Inception

[levenshulme31]

^ Come on, its a film about dreams within dreams and the end was a surprise?

I thought the film was tedious (I nodded off for about 10 mins at one point).

Yes the action sequences are pretty impressive as spectacle but it was far too long and too far up its own arse.

 

[Spiff]

After reflecting back for over a week after I have seen it, I don't think it was a super great movie like most reviews have implied. It was very good, but that's about it. The story, while convoluted, was actually very straightforward which lead to an ending which was good but not all that surprising. And the dream set pieces were not all that interesting, aside from a couple key special effect scenes which everyone already seen in the trailers. For a movie focusing so much on dreaming, I expected the dreams to be a bit more interesting rather than ordinary action sequences. Still, good movie which I recommend, just not at the orgasmic level.

 

[hotb0d]

^ Come on, its a film about dreams within dreams and the end was a surprise?

I thought the film was tedious (I nodded off for about 10 mins at one point).

Yes the action sequences are pretty impressive as spectacle but it was far too long and too far up its own arse.

actually it was a dream within a dream within a dream. And at the end.....was everything that happened a dream? Maybe everything was in limbo?

 

[MercuryJones]

I don't understand why you'd have to do this because they pretty much explained everything in the movie. I was never confused or felt like I missed out on what was going on, the movie was pretty clear on explaining things. Especially since Ellen Page's character was the sole character that was there so that they could explain everything to the audience.

Exactly. Idont know what wasn't explained.

 

[Spiffy]

Alot of people didn't like it because it was too long or tedious and they didn't like the fact that they had to keep up with the movie. [not everyone but a good amount] I saw it a second time just because i thought it was an enjoyable movie. [I will admit during my second viewing it seemed more tedious than I remembered] lol
I think the ending was pretty good and not cheap. Especially when you think about what the movie was about and how the ending immersed you even more by messing with your head. Heres the "End theory" i agree with [found it online]


"Personally I feel the whole film should be taken literally, for the following reasons: 1. The spinning top visibly and audibly wobbled in the last scene and as seen earlier in the dream world the top has a perfect spinning motion once it is up to full momentum. 2. The kids in the last scene are visibly older than in his memory (not to mention played by different actors). If they were projections they would not age. 3. Cobb's wedding ring. Always present in the dream world, never in the real world. He is clearly not wearing his ring in the final scenes after waking on the plane. Anyone up for the idea that the ending is Nolan's inception on the audience? With the spinning top he planted the smallest seed of doubt in peoples minds; an idea that the ending is not real. That idea has now blossomed into all the fanciful theories we are hearing...."

 

[J-23]

I was pretty meh on Inception. To me, it came off as little more than a run-of-the-mill action flick dipped in a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual coating.

The entire subplot with Dom's wife was unnecessary and overcomplicated. The film would have functioned perfectly well -- and much less tediously -- without it. Also, besides Dom, none of the characters had any depth whatsoever. Is that supposed to be ascribed to the possibility that they're all figments of his dreams? If so, what a truly brilliant excuse for poor scriptwriting.

(No, seriously. It was an incredibly intelligent move on Christopher Nolan's part to create a movie where any criticism can be deflected with "You just didn't GET IT.")

Marion Cotillard was heinous. I cheered everytime her character lept from that building.

Additionally, there was absolutely nothing "dreamy" about Nolan's depiction of the dreamscape -- everything was far too even and logical. Sure, folding skylines and collapsing buildings might make for cute CGI effects, but they don't signify "dream-like" to me. And for that matter, it was never explicitly detailed how exactly all of the characters enter one single dream. Is it like Nightmare on Elm Street 3 where they're psychically pulled in, or are there other forces at work?

I just have a ton of issues with this film. I can see how this messiness might fool some into thinking it's complex and sophisticated, but not me.

 

[MercuryJones]

The entire subplot with Dom...

I assume you mean "Cobb".

 

[CudDULL]

I really liked the movie, I don't think it takes too much to get the point once you realize what is happening in the opening scenes. After that everything should be easy to tag along. The ending was very open ending which I liked. The movie reminded me a lot of the matrix combined with some shutter island.

 

[metta]

Inception star reveals he's had sexual relations with men

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory...eveals-hes-had-sexual-relations-with-men.aspx

 

[pixie77]

nothing stayed in my mind from that film...waste of my time and money

 

[infectedkisses]

hoping to see this next week as im watching toy story 3 tomorrow

 

[Spiffy]

I'm confused... isn't the reason you go to a movie is to keep up with it...?

Exactly, or have it stimulate your mind. I was saying thats why some people didn't enjoy it. Weird I know....

Did some of you guys watch the same movie or pay attention at all?

I don't want to sound like I'm ragging on anyones opinion for not liking the movie. Clearly that's fine, but when you're complaining about a movie because you either weren't watching it or not understanding it, that's a whole different story.

Same way I feel. Most people like to point out that they didn't like it because of the supposed flaws, yet they weren't really flaws and were they're for a reasons that they couldn't comprehend or grasp. People aren't used to watching movies with that much processing needed to actually follow it.

 

[J-23]

It wasn't a 'sub plot', it was a pretty important character that played a huge role in the movie and was a key to Cobbs character. So it was actually a pretty necessary character and it would have been a different movie without her.

Yes, it would have been a better movie without her. Not only was the actress atrocious, but the storyline was uninteresting. And, if you were at all familiar with screenwriting terminology, you'd know that it WAS a subplot ("a secondary plot strand that is a supporting side story for any story or the main plot"). Perhaps it was YOU who wasn't watching the same movie.

Did some of you guys watch the same movie or pay attention at all? The whole point is that it wasn't supposed to appear as a real dream so they can steal/plant the idea of the person they wanted to do it to. If they didn't, the individual would know what was going on.... like the whole beginning.

How does that excuse the expository sequences (that didn't involve Fischer) where the dreamscape is explored? It doesn't. "Ooh, the skyline is oddly symmetrical... How surreal." Lol. Nolan's vision was insipid and uninspired.

Also with how they were getting into dreams, you're supposed to spend a little bit of belief because it's a movie.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. The script goes into great detail analyzing the science within the dreams, yet it can't give any insight into how the "dream sharing" functions? That's simply lazy/messy writing.

I don't want to sound like I'm ragging on anyones opinion for not liking the movie. Clearly that's fine, but when you're complaining about a movie because you either weren't watching it or not understanding it, that's a whole different story.

As I said in my original post, this movie is perfect for people whose only defense is "You just didn't like it because you didn't get it."

 

[J-23]

Let's recap.

I responded to these complaints:
-People who complained that the dreams in the movie weren't perceived as actual dreams when they weren't meant to be.
-Someone who said that the movie had 'unrealistic' action sequences when the movie takes place in a dream world the whole time.

There is a reason I'm responding to these specifically, because the complaints don't make sense in what the movie was trying to convey.

Interesting that you can't seem to formulate a rebuttal for a single one of my correct and valid points in my last post. Obviously, you can no longer defend the "greatness" of the film.

 

[Spiffy]

Yes, it would have been a better movie without her. Not only was the actress atrocious, but the storyline was uninteresting...

Perhaps it was YOU who wasn't watching the same movie.

You didn't even remember the main characters name?... you had the movie confused with The Fast and The Furious lol. While I don't agree with your dislike of Marions acting, I can't really say much since I am biased on that one LoL. So if their were times when she was "atrocious" I didn't really notice at all.

How does that excuse the expository sequences (that didn't involve Fischer) where the dreamscape is explored? It doesn't. "Ooh, the skyline is oddly symmetrical... How surreal." Lol. Nolan's vision was insipid and uninspired.

Cobbs trying to convince Ariadine that she isn't in a dream in the initial scenes with her. Besides if she started dreaming something surreal, then the dreamer would have noticed even sooner that they weren't in reality. [Making the whole point of the architect obsolete] Even when Cobb is dreaming and Ariadine jumps in without notice, He isn't exactly dreaming a fantasy world because he built said dreamscape after his memories to keep his wife alive. So he basically kept everything as close to reality to get the most accurate semblance palpably with his mind. [Yes I do believe thats pretty good writing, to keep people who nit pick at bay ^]

Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me. The script goes into great detail analyzing the science within the dreams, yet it can't give any insight into how the "dream sharing" functions? That's simply lazy/messy writing.

Wow, you really wanted the manual didn't you. Its a movie, not an encyclopedia . They didn't go into excruciating details in the movie Ghost-busters about their "electronics" either yet I still enjoyed it because I didn't try to find flaws in it just because others enjoyed it and I didn't.

As I said in my original post, this movie is perfect for people whose only defense is "You just didn't like it because you didn't get it."

I don't mind you not liking the movie or even saying it was bad.

Though, when you try to pass yourself off as too intelligent to enjoy it and you don't even comprehend the simplest aspects of it.... it comes off kind of pompous and obnoxious.

 

[J-23]

Though, when you try to pass yourself off as too intelligent to enjoy it and you don't even comprehend the simplest aspects of it.... it comes off kind of pompous and obnoxious.

And I find it equally as pompous and obnoxious when people choose to enjoy it simply because it's a faux-elitist, pseudo-intellectual piece of fluff. I'm a writer, and the only people I know who've enjoyed the film are people who get giddy at the thought of any generic, special effects-laden blockbuster. Every other writer I know has responded to it with a resounding "meh." The characters are underdeveloped, the storyline meanders, and the acting is unsatisfying.

Like I said, it's a very cute film. Just nowhere near as brilliant as the average smalltown moviegoer who values style over substance might believe it to be.

 

[Willie Boy]

And I find it equally as pompous and obnoxious when people choose to enjoy it simply because it's a faux-elitist, pseudo-intellectual piece of fluff. I'm a writer, and the only people I know who've enjoyed the film are people who get giddy at the thought of any generic, special effects-laden blockbuster. Every other writer I know has responded to it with a resounding "meh." The characters are underdeveloped, the storyline meanders, and the acting is unsatisfying.

Like I said, it's a very cute film. Just nowhere near as brilliant as the average smalltown moviegoer who values style over substance might believe it to be.

Good thing we didn't have writers like you around in Tolkien's time, what with all the meandering in his storyline.. Granted, 95% of that was cut out in the film, and the story suffered for it.

 

[Spiffy]

And I find it equally as pompous and obnoxious when people choose to enjoy it simply because it's a faux-elitist, pseudo-intellectual piece of fluff. I'm a writer, and the only people I know who've enjoyed the film are people who get giddy at the thought of any generic, special effects-laden blockbuster. Every other writer I know has responded to it with a resounding "meh." The characters are underdeveloped, the storyline meanders, and the acting is unsatisfying.

Like I said, it's a very cute film. Just nowhere near as brilliant as the average smalltown moviegoer who values style over substance might believe it to be.

Oh no its the evil faux elitist movie, It knows its better than you. It's manipulating our feeble minds with its non-intellectual facade. Yes the movie at the end of the day isn't that deep. I'm not saying it changed my life. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be a perfect movie to enjoy it.

The more you post, the more it seems that its not the movie you dislike. But that you're actually just channeling the negativity from the disapproval you have of peoples criticism about the movie unto the movie itself.

You're like the jealous kid on the playground, everyone around you is having fun while your not. So you decide no one else will have fun if you can't. Hence believing you are above those who participate in such actions.

*Wow do I know how to rant Lol

 

[LatinCoffee]

Happy Birthday!!!

 

[braex27]

Just saw it - absolutely loved it!

....and thank you for introducing me to Tom Hardy!