OT: Why Inception Is Overrated (Spoilers)
by azruavatar on Jul 18, 2010 7:57 PM EDT
Email
PrintI'll start by saying that I'm certain I'm in the minority here. The hype for this moving has been fever pitch and the critical reviews have been quite good if not superb. There's a variety of reasons that the movie failed for me and why I think it's likely to be the most overrated movie because of them.
(I'm going to jump between actor and character names as it suits me. Have imdb open for reference to help.)
1) You've seen this movie before.
One part The Matrix and one part Shutter Island, Inception combines the idea that the waking world might be far more illusory that it seems and that Leonardo DiCaprio has some terrible angst over a lost love. Critics have lauded the movie for it's rich plot but there's very little new ground to be found here. The concept is lifted almost entirely from The Matrix. A group of industrial espionage thieves enters the dream world in order to steal information. Some people (when you meet The Chemist) who are in the dream world like it there better -- thinking it might even be MORE real! (/Matrix) DiCaprio's Cobb loses his wife because of something he feels guilty about. She's in his head a lot! If you think you've seen this before, you have. When he's dreaming he sees her. (/Shutter Island)
2) The characters, excepting DiCaprio's are flat and lifeless.
A group is collected. An architect, a chemist, a forger, a researcher, etc. Nolan drops these titles of characters into the movie with no background. How does a forger do what he does in the dream world? It's almost like these people have super powers but there's no real understanding of where or how they became proficient in their skills. Ellen Page's Architect catches on to the dream world faster than anyone DiCaprio has ever seen. I can accept that as fact but a good movie gives me some reason behind it. Nolan just makes obtuse statements that we're expected to accept and move forward. If you've seen the movie, ask yourself if you really know anything about any of the characters besides DiCaprio (and arguably, Cillian Murphy's Robert Fischer Jr.). The answer is that you don't. Despite being nearly 2.5 hours, characters like Arthur (Gorden-Levitt) and Eames (Tom Hardy) are plot devices rather than fun and fleshed out individuals.
3) No one notices how messed up DiCaprio is except Page. Then, no one notices when she asks about it.
So DiCaprio has problems right. Apparently, they've been manifesting where aspects of his subconscious invade dream states of other people (supposedly, this shouldn't happen). His, seeming, long time partner Arthur played by Joseph Gorden-Levitt doesn't ever notice. DiCaprio even has all these elaborate rules of things you aren't supposed to do that Arthur accepts at face value. He even parrots the line "Because Cobb says so" at multiple points in the movie as if that should be an obvious explanation as to why you don't do certain things. Turns out, DiCaprio only has those rules as a way to try and prevent his own crazy ass from screwing up missions. Ellen Page notices that he's fucked up. Then she proceeds to ask him if he'll be alright IN FRONT OF THE REST OF THE CREW (when Saito's on the table after being shot and when they enter the third dream level of snow fortress) and no one notices. Seriously, if the new team member were to say, "Hey boss, are you going to be able to handle this?" in front of me, I'd be curious what she meant.
4) The action scenes all depend on Arthur being a screw up in the thing he's best at.
So Gordon-Levitt's character is supposed to research the target. He's the best at this. Turns out that once they kidnap the target he's been trained against dream-invasion. Oops! There's no explanation as to why or how Arthur misses this other than him saying, "I didn't know!"
5) The composition is abrasive and overly loud.
The last 20 minutes of the movie include a score at forte. It's annoying and unnecessary.
6) The ending is cheap and lazy.
There's lots of things in the movie that bothered me but I would have thought the movie was OK until the last 10 minutes when Nolan loses track of the timeline and then decides to force his genius down the audience's collective throat. Premise: In deeper dream levels, time moves faster. Result: People get old in the 4th(?) level (limbo) of dreaming but DiCaprio doesn't. At the end of the movie, a young DiCaprio has stuck around to find Saito who was lost in the 4th dream level. Saito offers to clear DiCaprio of a crime so DiCaprio has to save him. It's entirely unclear when or how DiCaprio ends up in the same dream limbo as Saito -- DiCaprio was already there but then he shows up again on the shore . . . seriously, the timeline makes no sense. So now that DiCaprio has been in this dream world for the same amount of time as Saito, he's still regular age while Saito is an old man. We know from earlier in the movie that DiCaprio can age. There's no explanation of why one of them is old and the other isn't that fits the timeline and the temporal requirements of the dream world.
The second part of the ending that Nolan completely screws the movie is the last 10 seconds. (SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!) The movie ends and you don't know whether the entire thing has been a dream or not. I've already had a protracted discussion with my friends regarding this and none of the explanations are satisfying. While the end isn't entirely conclusive, it points to DiCaprio having been dreaming the entire time. But Nolan takes the easy way out and doesn't make a decision. He offers hints that DiCaprio both may or may not have been dreaming the entire time. If it was all a dream, then the movie is a waste. If it isn't a dream, then Nolan was too cowardly to make that decision. The top should fall and he should be decisive about the vision he wanted for his movie. Instead, he's wishy-washy trying to have his cake and eat it too. It fails badly.
Summary: The movie is not, despite what critics will say, original. The characters, with a few exceptions, are lost to an overly wordy script. The movie has internal inconsistencies that detract from the plot. The ending is terrible.
72 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1
but that might be another week from now.
follow me on twitter @nickg105
by stlcardinalsfang on Jul 18, 2010 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions
me too
gonna see it sometime this week. But please go see it people (even if it is overrated), if for nothing else than to drive up it’s box office gross and send Hollywood a message that we’d rather have attempts at original ideas representing a real creative process instead of Saw 12 or another shitty remake or some POS marketing tie-in movie.
/run-on
Just saw it
Liked it, didn’t love it. Thought that Nolan was intentionally being complicated, would have rather scene a less plot driven movie built upon the mechanics of inception and character building. Seriously, waaaaaay too much plot for me.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2010 4:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I loved the movie, but these are all fair points except for the last
Saito is much older in limbo because he died a few minutes earlier in level 1, which would be an eternity in level 4/limbo. That’s why he’s so much older. Or, you can theorize that the whole sequence with Leo/Old Saito is a completely new level because it starts in medias res, like dreams were proven to do.
I don’t think he’s trying to be wishy-washy with the ending, and it surely has nothing to do with cowardice. It makes you rethink every single event in the movie. For example, pay attention to the scene immediately after they meet Yusuf. Cobbs freaks out about Mal, wakes up, and immediately goes to the bathroom. He spins his totem, but before it gets going, Saito interrupts him, Cobbs knocks over the totem, so we don’t know with 100% certainty that every event after that one is NOT a dream
Also pay attention to scenes were Cobbs is and is not wearing a wedding ring; I’m guessing that it’s significant, but I’m not sure how
Of all sad words of tongue or pen; the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'
My friends and I debated the timeline with Saito's death.
I admit that explanation is feasible but I’d need to see the film again to be able to verify it.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
I thought the end was very wishywashy.
The top falters and makes sound like it’s going to fall before he fades out. I also think the “it’s all a dream” ending is trite and cheap because it gives him license to do anything and never explain it which is problematic for me.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
Inception was not Blade Runner
I'm one of those "I don't care how you killed the cow; just serve me a great steak" guys. If the results are logical and easy to understand, I'm pouring some A1 sauce on that formula and eating it. UZR qualifies. -Bill Simmons
I think the ending doesn't call into question the entire movie
The only real question is whether he made it out of limbo or not.
by Mulliganstew on Jul 18, 2010 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions
That was my interpretation of it as well.
although I’m sure ridiculously complex theories have already been presented that attempt to show otherwise.
I have to disagree
As with all Nolan movies, he uses a complex setting to deliver a simple message. The entire theme is one of closure. With Fisher, the inceptions is meant to help Saito disband Fisher’s company, but it also works as a device to let Fisher gain closure on the rocky relationship he shares with his father. Cobb is also in need of closure from the feelings of guilt regarding his wife’s death. Too many people are focusing on whether the ending is a dream or not, but I feel it is more representative of the fact that closure is relative. Although he finally addressed his feelings of guilt about being responsible for his wife’s death, he still uses her totem to determine whether he is in reality or not. Also, regardless of if he addressed things with her or not, he will never truly get over her. I feel that this is why the top spins, but also falters, because it shows that closure may be felt, but never entirely…
Or I’m an idiot. One of the two
Meh, it makes you rethink the entire movie, like mysterui said
But what bothers me more is the idea that if Nolan doesn’t make a choice about the top, then he is being cowardly or wishy-washy.
It leaves us able to make our own decision about the movie; and if we can’t decide which it was, then we are being cowardly or wishy-washy. I would imagine, in Nolan’s mind, he already knows whether the top fell or not. He knows whether or not he thinks it was a dream; he’s just not telling us the answer.
Now, if he doesn’t have an answer in mind, at least for himself, that’s something else. I don’t get that impression from the movie, but I may be wrong.
I noticed most of the rest of your points, but they didn’t really bother me enough to ruin the movie for me.
Also, perhaps these are indications that it was a dream; things aren’t fully explained (the tech, the recruits, how Arthur screwed up, why nobody notices Cobb’s fails). Like Cobb says to the girl when they’re at the cafe: it is only later that you realize something was missing.
I also agree with Epic below; this was much better than most of the movies coming out of Hollywood in the last while. That’s part of the hype, but it is also a pretty good movie.
Could Colby Rasmus hit a ball so hard that even he couldn't catch it?
by Cardinals645 on Jul 20, 2010 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, maybe see this link:
Favorite point in summation: Just because it is all a dream, doesn’t mean it is a waste of time. “…what’s important is that the breakthrough that Fischer has in the ski fortress is real. Despite the fact that his father is not there, despite the fact that the pinwheel was never by his father’s bedside, the emotions that Fischer experiences are 100 percent genuine.” I would add, that dream changes Fischer’s life as he will now break up his father’s business empire.
Could Colby Rasmus hit a ball so hard that even he couldn't catch it?
by Cardinals645 on Jul 20, 2010 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I turned to Josh during the first 30-40 minutes and told him I thought that Cobb was dreaming, so the ending wasn't a surprise to me at all.
1) You’ve seen nearly every movie before. The reviews I’ve read haven’t supported the idea that this movie is original. Every review I’ve read mentions The Matrix.
2) This is further evidence to support the idea that he was dreaming. I know when I dream I’m the most detailed character in my dreams.
3) Again, this is further evidence to support the notion that Cobb is in a dream-state. “It’s only when you wake up that you notice something was strange.”
4) More support for the dream-state. In dreams, things are accepted as fact usually without explanation. In real life, I ask a lot of questions. In dreams, not so much.
5) I liked it. But I also liked the score to “There Will be Blood” so I may just like jarring and off-putting music.
6) Because I believed Cobb was dreaming, the ending was intriguing to me. It reinforced my position because the kids were both dressed the same and they were playing in the exact same position the entire film, including when he supposedly leaves the country. And that’s before we discuss the spinning top or the grandmother whose voice is heard in one scene while she is never shown.
The top: it falters, yes. It falters twice, even. But it doesn’t come close to falling. Cobb walking away from the top in order to see his kids indicates that he has decided to forgive himself for betraying his wife and he rewards himself with the memory of his kids’ faces.
Now. His mother. He doesn’t speak to her on the phone, but hears her condemnation through his children instead. He hears her voice in the background of the call. She is never shown, and thus is perhaps only real in his dreams. Cobb’s father was such a minor character. I feel like the fact that he was shown at all further differentiates between his existence and her’s. But presumably she is watching the children while Cobb’s father picks him up at the airport.
Wait… Remember when he asks Ariadne how she arrived at the cafe? How did Cobb arrive at his house? He goes from airport to the familiar hallway of his home. No transportation. In previous scenes, transportation was shown: the helicopter at the beginning, the vehicles during the heist, and the plane. But no trip home was shown. How did he get there?
Regression, bitches.
by spants on Jul 18, 2010 9:27 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Another thought:
When Arthur meets Cobb to catch their helicopter, isn’t it dark in the hotel room? And then light outside when they get on the helicopter? I’d have to see it again to verify, and I don’t plan to pay to see it again.
I don’t think he was dreaming the entire time. Just most of it.
Regression, bitches.
If you're ok with him dreaming the whole time
then a lot of the problems I have can, as you’ve been described, be used to corroborate or support that view.
The other problem I had was that I guessed the twist to who he had used Inception on about 5 minutes after that conversation came up with Page. So, I knew a major “twist” that was coming. That’s not necessarily Nolan’s fault though.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
Yeah, I should've seen that twist coming, but I didn't for whatever reason.
I suppose that would make the rest of the movie pointless.
Regression, bitches.
I didn't see it either
I’m really terrible about predicting plot twists in a movie unless the movie story is terrible
Sign Austin Wilson!
Because this movie came after The Matrix, it was not as original,
however there are several elements in it that are far more plausible and better done.
Numbers not in numerical order:
1. In The Matrix, the love story is shallow and lame and acted near replacement-level. The love story in Inception is far more believable and much more complex. Love fucks with your head, and love in layers of dreaming that cause you to make decisions that lead to the death of your lover also fuck with your head. Somehow, the characters of The Matrix are unfazed or unable to act fazed by godlike powers, unreliable senses, and the deaths and reincarnations of one another.
2. Elements of unreality in The Matrix take a backseat to action-blah. Yes, the action was very impressive, but IMO the early portion of The Matrix is much more thematically intense and gratifying because it retains these elements of disconcerting unreality. The film lost these midway through and this doomed the sequels for utter disaster. Inception actually carries its theme throughout the movie. I definitely agree that the ending was shite for being ambiguous, but I think the theme was still strong and that this was a good element.
3. The characters in The Matrix inexplicably fight using kung-fu. Yes, the fights in Inception are based on a somewhat convenient premise- that one of the team members fucked up at his job, but that’s far more believable than the premise that robots from the future will train their version of AdAware to use kung-fu.
4. Every detail shouldn’t or can’t always be given: Yes, Leo collects a team of superheroes to do his dream-bidding, and none of their powers were all that well fleshed out (military dream-sharing research blah dee blah something), but when a science fiction movie tries to explain things that it can’t explain it often runs into things that don’t square with, say, the laws of thermodynamics (humans as batteries to power the machine world? WTF?) (every scientific detail of Avatar? WTFFFF!??)
I'm one of those "I don't care how you killed the cow; just serve me a great steak" guys. If the results are logical and easy to understand, I'm pouring some A1 sauce on that formula and eating it. UZR qualifies. -Bill Simmons
I've never seen the Matrix
because of Keanu. I even have the DVD too and never watched it. How sad is that?
Sign Austin Wilson!
I'm incredibly pissed he's going to be in the live action of Cowboy Bebop
by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2010 4:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Indeed
I was really hoping that movie was going to be good too.
Sigh…
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
Re 4
Well if you want to call the movie a science fiction movie it actually has to have some science in it. I didn’t get a very good sense of what the fuck was happening with the mechanics of inception and all of the characters (did anyone?) so it pretty much watched like a standard action flick to me.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2010 5:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree.
While I usually prefer “hard” science fiction where the author is intelligent enough to give plausible scientific details for the mechanics of what goes on, it’s very difficult for movies to pull off and it often leads to terrible mistakes like the Matrix’s violation of the laws of thermodynamics, the idiotic inclusion of midichlorians of Star Wars Ep. 1, every detail of most Star Trek movies, etc. Often, it’s better for the pace of stories to simply be vague about the science and deal with the implications (Kafka’s Metamorphosis, Primer, The Fifth Element, Alien).
I'm one of those "I don't care how you killed the cow; just serve me a great steak" guys. If the results are logical and easy to understand, I'm pouring some A1 sauce on that formula and eating it. UZR qualifies. -Bill Simmons
(Spoilers) My biggest complaint with this movie is the large amount of exposition in it
most of this movie is just the movie explaining itself. I could not shake the feeling that I was watching a movie.
My second biggest complaint was that there was just little tension for me. I didn’t really care if they succeeded in implanting the idea into the guy’s head because it was so mundane, and the consequences of failure weren’t that great.
Third, the film’s editing was terrible. It often would create a lot of unnecessary discontinuities in what should be simple, fluid sequences.
I also didn’t like the Asian actor in this movie. Maybe it’s more authentic to cast someone who can barely speak English in this particular role, but I don’t want to listen to his stilted lines that sound so much like mush that I have to strain my ears to understand it.
Lastly, I personally would have a liked a little more surrealism in the movie. Just a personal preference, but I thought they underutilized the dream world.
Those are my complaints, but overall I’d say it’s not a bad movie, just a little boring and disappointing. I saw the midnight showing on Thursday so I was obviously pretty excited to see this going in, maybe my expectations were too high. Very reminiscent of Shutter Island, a movie which I liked a lot more because of it’s suspense.
by TheBirds on Jul 18, 2010 11:06 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I liked the movie a lot
I can’t wait to see it again to pick on all the things that were going on. I had no problems with any of the actors in the movie.
Sign Austin Wilson!
Saw the movie on Saturday and agree with many points here, but mainly this:
My second biggest complaint was that there was just little tension for me. I didn’t really care if they succeeded in implanting the idea into the guy’s head because it was so mundane, and the consequences of failure weren’t that great.
The concept is “cool,” but somewhat derivative, the music is awful, the actors are enjoyable, mostly, many of the effects are jaw-dropping, but in the end its “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” $200+ million to prove that sometimes its hard to drop a hint……
I found the film to be a breath of fresh air in a rather dull box-office summer...
While the concept was not entirely original, at least it wasn’t abusing old/rehashed source material. Nolan has been working on this particular project for about a decade, so there are many ideas being packed into these two-plus hours, even if a few are slightly “borrowed”.
I also actually quite liked the ending as well. It was kind of funny that it was, in a way, not unlike Shutter Island’s open ending (Leo, stay away from the crazy women). It reminds me of so many great films that beg to be dissected using collaborative learning. Blade Runner, nearly any Kubrick film (especially 2001’s brilliant close), and Lindsay Anderson’s “O Lucky Man!”, among others.
One of the things that bother me to no end about the movie going public is proclaiming an ending such as this to be “cheap and lazy”. The director wants you to make your mind up. I’m not, in any way, trying to compare Christopher Nolan to Kubrick, but the same things were said about him during his time. Everyone wants the answers to be handed to them. Nolan just opened a complex maze of abstract dissonance and threw away the key. I’m quite alright with that. Probably my favorite film of all time is 2001 for, among many reasons, the fact that it’s infinitely open to interpretation. Inception, despite it’s flaws (notably imporatant characters being devoid of emotion and rather flat in general), has that same vanguard-like spirit that is needed in modern film.
"When I gave up a grand slam to Pete LaCock," Bob Gibson said later, "I knew it was time to quit."
Probably a typo or two in there...
running on fumes this “glorious” Monday morning
"When I gave up a grand slam to Pete LaCock," Bob Gibson said later, "I knew it was time to quit."
by The Classical on Jul 19, 2010 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
See I thought Shutter Island had a definitive ending
Teddy Daniels: [final lines; Teddy’s taking to his partner] You know, this place makes me wonder…
Chuck Aule: Yeah, what’s that, boss?
Teddy Daniels: Which would be worse, to live as a monster or die as a good man?
Chuck Aule: [as Teddy walks out to meet the orderlies] Teddy?
For me, in Shutter Island, the top fell over.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
I had some mixed feelings about the movie and where it was headed
until that ending. That saved much of the movie for me.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
didn't read this because I haven't seen it yet
but I went to see Predators last night instead of waiting extra time to watch Inception… plus it has one of those overhyped things going for it, it will be hard for it to live up to expectations.
that said, Predators was a really f’d up movie, and while it was no where near as good as the first one, it was worth seeing. better than most ation movies I’ve seen lately. the idea could have been executed a tad better, but it was good, disturbing entertainment. plus Lawrence Fishburn’s character cracked me up.
*now with more veterany veteranness and a higher grit factor
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 19, 2010 12:20 PM EDT reply actions
I saw Predators as well.
I got the sense that if you liked Predator, you would like Predators. You are right, the original is still the best, but the movie did at least entertain me, which was the entire point I guess.
However, the plot was fairly predictable, as was the Doctor’s motives and why he was there, but when he finally poisoned the Sniper, it wasn’t very clear why the hell he was there, even though he said he was a murderer and such. That’s what I noticed anyway.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
saw this last night
I couldn’t have wriotten this review more perfectly. Completely agree. And I would add — what’s the deal with having a character (Watanabe) speaking in mush so that no one can hear what he says —whole film needed sub-titles?
Just win
I actually agree with most of what you said
And having said that, I still really enjoyed this movie. When the biggest summer blockbusters are twilight and grown ups I welcome anything that even attempts to be intelligent and make you think, it succeeded at that for me but I can understand where others would feel it failed.
I’m looking forward to renting the DVD though as I miss some dialogue being hard of hearing and catching all of it with sub titles will make for a better experience for myself.
by lopey986 on Jul 19, 2010 1:49 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I'm totally lost here.
I haven’t seen the movie but I’ve been reading some of this. Is this somehow related to baseball? Please clue me in.
thanx.
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
OT (in the title) stand for off topic.
So no, this is not related to baseball.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
oh, ok, thanx!
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 20, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Although...
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who plays the character ‘Arthur’ in Inception, was also in Angels in the Outfield…with Tony La Russa (making a small cameo).
…or did I just dream that?
I wish.
"When I gave up a grand slam to Pete LaCock," Bob Gibson said later, "I knew it was time to quit."
by The Classical on Jul 20, 2010 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
you wish?
“angels in the outfield” was the tits. right there with “rookie of the year” and “little big league”
No mention of "The Sandlot"?
Rookie of the Year was incredibly dull apart from the mere presence of “Chet Steadman”. Henry Rowengartner played for the Cubs so that’s a blatant strike one in any event.
To tie this to Inception in a way, I’d like to proclaim that Gary Busey has been in limbo since the mid 80’s. Alternate possibility: We’re all in Gary Busey’s dream.
"When I gave up a grand slam to Pete LaCock," Bob Gibson said later, "I knew it was time to quit."
by The Classical on Jul 21, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Rookie of the Year was the worst movie I have ever seen.
I could point out so many different things wrong with it, that the movie just makes absolutely no sense.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
To clear something up
the reason Cobb is young and Saito is old is because Cobb enters limbo at THAT point because he dies in level 1. They go into limbo to chase Fischer by entering Cobbs dream of that world, sense Fischer was only there because of Cobb’s projection of Mal.
Saito dies in the car before it hits the water, sending him into limbo for seemingly an eternity. While it is only moments later in level 1, it is 40+ years in limbo. When Cobb can’t get out of the car (because he is asleep) in level 1, he dies and is sent to limbo. When he arrives there, he is a young man who is in search of Saito.
Similarly to when he was in limbo with Mal, he and Saito have to realize that limbo is not reality. Killing yourself in limbo isn’t enough to get yourself out of limbo, you have to realize that you will wake up and re-enter reality. That’s what he convinces Saito to do. Saito shoots Cobb, which wakes him up first and then kills himself (thus the delay in him waking).
This is how that scene plays out.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 21, 2010 1:07 PM EDT reply actions
Hang on.
Isn’t Cobb in Level 4/Limbo by the time Saito dies, with Ariadne, confronting Mal?
In other words, he actually spends more time in limbo than Saito.
But I think there are two potentially complementary yet independent reasons for Cobb’s lack of aging. First, Saito doesn’t know limbo is a dream in the same way Cobb does – Cobb’s been there before, and Cobb entered it consciously. Saito – even if he’s been told dying on Level 1 sends him to Level 4/Limbo – is still dying/waking up, so that it feels real in the way that Cobb knows it’s not.
Second, while every seems to be experiencing time in identically dilated ways on Levels 1-3, I don’t know that that is necessarily the case for Level 4, especially because of the first thing I mentioned. Saito may have experienced even more time while Cobb was searching for him.
Also, I disagree with az’s summary of the last part of the movie. It is entirely possible for everything (chronologically) after Ariadne leaves with Fischer to be Cobb’s dream, and Cobb’s dream alone. I was tipped off because Cobb’s house is (I believe, but would need rewatching to confirm) that his house is identical to how he remembered it, his children are wearing the identical clothing and in what appears to be the identical poses from his memories/dreams. The top is just the cherry on top of that whole scene – the least subtle signal that Cobb’s happy ending is not “real.”
Finally, I wonder if Level 4/Limbo is apparently communal in some sense – if he and Mal built that, what retained it other than him? And was any of it left in Saito’s particular corner of Level 4?
by Craig Esherick's Mustache on Jul 24, 2010 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions
On the clothes...
…I’d have to watch it again, but I’ve read that the clothes the children are wearing are not identical to what they had been in his dreams.
-- GOOCH
So can anyone explain how...
When the car is in free fall, the 2nd level dream world enters free fall, but then the 3rd level dream world magically has gravity?
Because they aren't falling in the 2nd level?
In zero-gravity their equilibrium is balanced, no matter whether they are upside down, right side up or sideways?
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 22, 2010 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm gonna go ahead and say this was the worst movie I have ever seen
babip giveth... and babip taketh away
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fever_Pitch_(2005_film)
I'm one of those "I don't care how you killed the cow; just serve me a great steak" guys. If the results are logical and easy to understand, I'm pouring some A1 sauce on that formula and eating it. UZR qualifies. -Bill Simmons
Yeah, seriously
Even if you think the plot is overrated, it is well acted, well paced, and is at least intelligent
Of all sad words of tongue or pen; the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'
I don't agree with haze
but I also would never ascribe the term “well paecd” to the blather fest that was Inception’s script.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
...
I thought it was paced so fast it was like watching it on speed. The entire film was devoted to the incredibly complex plot with almost nothing in the way of character building, or helping the viewer to understand the mechanics of what the fuck was going on.
Honestly, thinking about it now it’s a lot closer to the type of movie that I would work out too than one that I would be enthralled by.
by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2010 4:14 AM EDT up reply actions
alright, finally saw inception tonight and gotta disagree with most of your points
wasn’t like a “top 5” all time movie, but it was a hell of a lot better than you make it out to be. I’ll expand on this comment tomorrow when I’ve got the time.
OT: The Matrix
I like the Matrix but can’t watch it without thinking the whole thing is built on a bad premise: Humans as batteries.
I can see computers using human brains as a vast network for parallel information processing, but I can’t see them squandering energy on humans to use as very inefficientbatteries. Whatever they’re feeding the humans could be converted to electricity more efficiently in some other form.
The two responses that are usually offered are “fusion” and “humans as food.”
Fusion: If the computers have fusion, they don’t need the feeble human electricity.
Humans as food: With no plants available, are they feeding the humans other humans? I think they’d get more energy by burning the human bodies than by processing them to feed them to each other.
2nd law of thermodynamics and all……..
I'm never watching any other movies ever again.
It’s all The Burbs, all the time for this guy. Why have hamburger when you can have steak, right?
"In 2035, 25 young men will be able to call themselves world champions. Some of those guys haven’t even been born yet. And some of them are Asian." -Mike Shannon
I think a much better movie dealing with dreams and stuff was Paprika
In that movie there was a lot more personal interactions and it generally made it feel much more real. I don’t think there was a single awkward line spoken in Inception.
Az and I think exactly the same
Weird. This is pretty close to exactly the critique of Inception I gave over at BOTB. Great minds think alike I guess. ;) D.GOOCH
http://www.birdsonthebat.org/showthread.php?t=58555
-- GOOCH
One point of contention
I do like the score. In fact, I think it is one of the more memorable scores in years.
-- GOOCH
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
