'Inception' Mega Thread SPOILERS FROM POST 292 ONWARDS

QueenOfLeon · 27-07-2010 11:45PM

Just saw it again, after reading through this thread and some other articles I think theres more bits that I'm wondering about than the first time!

Near the end of the film, when Cobb and Ariadne arrive in limbo, then Ariadne and Fischer jump off leaving Cobb with Mal, how does Cobb "arrive in limbo" again, as in, be washed up on the beach but this time where Saito is?

When they all get back to the van falling into the water and climb out, theres no kick to get them back up to the plane. Do they wait on that level for a week?

We see Cobb and Mal walking to the train line and lying down as young people, then later on, when Cobb is telling Mal about how they did grow old together, we see their old clasped hands across the train track...were they able to change appearance or is this just how he is remembering things?

Also, what exactly is required for the kick and then being brought up to the next level? They use freefall in the van/elevator/off the building, but do they die after each of those to bring them up? And how does Cobb move up through all the levels as he's already missed all the kicks?

Professional Griefer · 27-07-2010 11:51PM

Heyho. I thought this was rather funny. Most people probably won't get it, but for those of you who do, yes boys.
http://twitpic.com/291sso

robby^5 · 28-07-2010 10:27AM

Archimedes wrote: »

Guide to being cool:

If the majority of people like a film, say you hated it. You're instantly cool and stand out from the conformist masses.

If the majority of people hate a film, say you loved it. You're instantly cool and stand out from the conformist masses.

We're all individuals.

But I do think people can dislike a film even when the majority enjoyed it. It can be hard to fathom for fans when a film get's almost universal acclaim, but some people just wont like a film for whatever reason and there are a few valid points being made about the film by it's critics...but those flaws can easily be seen as strengths in other peoples minds.

So in short I dont really buy the whole "critics are just trying to be cool" line, but I do agree that there definately are people who do that to try and stand out or just to troll.

As an aside, who's seen this film the most times now? I cant stop myself going back to see it and I'll be on my fourth viewing when I go see it next week

I know a films made a impact on me when I'm already dying for the BluRay to come out mainly for the extras because the making of this film will definately be something that will be worth checking out.

Cartman78 · 28-07-2010 11:50AM

I’ve skimmed through most of this thread and there seems to be varying degrees of hyperbole on both sides. The hype juggernaut associated with this film has been on the road for a long time so I reckon a lot of people had already made up their minds about it before actually seeing it.

I saw the film about 10 days ago and it’s still floating around my mind – tempted to go and see it again but might let it settle a bit and wait for the DVD. Enjoyed the film immensely on first viewing – thought it worked on many levels but most importantly for me it was consistently engaging, entertaining and thought provoking. Haven’t had a reaction like that to a film since Memento, the first Matrix and to a lesser extent, the Usual Suspects.

The film is far from perfect (Ellen Page miscast in the thankless but necessary Mrs. Exposition role, lack of character development for everyone except Cobb, the James Bond-esque faffing about in the snow) but I would watch this every day rather than have to sit through crud like ‘Get Him to the Greek’ or the abysmal ‘Robin Hood’

Out of curiosity I have read, watched and listened to a whole bunch of reviews and discussion since I saw it (I maintained a fairly successful media blackout beforehand….although the music from the trailer may be permanently lodged in my brain at this stage). The level of debate generated is encouraging so hopefully studios take note and stop churning out sequels, remakes, romcoms with Matthew McConaughey, reboots etc. and trust their audiences a bit more with films like this.

calahans · 28-07-2010 12:04PM

Cartman78 wrote: »

The level of debate generated is encouraging so hopefully studios take note and stop churning out sequels, remakes, romcoms with Matthew McConaughey, reboots etc. and trust their audiences a bit more with films like this.

What about a prequel with Matthew McConaughey trying to extract Jennifer Aniston from a dream where she is about to marry the wrong guy? Ka-Ching!

Edinduberdeen · 28-07-2010 12:18PM

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

Near the end of the film, when Cobb and Ariadne arrive in limbo, then Ariadne and Fischer jump off leaving Cobb with Mal, how does Cobb "arrive in limbo" again, as in, be washed up on the beach but this time where Saito is?

My take on it is that he's been searching for decades for Saito - he looks quite bedraggled when he washes up on Saito's shore. He may have come from 'his part' of limbo across the water, or just been wandering along the shore and collapsed, before being picked up by Saito's guards.

When they all get back to the van falling into the water and climb out, theres no kick to get them back up to the plane. Do they wait on that level for a week?

Yeah, I think so - this is what I wrote a page or 2 back. They must have just lived out the week there, staying out of Fischer's way so as not to alert his security of their 'foreign' presence.

We see Cobb and Mal walking to the train line and lying down as young people, then later on, when Cobb is telling Mal about how they did grow old together, we see their old clasped hands across the train track...were they able to change appearance or is this just how he is remembering things?

I don't think this is a very important point - it was just to show that they had actually stayed there for decades... artistic licence.

Also, what exactly is required for the kick and then being brought up to the next level? They use freefall in the van/elevator/off the building, but do they die after each of those to bring them up? And how does Cobb move up through all the levels as he's already missed all the kicks?

Again, I wrote about this a page or 2 back - they say that, to wake up from a level before the compund wears off, you have to die in the current level and be kicked from the level above. They were never meant to go deeper than the snow level, and they had planned to blow up the building to kill them all when the kick from above came, which in turn killed them in the hotel in time for the kick from the van hitting the water.

How Cobb and Saito got back is the one that gets me though.... the only thing that makes sense to me is that, either the sedative wears off, or the others purposely wake them, around the same time as they kill themselves in limbo (but they would have no way of knowing when the sedative wears off down there, nor do the others know if Cobb and Saito found each other and came to their realisation before waking them).

maquiladora · 28-07-2010 04:19PM

Interesting :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkQ0C4qDvM

Basq · 28-07-2010 04:20PM

maquiladora wrote: »

Interesting :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkQ0C4qDvM

Tis.. it's on the previous page, but it is interesting!

Busi_Girl08 · 28-07-2010 04:20PM

Yes, it was also interesting when it was posted this time yesterday :P

maquiladora · 28-07-2010 04:25PM

Ok Ok :P

humanji · 28-07-2010 09:02PM

clived2 wrote: »

I am not going to argue the movie did not have flaws, as it clearly did,
however I dont recall other heist movies, firing mind bullets to stop the projections of another character sub-conscious.

This film was an orginal concept which envolked fresh thoughts, after it was over.
This to me is what i prefer, more brain candy than eye candy.

You see, I think that's the problem I had with it. If you take away the dream stuff, it's just a simple heist movie. The dream stuff doesn't add anything to the heist, it's just a different way of doing it (they could have just held a gun to his head in the real world and forced him to sign a piece of paper, for example). So it comes across as just a gimmick. It could have been time travel or inter-dimensional gateways or shrinking down and being injected into his brain.

I think if the story focused more on DiCaprio and devloped him a little better, the film would have been a lot more interesting. As it was, I don't see him as a particularly likable character. He basically f*ck's up Cillian Murphy's life for his personal gain. Murphy is the only really sympathetic character and gets used up and thrown away.

And none of the other characters seem to have even a basic history. I mean, I can't be the only person who wanted to know more about Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, can I? He seemed so much more interesting and fun.

I think I just see the film as something that could have been good, but missed too many marks for me. But as I said before, I'm glad people do like it, because I loved Nolan's other films and because this is such a success, it'll guarantee that he keeps going for a long time.

Archimedes wrote: »

Guide to being cool:

If the majority of people like a film, say you hated it. You're instantly cool and stand out from the conformist masses.

If the majority of people hate a film, say you loved it. You're instantly cool and stand out from the conformist masses.

:rolleyes:

jonnyfingers · 29-07-2010 01:14AM

maquiladora wrote: »

Interesting :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkQ0C4qDvM

Not only interesting but certainly deliberate by Hans Zimmer I'd wager.

On that note I'm just listening to the soundtrack and it really is fantastic. Watched the movie for the second time tonight and the music blends seamlessly with what's happening on screen at all times. The piece playing over the final minutes, "Time", is wonderful and compliments the emotion of that scene so well.

Hans Zimmer has outdone himeself in my opinion.

NickDrake · 29-07-2010 01:39AM

I can see this being another Shawshank Redemption thing along with the Dark Knight.

Di Caprio acts the very same as he did in Shutter Island. Is it just Leo ebing Leo again i.e the exact sam ein EVERY movie.

fulhamfanincork · 29-07-2010 01:45AM

NickDrake wrote: »

I can see this being another Shawshank Redemption thing along with the Dark Knight.

Di Caprio acts the very same as he did in Shutter Island. Is it just Leo ebing Leo again i.e the exact sam ein EVERY movie.

He's a good actor but does do the same performance every time.

He always does the worried, burrowed look thing with the eyebrows.

Klingon Hamlet · 29-07-2010 01:56AM

Brilliant movie. Really felt for all the characters, especially Cobb and Fischer. Truly original way of approaching dreamscapes.

I heard the totem wobble just as it blacked out. IMHO that's Nolan saying simply, This is real.

I love how this film is so open to interpretation!

And I've never seen a blockbuster that is also cerebral, full of imagination, and both gritty and slick. Just great movie-making

Aw how cool is this??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkQ0C4qDvM

PhiloCypher · 29-07-2010 03:02AM

Taking on board the theory posited by Devin on chud in this article as Inception on a meta level being about film as the ultimate shared dream whose climax if done well should be as cathartic for the audience as the characters on screen, Nolan would seem to be planting/incepting the audience with seeds of idea's and themes both aurally via the his choice of song in je ne regrette rein about living without regret (the cinemas speakers acting as the films metaphorical headphones) and visually with the spinning top that only by symbolically or not( in reality or dream according to what theory you subscribe to) walking away from it, by letting go of his regret and doubts can Cobb finally be whole again and see his childrens faces.

He really is quite clever this Nolan chap .

Renn · 29-07-2010 07:44AM

NickDrake wrote: »

I can see this being another Shawshank Redemption thing along with the Dark Knight.

Di Caprio acts the very same as he did in Shutter Island. Is it just Leo ebing Leo again i.e the exact sam ein EVERY movie.

No, Scorsese got a lot more out of him than Nolan did. That much is obvious.

Renn · 29-07-2010 07:46AM

Has anyone posted the Inception music comparison video yet?

Herbal Deity · 29-07-2010 10:54AM

I'm disappointed personally.

I knew nothing about this film before going to see it, except for hearing that it was getting rave reviews and seeing the "Mind Blown!" Facebook comments.

I felt it was a cross between the Matrix and Oceans 11, and the philosophical questions it posed, while interesting, weren't exactly ground breaking...

What I feel tainted the movie the most, however, was the seeming arbitrariness of the "rules" of dream worlds. What I loved about the (first) Matrix was, although far-fetched, the primary concept is conceivable in the real world.

I have some questions, the answers to which could change my opinion on the movie a bit:
How do people actually enter other people's dreams? Is it ever explained? They seem to just strap into a magic suitcase. How does this work?
How do people in other people's dreams "project" the worlds they've dreamed up into the person's dream?
If "intruders" in others' dreams can manipulate the surroundings and create things themselves, why didn't they just "dream" a forcefield around them so that the projections of the person's subconscious couldn't attack them?
Why is dying in a dream so significant?
What is limbo? Is it part of your subconscious? Part of the person who's dream you're in's subconscious?

PhiloCypher · 29-07-2010 08:55PM

LIGHTNING wrote: »

it didnt bring anything new to the table.

To the argument that it brings nothing new to the table I would ask you to name a wholly original film that you actually enjoyed in the last 10-20 years , there are few if any, fact is it's all been done before by someone somewhere else . As such its common practice these days for directors to take certain cinematic tropes ie. the heist and try and put their own spin on things, so lets not hold Nolan to a higher standard then everyone else . In short is Inception wholly original ? no , is it more then the sum of parts ? absolutely .

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I didnt think anybody`s performance was mind blowing with some of the characters not getting enough screen time.

It only seems that way because of the quality of the cast Nolan has attracted actors who could or have previously carried films by themselves and whose relative lack of screen time might leave one thinking they were shortchanged when infact their screentime when taken in the context of their role in a heist is perfectly adequate, think about it were the characters in Oceans 11 besides Clooney(the Cobb of that heist) any more fleshed out ? did they need to be ? .

Infact if one subscribes to the theory that the entire film was a dream then everyone but Cobb is just a projection and their cypher status makes sense .

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I like my three other mates walked out of the cinema quite disappointed. I was expecting this to blow my mind and it did nothing for me. Shame really

I was bursting for a slash for the last 30 mins of the film so the characters emotional Catharsis in those final scenes dovetailed beautifully with the euphoria I felt of knowing I could finally get to the toilet .

^true story , but in all seriousness I left the cinema thinking it was a merely a very good film it was only when I let it sit with me a while that I began to revaluate upwards .

robby^5 · 29-07-2010 10:40PM

humanji wrote: »

You see, I think that's the problem I had with it. If you take away the dream stuff, it's just a simple heist movie. The dream stuff doesn't add anything to the heist, it's just a different way of doing it (they could have just held a gun to his head in the real world and forced him to sign a piece of paper, for example).

Welll that wouldn't be legally binding :pac:

I agree that using dreams was just a different way of doing a heist, but what's wrong with that? Yes it's a heist movie, I dont think anyone will deny that, and yes the dream setting is the twist on the heist movie. So Nolan took something that was getting quite stale and shook it up a little. Of course he could have just set it in a <casino|bank|museum> like every other heist film of the last few years but instead he used a world where there is dream sharing technology and just like a <casino|bank|museum> the dreams can and are exploited by criminals. This is what science fiction is all about. Star Trek could easily lose the space ships and aliens and be replaced with Long-ships and Pirates and Captain Kirk sailing from port to port getting into fist fights and wooing damsels, but then it loses it's scifi element.

humanji wrote: »

So it comes across as just a gimmick. It could have been time travel or inter-dimensional gateways or shrinking down and being injected into his brain.

Calling the dream sharing in Inception a gimmick is like calling the matrix in The Matrix a gimmick. The dream sharing technology is the basis upon which the movie is set. This is a world where dreams are shared. In such a world there would be criminals who would exploit such a technology to steal from other peoples minds. Look at it this way:

The Matrix: "It's a kung-fu/action film, except it's set in virtual reality"

Inception: "It's a heist film, except the heist takes place in a dream (in a dream (in a dream))".

Calling it a gimmick is incorrect as the dream setting has an obvious function as the setting of the heist and the distinguishing feature of the world the film is set in that differentiates it from our world.

humanji wrote: »

I think if the story focused more on DiCaprio and devloped him a little better, the film would have been a lot more interesting. As it was, I don't see him as a particularly likable character. He basically f*ck's up Cillian Murphy's life for his personal gain. Murphy is the only really sympathetic character and gets used up and thrown away.

I felt completely the opposite. At the start of the film Murphys character seems dreadfully unhappy. He father is dying and seems to care very little for his own son, going as far as to say he is a disappointment. Through the action of Cobb we find Murphy's character at the end of the film as optimistic and given some sense of closure over the death of his father. He has become his own man in a way, off to build his own empire perhaps. It even has a very cliché moment where he's sitting by the ocean looking off into the sunset. The parallel between his character before and after meeting Cobb was pretty clear I thought. I felt really happy for him, even though he is blissfully unaware he was duped.

humanji wrote: »

And none of the other characters seem to have even a basic history. I mean, I can't be the only person who wanted to know more about Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, can I? He seemed so much more interesting and fun.

I'd love that too. But it would have bloated the narrative. We didn't need to know anything about his history because from what we gather from his time on screen extraction is just his profession and this is just another job for him. Cobb is our protagonist and has the most invested interest in completing the heist (to see his children once again and subsequently to confront his own demons) so naturally we have much more insight into his background.

But I do agree that the characters could have been fleshed out a little more, but I also feel like with the amount of exposition into dream sharing the film would have suffered from too much backstory. Stylistically you couldn't have had cut aways, like in Oceans Eleven, showing the characters previous to the events of the film with some voice-over from Leo telling me "Arthur is the best in the business, single handedly took down an entire dreams worth of projections once. His dad thought him everything he knows". You'd have to have characters in conversation about their past, if you look at how much time Leo spends describing what happened between him and his wife or reliving it in the dream with Ariadne, it just wouldn't be possible for a whole cast of characters.

edit - I know tl;dr :P

PhiloCypher · 30-07-2010 01:00AM

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What I feel tainted the movie the most, however, was the seeming arbitrariness of the "rules" of dream worlds. What I loved about the (first) Matrix was, although far-fetched, the primary concept is conceivable in the real world.

The rules were hardly arbitrary and all made sense in the context of the film if you paid attention, as for the Matrix primary concept being more believable then Inceptions maybe it is maybe it isn't maybe all it takes is a little more suspension of disbelief on your part .

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I have some questions, the answers to which could change my opinion on the movie a bit:
How do people actually enter other people's dreams? Is it ever explained? They seem to just strap into a magic suitcase. How does this work?

The movie doesn't go into details on this but if I remember correctly and someone can correct me if I'm wrong its explained as being a military tool to train soldiers in the how and the emotional consequences of killing without the actual killing, that explains the why of the machine as to the how thats never explained and considering how many people moan about things being explained in the movie I find it hard to believe people would complain about this being left hazy .

Herbal Deity wrote: »

How do people in other people's dreams "project" the worlds they've dreamed up into the person's dream?

Again a little bit of suspension of disbelief is needed.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

If "intruders" in others' dreams can manipulate the surroundings and create things themselves, why didn't they just "dream" a forcefield around them so that the projections of the person's subconscious couldn't attack them?

Anything out of the ordinary like a forcefield would alert the target that he was in his or someone elses dream , plus that would make things too easy like Gandalf getting one of his eagle buddies to fly Frodo and the ring over the volcano and dropping it in rather then have him walking for 3 movies, its the logical thing to do but wouldn't make a great movie now would it .

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Why is dying in a dream so significant?

It kicks you up a dream level unless your heavily sedated in which case you end up in Limbo .

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What is limbo? Is it part of your subconscious? Part of the person who's dream you're in's subconscious?

Limbo is in the context of the film the deepest level of the groups shared subconcious it's meant to be a empty void filled with nothing but what the dreamer brings to it, were it not for Cobb and Mall having spent decades there already building in their minds Fischer, Saito, Cobb and Ariadne(when they linked up) would have found just that .

gurramok · 30-07-2010 11:22AM

Glad i'm not alone in saying this ain't a classic movie. Its way too long at 2.5hrs and very boring in parts. I actually nearly fell asleep until the sound of gunfire woke me up!

About 6 people walked out of the screening and the two of us who went to see it won't be seeing it again as its a forgettable movie.

I guess its one of those films where some will really like it and others don't. Whats really stupid is that those who loved the film look down on those who didn't love the film both here on boards and in real life. :mad:

seraphimvc · 30-07-2010 11:59AM

gurramok wrote: »

Glad i'm not alone in saying this ain't a classic movie. Its way too long at 2.5hrs and very boring in parts. I actually nearly fell asleep until the sound of gunfire woke me up!

About 6 people walked out of the screening and the two of us who went to see it won't be seeing it again as its a forgettable movie.

I guess its one of those films where some will really like it and others don't. Whats really stupid is that those who loved the film look down on those who didn't love the film both here on boards and in real life. :mad:

i dont really get why people walk out from any movie, unless it is like The Box :pac:

i would say if the viewer wont even give the movie a chance (they paid the ticket and they walk out?!), that simply means they just dont like it, end of story. especially for a film like Inception, what i would defo say is these people's loss to not give themselves a chance to try to accept and enjoy this piece of fine work, which,frankly,many people enjoy it alot:pac:

PhiloCypher · 30-07-2010 04:11PM

gurramok wrote: »

Glad i'm not alone in saying this ain't a classic movie. Its way too long at 2.5hrs and very boring in parts. I actually nearly fell asleep until the sound of gunfire woke me up!

About 6 people walked out of the screening and the two of us who went to see it won't be seeing it again as its a forgettable movie.

I guess its one of those films where some will really like it and others don't. Whats really stupid is that those who loved the film look down on those who didn't love the film both here on boards and in real life. :mad:

I have no problem with people who sat through the whole film not liking it, to each there own and all that , the problem I have is when people who left the cinema halfway through nitpick that it was a) boring - the multi dream layer action sequence in the 2nd half of the film was many things none of them boring b) too expositiony - they had to explain the rules of the game so they could cut loose in the 2nd half of the film c) had no character development - the characters who needed development ie Cobb and to some extent Fischer got it in you guessed it the 2nd half of the film .

If people are gonna nit pick they should do it from a position of strength having seen the whole film and being in full possesion of the facts.
There are flaws there to be nitpicked at I personally found the whole bondesque snow capped interlude at the end to be abit jarring compared to the rest of the film but even that made some narrative sense in the context of Fischers dream defenses . Saito too to me at least seems like he was just shoehorned into the heist to give the actor more to do then simply bookend the film ,thats just two I can think of off the top of my head .

Instead what I see some people doing is holding Nolan to a different standard then other directors, they will suspend their disbelief that a man can fly for Donner they can buy whatever technological gadget gets the enterprise out of trouble but they absolutely need to know how the dream device works to enjoy the film .

humanji · 30-07-2010 04:59PM

robby^5 wrote: »

Welll that wouldn't be legally binding :pac:

I agree that using dreams was just a different way of doing a heist, but what's wrong with that? Yes it's a heist movie, I dont think anyone will deny that, and yes the dream setting is the twist on the heist movie. So Nolan took something that was getting quite stale and shook it up a little. Of course he could have just set it in a <casino|bank|museum> like every other heist film of the last few years but instead he used a world where there is dream sharing technology and just like a <casino|bank|museum> the dreams can and are exploited by criminals. This is what science fiction is all about. Star Trek could easily lose the space ships and aliens and be replaced with Long-ships and Pirates and Captain Kirk sailing from port to port getting into fist fights and wooing damsels, but then it loses it's scifi element.

But see, this is the whole reason why I wasn't too impressed with the film. It took a standard story and tarted it up with a gimmick. Without the gimmick, it's the same tired old story. It tried to add something else with the wife's suicide, but considering I felt so little empathy for a man who ran out on his kids, I couldn't care less. I thought they'd be better off with the grandparents.

robby^5 wrote: »

Calling the dream sharing in Inception a gimmick is like calling the matrix in The Matrix a gimmick. The dream sharing technology is the basis upon which the movie is set. This is a world where dreams are shared. In such a world there would be criminals who would exploit such a technology to steal from other peoples minds. Look at it this way:

The Matrix: "It's a kung-fu/action film, except it's set in virtual reality"

Inception: "It's a heist film, except the heist takes place in a dream (in a dream (in a dream))".

Calling it a gimmick is incorrect as the dream setting has an obvious function as the setting of the heist and the distinguishing feature of the world the film is set in that differentiates it from our world.

It's unfair to compare this to the Matrix. The Matrix was the world in that film. They had no choice but to be part of it. It was the whole reason for their existence.

The characters in Inception didn't need to use dreams, they simply decided it was the best method to use. That's why I see it as a gimmick. They could have completed the task in any other way, they just chose that one. And any other way, the film would have been totally standard and boring, so dreams were used to spruce it up. I'm not going to say it was a terrible film just because it used that gimmick, I just didn't think much of it as a gimmick.

robby^5 wrote: »

I felt completely the opposite. At the start of the film Murphys character seems dreadfully unhappy. He father is dying and seems to care very little for his own son, going as far as to say he is a disappointment. Through the action of Cobb we find Murphy's character at the end of the film as optimistic and given some sense of closure over the death of his father. He has become his own man in a way, off to build his own empire perhaps. It even has a very cliché moment where he's sitting by the ocean looking off into the sunset. The parallel between his character before and after meeting Cobb was pretty clear I thought. I felt really happy for him, even though he is blissfully unaware he was duped.

But that still makes me feel sorry for him, in that he's been lied to, tricked and now has lost everything (his father left him everything, so he must have thought something of him). And DiCaprio just chewed him up and spat him out in order to find an easy way to get back to the kids he abandoned. It just makes me hate him even more, the more I think about it.

PhiloCypher · 30-07-2010 06:11PM

But see, this is the whole reason why I wasn't too impressed with the film. It took a standard story and tarted it up with a gimmick. Without the gimmick, it's the same tired old story. It tried to add something else with the wife's suicide, but considering I felt so little empathy for a man who ran out on his kids, I couldn't care less. I thought they'd be better off with the grandparents.

Call it a gimmick a twist whatever fact is nearly every film these days is some twist on a tried and true genre staple ie. as Robby pointed out Matrix is a kung fu story with a sci fi twist , so if were gonna beat up Inception for being a gimmicky take on a stale story lets be even handed.
I do agree tho that if we subscribe to the notion that Cobb was hired by Saito and did get back to his kids in the end IRL and the entire film wasn't him dreaming there is a huge gap logic as to why he a) left his kids there in first place or b) didn't have his grandparents bring them to him in a country with no extradition treaty with the US.

It's unfair to compare this to the Matrix. The Matrix was the world in that film. They had no choice but to be part of it. It was the whole reason for their existence.

The characters in Inception didn't need to use dreams, they simply decided it was the best method to use. That's why I see it as a gimmick. They could have completed the task in any other way, they just chose that one. And any other way, the film would have been totally standard and boring, so dreams were used to spruce it up. I'm not going to say it was a terrible film just because it used that gimmick, I just didn't think much of it as a gimmick.

How should they have convinced Fischer to break up his fathers company in that case kidnap , brainwashing , should thay have simply appealed to his better nature that it was in the worlds best interest to break up the company his father had built ?

But that still makes me feel sorry for him, in that he's been lied to, tricked and now has lost everything (his father left him everything, so he must have thought something of him). And DiCaprio just chewed him up and spat him out in order to find an easy way to get back to the kids he abandoned. It just makes me hate him even more, the more I think about it.

I'm gonna echo what Robby said Fischer at the start of the film knows he is to inherit his father empire yet is miserable and feels unloved, by films end yes he's been manipulated into believing his dad wanted his empire to be broken up but he also shares a moment with his father that brings the closure he so desperately needed but never got while he was alive .

L'prof · 30-07-2010 06:11PM

humanji wrote: »

But see, this is the whole reason why I wasn't too impressed with the film. It took a standard story and tarted it up with a gimmick. Without the gimmick, it's the same tired old story.

I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. You could disect all films in a similar fashion. Shawshank - another prison story. Godfather - another mafia story. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly - just another mafia story. It's the way these stories are told that makes them great, not the fact that they are unique from any other film ever made...which is rare to find in any film!

humanji · 30-07-2010 07:56PM

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Call it a gimmick a twist whatever fact is nearly every film these days is some twist on a tried and true genre staple ie. as Robby pointed out Matrix is a kung fu story with a sci fi twist , so if were gonna beat up Inception for being a gimmicky take on a stale story lets be even handed.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not faulting the film for using a gimmick. I'm simply not impressed by this particular gimmick and how it was used. I didn't find it particularly clever. How it was implemented seemed more like Nolan came up with the idea and wrapped a loose story around it. It could have been done so much better.

Maybe I just expected more from Nolan. This film really did nothing for me.

PhiloCypher wrote: »

How should they have convinced Fischer to break up his fathers company in that case kidnap , brainwashing , should thay have simply appealed to his better nature that it was in the worlds best interest to break up the company his father had built ?

Well they could have done any of those. It wasn't necessary for that plot, but it was necessary to make the film different to other heist movies. That's what makes it a gimmick.

PhiloCypher wrote: »

I'm gonna echo what Robby said Fischer at the start of the film knows he is to inherit his father empire yet is miserable and feels unloved, by films end yes he's been manipulated into believing his dad wanted his empire to be broken up but he also shares a moment with his father that brings the closure he so desperately needed but never got while he was alive .

But he doesn't share a moment with his father. It's all in his head. I know that you can say that it only matters what he thinks, but it still doesn't sit right with me.

humanji · 30-07-2010 08:00PM

L'prof wrote: »

I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. You could disect all films in a similar fashion. Shawshank - another prison story. Godfather - another mafia story. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly - just another mafia story. It's the way these stories are told that makes them great, not the fact that they are unique from any other film ever made...which is rare to find in any film!

Well that's the point I made. The films you listed stand out on their own merits of story telling. Inception is the same old tired story and doesn't do anything new in that regard. The only thing that makes it stand out from the others is the dream manipulation. Other than that, it's no different from a thousand other heist movies.

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

Comments

'Inception' Mega Thread SPOILERS FROM POST 292 ONWARDS