev post plus a few of the things that you guys have already said, like the strange clunkiness of the phonecall with his kids (like it was a facsimile of a phonecall) his unrealistic job/the shadowy corporation chasing after him, that the guys coming after him in India (?) were the same guys as in the first layer of the inception job, that his father in law was there waiting for him at the airport without knowing anything about him travelling on such short notice, all point toward "reality" being another layer of Cobb's dream. Also, the little spinner thing was Molly's, not his, so I'm not even sure if it'll work properly for him. Either way, I believe that he is stuck in his own dream, so it would work exactly the way he'd expect it to anyway.