'Inception' Mega Thread *SPOILERS FROM POST 292 ONWARDS*

PhiloCypher

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Best film I've seen in years, a masterpiece.

I won't sully my joy in it with an obsessive analysis of the final totem moment, the directors intention was clear, ambiguity, and I consider that the perfect ending.

It is a perfect ending narratively speaking and monetarily speaking the very ambiguity of the ending will have us fan boys theorizing for years and in the short term spending our hard earned cash watching it again and again to try and spot things we missed first time around .

Klingon Hamlet

Everything here is a spoiler so I've blanked it:):

Anyone criticising Cobb for having abandoned his children and fleeing to save his own skin...I took that to be Cobb's biggest mistake. He even tells Ariadne he wanted to so badly call his kids, to see their faces, but he ran away instead.

Then Fischer was his meal ticket, thanks to Saito's manipulative Inception plan. But note how throughout the film, Cobb is wracked with guilt over leaving his kids, and over driving his wife to suicide thanks to his messing with her subconscious. here was a man already in a sort of limbo,and was simply dragging his team, and Fischer, down with him.

Remember hw on the train he says every man for himself?

But then we have the reveal: Fischer is an innocent, and has had a tough father, is being used by his godfather...you feel so sorry for him. So does Cobb. When the shade of his wife kills Fischer, he goes into limbo to save him.

He even goes further, spends an undiclosed span searching for Saito...even says he's saving Saito not for The Deal...but just because it's right.

I love this film because it tells a tale of a man suffering and crumblig under the weight of two great tragedies, both of them his own fault...and continues to hurt people...til finally he redeems himself.

The ending is unsure, but either way he's paid his penance.

In a way, he's escaped his own form of limbo, and finally is rewarded for his bravery and selfless acts by being reunited with his lost loved ones.

That's why this film is, to me, brilliant on philosophical, spiritual and kick-ass action-y levels.

My favourite part: the cathartic scene, with Fischers Jnr and Snr and the little windmill. Turned what seemed like heartless hijacking into a brilliant moment where Fischer is free from his father's "disappointment".

Plus I loved the way Eames broke down the three levels: can't remember exactly but there was Fischer being his own man, Fischer not wanting to be like his dad, etc... Every dream level represented stages of emotional evolution for Fischer.

So all in all, this film was about redemption, finding your way...sometimes through the most insidious of ways, but everyone won.

One thing nags at me...Mombassa, the chase scene...the bit between the walls, like a bad dream, and Saito showing up miraculously...a dream?? Or just movie fun?

I like how Saito and Cobb both redeemed themselves and each other...two men in a van, drowning in their dreams, dying in flames, sitting in a temple, their half-remembered shared dream clawing at them...Cobb saved Saito, and Saito saved Cobb.

Mizu_Ger

Saw this yesterday and, tbh, I didn't like it. Not exactly sure why yet (I've liked ALL of Nolan's films up to this). Couple of reasons I can think of right now are:

Cobb's wife is wholly unsympathetic as she's portrayed as a villian for most of the film until we find out what he did to her, but by then it's too late.

The plot is obvioulsy convoluted and although (I think!) I kept track with most of what was going on, just doing this robbed it of it's enjoyment. Maybe undertsanding every little twist, turn and rule of the setup and climax isn't the point of the film, but it's a natural reaction to try to keep up with the plot. I don't mind complex films, but this just seemed too much.

Also, the spinning totem didn't make any sense. The other characters had a totem that had some physical attribute that only they knew and so could not be anticipated by another's dreams. However, everyone knows that a spinning top will eventually topple over. Just because you are dreaming, it doesn't mean that you will expect it spin forever!

Having said all that, I loved the sequnce with Arthur in the 2nd level dream, where he had to protect the others, keep the bad guys at bay and engineer a kick with no gravity.

I'll probably rent this out on DVD in a few months to give it another go at home!

Stercus Accidit

PhiloCypher wrote: »

It is a perfect ending narratively speaking and monetarily speaking the very ambiguity of the ending will have us fan boys theorizing for years and in the short term spending our hard earned cash watching it again and again to try and spot things we missed first time around .

I think that is a little over cynical

The idea that after all this huge monumental effort, Cobb has possibly had his perfect happy ending, so perfect that we are suspicious of his mind and its perception. The idea of 'limbo' is left in our minds as we don't know if he made it out of his own mind, the totem at the end, spinning apparently flawlessly is a dark reminder that this could be as it was in his wifes dreams, not real. The final shot though, where this is focussed on as the most important realisation to make, the totem is dangerously perfect in its spin, but, there is a definite falter as it hits a ridge in the table, we hear it stumble (as I spun coins as a child the sound is very obvious), and I think that it was about to topple, and that is why it cut to black, Nolan intentionally made us think it was the dream totem, then as it was about to fall cut away, implying it was reality, but not allowing total closure. That totem was going to fall, a perfect dream totem would not hit a flaw in the table and wobble.

I don't think it is an ambiguous ending, it is implied one way, then the other and we cut out to the credits, I have decided how it ended in my own mind, as such there is no open ending, only a carefully and subtly implied one.

If I see this film in the cinema again it won't be desperation for closure, it will be to share this film with a friend or enjoy it again myself, it was fantastic, I cannot see cynicism in its ending for multiple viewing revenue, I see a subtle ending, focussing on the most important theme of the film, is this real? And if I am happy, does it matter? Best ending I've seen in a long time.

Stercus Accidit

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

Saw this yesterday and, tbh, I didn't like it. Not exactly sure why yet (I've liked ALL of Nolan's films up to this). Couple of reasons I can think of right now are:

Cobb's wife is wholly unsympathetic as she's portrayed as a villian for most of the film until we find out what he did to her, but by then it's too late.

That is intentional, we are first introduced to her as someone intimate with Cobb, he soon says he cant trust her, we know that they have a relationship, she is not a simple 'baddy'. The other characters mention she is his wife, that she was "lovely" and so on, she is a deep aspect of the film, a mystery, and well presented as such, she is not a character though remember, she is Cobbs projection of her, her actions are a reflection of his guilt. Do not over simplify and assume she is one character, there are two distinct versions of her, the real one and Cobbs projection of guilt, it is up to us to seperate them, as Cobb cannot.

The plot is obvioulsy convoluted and although (I think!) I kept track with most of what was going on, just doing this robbed it of it's enjoyment. Maybe undertsanding every little twist, turn and rule of the setup and climax isn't the point of the film, but it's a natural reaction to try to keep up with the plot. I don't mind complex films, but this just seemed too much.

I found it refreshing, and could keep up in general, it is a fantastic premise for a story, do see it again if you missed some of it, or read up on the plot and see it again, the levels of depth in this film are very rewarding and as many critics have said, it offers a level of respect for the audience that dumber films don't.

Also, the spinning totem didn't make any sense. The other characters had a totem that had some physical attribute that only they knew and so could not be anticipated by another's dreams. However, everyone knows that a spinning top will eventually topple over. Just because you are dreaming, it doesn't mean that you will expect it spin forever!

The idea of the totem is you know its weight and feel, Ellen Page's character used a handmade chess piece for example. Early in the film Saito realises the illusion he is in because the green carpet is not as he knows it to be, it is his accidental totem. The weight and texture are what defines the totem, this is explained to Ellen Page to begin with, Cobb's totem's ability to spin is used as a plot device, that it spins is not its unknowable quality, as the other totems it is texture, weight, feel that define them.

Having said all that, I loved the sequnce with Arthur in the 2nd level dream, where he had to protect the others, keep the bad guys at bay and engineer a kick with no gravity.

I'll probably rent this out on DVD in a few months to give it another go at home!

See it in the cinema again, but have a read maybe of the plot online, I often do this to cement my interpretation of a film post first viewing, and maybe watch again and see all that is going on. The film took over 8 years to write, it shows.

PhiloCypher

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I think that is a little over cynical

The idea that after all this huge monumental effort, Cobb has possibly had his perfect happy ending, so perfect that we are suspicious of his mind and its perception. The idea of 'limbo' is left in our minds as we don't know if he made it out of his own mind, the totem at the end, spinning apparently flawlessly is a dark reminder that this could be as it was in his wifes dreams, not real. The final shot though, where this is focussed on as the most important realisation to make, the totem is dangerously perfect in its spin, but, there is a definite falter as it hits a ridge in the table, we hear it stumble (as I spun coins as a child the sound is very obvious), and I think that it was about to topple, and that is why it cut to black, Nolan intentionally made us think it was the dream totem, then as it was about to fall cut away, implying it was reality, but not allowing total closure. That totem was going to fall, a perfect dream totem would not hit a flaw in the table and wobble.

I don't think it is an ambiguous ending, it is implied one way, then the other and we cut out to the credits, I have decided how it ended in my own mind, as such there is no open ending, only a carefully and subtly implied one.

If I see this film in the cinema again it won't be desperation for closure, it will be to share this film with a friend or enjoy it again myself, it was fantastic, I cannot see cynicism in its ending for multiple viewing revenue, I see a subtle ending, focussing on the most important theme of the film, is this real? And if I am happy, does it matter? Best ending I've seen in a long time.

I wasn't implying it was a concious decision on Nolans part just a happy side effect , like yourself I have already settled on my ending . V

There is of course no wrong theory Nolan has purposely left it open to interpetation but for me that certainly wouldn't be the most narratively rewarding interpetation I've heard,

for me that goes to the Mal was right theory where he never makes it home in the end but after finding closure with Mal is able to finally picture his childres faces again

.

To equate it with another film with an ending open to interpetation ie. Bladerunner in that film we have two possiblities one where Deckard is a replicant and one where he isn't, if he is a replicant it is merely ironic that he ended up hunting his own kind down if he isn't we get into more interesting territory whereby Deckards cold efficiency is held in stark relief against the charismatic replicants who display more human qualities then Deckard displays throughout the film save for when he falls for Rachael( a replicant). That dichotomy for me is far more interesting then a simple he was hunting his own twist and that is why that, for me, is the real ending

Klingon Hamlet

Same with Total Recall and Minority Report...both featured near-perfect endings that could very well be a part of the protagonist's imagination

Stercus Accidit

PhiloCypher wrote: »

I wasn't implying it was a concious decision on Nolans part just a happy side effect , like yourself I have already settled on my ending . V

I get you now, and I agree, great ending using subtle implication with enough space for thought afterwards.

I must say the booming atmospheric music and cut to black were a very powerful moment, shivers down the spine style.

citizen_p

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Being that a totem is something they use to test who's reality they are in (Arthurs dice are loaded but only he knows how, if it doesn't fall how he knows it should he knows he is in someone elses dream) how would Cobb use a ring as a totem to test his reality ? of course on a meta level it could very well be the audiences totem to differentiate between the dreamwold and reality .

answered a few posts after

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

The idea of the totem is you know its weight and feel, Ellen Page's character used a handmade chess piece for example. Early in the film Saito realises the illusion he is in because the green carpet is not as he knows it to be, it is his accidental totem. The weight and texture are what defines the totem, this is explained to Ellen Page to begin with, Cobb's totem's ability to spin is used as a plot device, that it spins is not its unknowable quality, as the other totems it is texture, weight, feel that define them.

PhiloCypher

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I get you now, and I agree, great ending using subtle implication with enough space for thought afterwards.

I must say the booming atmospheric music and cut to black were a very powerful moment, shivers down the spine style.

I still get goosebumps listening to track 12 of the soundtrack , at times it takes on an almost bondian vibe(the snow fortress dream layer being his homage to OHMSS, its only fitting I suppose;)) yet is far more emotive then any bond theme managed .

Mizu_Ger

Stercus Accidit wrote:

The idea of the totem is you know its weight and feel, Ellen Page's character used a handmade chess piece for example.... The weight and texture are what defines the totem, this is explained to Ellen Page to begin with, Cobb's totem's ability to spin is used as a plot device, that it spins is not its unknowable quality, as the other totems it is texture, weight, feel that define them.

That makes more sense, but I'm sure that it was mentioned in the film that the top will only topple in the real world. This is also why the last shot is a tease (or leaves it open ended etc.).

I don't think anyone could soak up every plot point in one sitting (it took him 8 years to write). Maybe with a few more viewing it'll sit better.

Conor108

When Mal and Cobb killed themselves in limbo under the freight train it cut to them waking up in their living room.

So when they left limbo wouldn't they go to the lowest level dream above limbo? Did they kill themselves in each dream then to get back to reality in their house (if that is reality)? Can't remember if Cobb said they used a strong sedative like in the Fischer heist but if they did then they'd have to get a kick from the next level up right? And there'd be nobody to do that

When I left I chose to accept it as reality in the end but after seeing the music analysis video and reading about the walls closing in and Mal talking about how Cobb is "chased accross the globe by faceless corporations" I think I'm gonna go with dream.

nosco

Conor108 wrote: »

So when they left limbo wouldn't they go to the lowest level dream above limbo?

We were never told that. Seemed to me that when you killed yourself in limbo you just woke up. Prob wrong tho.

Conor108

nosco wrote: »

We were never told that. Seemed to me that when you killed yourself in limbo you just woke up. Prob wrong tho.

No maybe you're right. Its been about 2 weeks since I saw it. I just assumed Mal and Cobb did some layered dream to get to limbo, how did they get to limbo again?

ricero

I saw it tonight and it blew me away my film of the year so far. Some of the scenes were just so crazy and stunning and for me tom hardy stole the show I thought he was brillant and I love the cliffhanger ending letting the viewer decide christopher Nolan thank you

Hippo

ricero wrote: »

I saw it tonight and it blew me away my film of the year so far. Some of the scenes were just so crazy and stunning and for me tom hardy stole the show I thought he was brillant and I love the cliffhanger ending letting the viewer decide christopher Nolan thank you

+1. Saw it last night for the first time, a great piece of work.

dr.bollocko

I really don't get the popularity of this yoke.
In my opinion it was just really tedious. The plot existed entirely in a dream state for too arbitrary to be compelling. The acting was bad. The dialogue was bad. The music was bad.

Klingon Hamlet

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I really don't get the popularity of this yoke.
In my opinion it was just really tedious. The plot existed entirely in a dream state for too arbitrary to be compelling. The acting was bad. The dialogue was bad. The music was bad.

It's gas cos I found it to be intriguing from the very start. I didn't get into the hype of the film beforehand, so maybe my expectations were set at a reasonable level.

I thought the way they introduced the risk of eternal imprisonment in one's own mind, AKA limbo, was a great analog for death in the real world. The moment Eame's wants to bail is a sure sign that things are headed in a very dangerous direction---the dude's clearly of questionable moral character with a dangerous background, so when he nearly sh1ts himself, I knew there was more at risk than a sudden wake-up call.

And I thought Nolan really evoked the feeling of being caught up in dreams---that gnawing feeling you get after a particularly emotional dream/nightmare. There was a constant level of tension kept up throughout (a common feel to Nolan's films). Note Cobb, gun and totem, early in the film. We don't know the reasoning, but we know dark ideas are stirring in Cobb's subconscious.

I found the acting was great, considering this was a heist film. Characters were as reserved and guarded as the marketing for the movie. Everything was to be second-guessed. Yet there was real empathy between the characters. I enjoyed the chemistry between Eames and Arthur, Saito was a badass despite his barely touching a weapon, and Cobb was as conflicted and driven as Teddy in Shutter Island. The supporting cast stood up well, though I dislike Ellen Page, she's a bit too all-knowing, though she is stuck with being the audience's surrogate.

The dialogue was serviceable throughout, and snappy in places. It wasn't meant to really stick in the mind like say a Tarantino script. IMHO the film was more about experiencing the feeling of diving deeper and deeper into the abyss, the perils of rattling layers of the mind/soul, and the demons that await you there in the dark. What lurks in the recesses, what you bring with you. It was like one big dense elaborate game. It just so happened the game-pieces had quirky characteristics and interesting interactions.

The music was IMHO epic. Cut right through the web of ideas and theories and plunged me into the world of the movie. Action scenes were punchier, Fischer's catharsis became my own, and Je ne regrette rien was distorted and drawn out to breaking point, agonisnly beautiful score and clearly Zimmer's greatest achievement thus far.

These are all my opinions:) It's just so funny how two people see two different films. Maybe in a decade I'll look back at myself and shake my head in embarrassment. But for now, Inception is my favourite film ever.

PhiloCypher

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I really don't get the popularity of this yoke.
In my opinion it was just really tedious. The plot existed entirely in a dream state for too arbitrary to be compelling. The acting was bad. The dialogue was bad. The music was bad.

Every now and again someone posts an opinion sooo divergent from your own you feel like you're being trolled, this is one of those times lol

dr.bollocko

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Every now and again someone posts an opinion sooo divergent from your own you feel like you're being trolled, this is one of those times lol

Yeah I was thinking that myself. It's mad how divergent opinions get on films like this. I enjoyed some of Nolan's earlier work but not this. I genuinely thought it was overly long. Levitt was a robot. The music was annoying. It just dragged for me, stumbling slowly from one scene to another with little dialogue and lots of annoying characters.

Klingon Hamlet

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Yeah I was thinking that myself. It's mad how divergent opinions get on films like this. I enjoyed some of Nolan's earlier work but not this. I genuinely thought it was overly long. Levitt was a robot. The music was annoying. It just dragged for me, stumbling slowly from one scene to another with little dialogue and lots of annoying characters.

What did you think of the

Catharsis scene with Fischer and his dad?

I shed a tear when he found the

paper windmill from his childhood.

What a beautiful moment. Cillian's acting along with Zimmer's rousing music really swept me up.

dirtyden

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Every now and again someone posts an opinion sooo divergent from your own you feel like you're being trolled, this is one of those times lol

I must admit I was not overly enamoured by this film. It was certainly worth watching, but a little bit of a let down from the hype I had heard about it.

Klingon Hamlet

dirtyden wrote: »

I must admit I was not overly enamoured by this film. It was certainly worth watching, but a little bit of a let down from the hype I had heard about it.

I think the secrecy around the film implied a world-shattering plot or event, when in fact the film itself is just as mysterious after watching it!!:)

duckworth

Just a note on the music - there was plenty of things I didn't like about Inception, but I really think the use of music is misplaced.

There is almost constant music throughout (the same in The Dark Knight), taking away from the momentum of the movie. The usual style is music for atmosphere or tension building, then a let-up in the tension building - this never happens in Inception. The score gives it a music-video feel. I thought The Dark Knight suffered the same fate (not to mention the similarities in the music used in both)

PhiloCypher

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Yeah I was thinking that myself. It's mad how divergent opinions get on films like this. I enjoyed some of Nolan's earlier work but not this. I genuinely thought it was overly long. Levitt was a robot. The music was annoying. It just dragged for me, stumbling slowly from one scene to another with little dialogue and lots of annoying characters.

There are flaws there no doubt as I mentioned in a previous post I felt Saito's role in the heist was bulked up purely to give the actor more to do then bookend the film he served no function in the actual heist.

As for Levitt being robotic again as I've posted previously If you subscribe to the notion that

it was all a dream then his entire team are just cobbs projections and any lack of charisma/character development begins to make sense .

Klingon Hamlet

PhiloCypher wrote: »

There are flaws there no doubt as I mentioned in a previous post I felt Saito's role in the heist was bulked up purely to give the actor more to do then bookend the film he served no function in the actual heist.

As for Levitt being robotic again as I've posted previously If you subscribe to the notion that

it was all a dream then his entire team are just cobbs projections and any lack of charisma/character development begins to make sense .

Saito needed to live long enough to reach the fortress. If he'd died sooner the audience may have gotten confused as to who was where. Levitt was a Cool Cat in this, IMHO, nothing more but it's all down to interpretation/perception I guess:D

JP Liz V1

It is still bringing in the cash in the US it is top of the box office again this week maybe like me others need to view it more than once

dr.bollocko

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

What did you think of the

Catharsis scene with Fischer and his dad?

I shed a tear when he found the

paper windmill from his childhood.

What a beautiful moment. Cillian's acting along with Zimmer's rousing music really swept me up.

Well the

rich

kid had a

bad

relationship with his dad and had a

memory appear in a dream

. I didn't really find it very engaging tbh.

Sad Professor

duckworth wrote: »

There is almost constant music throughout (the same in The Dark Knight), taking away from the momentum of the movie. The usual style is music for atmosphere or tension building, then a let-up in the tension building - this never happens in Inception. The score gives it a music-video feel. I thought The Dark Knight suffered the same fate (not to mention the similarities in the music used in both)

This is just Nolan's style. It's true of almost all his films. He writes very long, plot-driven scripts which he isn't able to delete scenes from without leaving plot holes. So in order to stop them from becoming 3 hours long, he has to cut his films extremely tight in the editing room. The result is lot of fast cuts (even faster in the action sequences) and short scenes. Without the almost constant musical score, this editing style would lend the film a very choppy feel, so he needs the music to help give some flow to the film. Therefore, I would argue that in Nolan's films the music actually gives momentum rather than takes it away. But it is a bit like music video alright.

I complained endless about this in Batman Begins, but his editing style has grown on me since. It's a style very much influenced by George Lucas with maybe a bit of Oliver Stone's vertical cutting thrown in. It's very fast paced and makes the film feel very long, but rewards multiple viewings. You'll either love it or you hate it. I thought it worked extremely well in The Dark Knight and The Prestige, but not so much in Batman Begins. With Inception, I'm so used to it that I didn't even notice.

PhiloCypher

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Saito needed to live long enough to reach the fortress. If he'd died sooner the audience may have gotten confused as to who was where. Levitt was a Cool Cat in this, IMHO, nothing more but it's all down to interpretation/perception I guess:D

Im not saying he should have died but that he shouldn't have taken any part in the heist in the first place he served no purpose in the context of the heist narratively speaking.

Think about it while Saito's injury in the first layer of dreaming helped up the stakes somewhat this could just as easily been achieved by having fischer shot early in the film instead after all Fischers death and thus failure of the inception would have been just as fatal to Cobbs hopes of every seeing his kids again as Saito's .

Was Saito required to give them a reason to go into Limbo ? again no we had Fischer for that .

By the time we get to that final scene of Cobb and an aging Saito in lhis fortress the scenes critical to the characters and our emotional payoff have already taken place ie. the twin catharsis of Cobb finding closure with Mal and Fischer finding closure with his father and thus the scene feels redundant, to me anyways .