I really enjoyed Inception, but I don't really understand why some people think it's a mind-blowing masterpiece. To me, it was more of a kick-ass action/heist flick than anything else. I would have preferred a more in-depth study of the subconscious, and dreams in relation to reality. I still had a lot of fun and will definitely pick up a copy as soon as it hits Blu-Ray.
Oh, and it would've been nice if Leo's character in Inception wasn't nearly identical to his character in Shutter Island.
I'm with the party-poopers, I did not get into it, much like I didn't get into "The Dark Knight" or even "Memento" for the simple reason that I need more than cool effects, style, mood and atmosphere, I need a compelling, coherent story, something that hooks me in and captivates me.
I teach college screenwriting courses, work as a screenwriting (and the IndieTalk.com dvd reviewer) and, watching "Inception" I recalled my 8th grade creative writing teacher who advised me to avoid dream/"and then I woke up" narratives at all costs, because it is just too easy to explain everything in a dream world, it's like an invitation to be incoherent and just make things up as you go along.
I recalled my 8th grade creative writing teacher who advised me to avoid dream/"and then I woke up" narratives at all costs, because it is just too easy to explain everything in a dream world, it's like an invitation to be incoherent and just make things up as you go along.
Ha! I don't remember the exact wordage but Robert Rodriguez said something a bit different. He said that if you have something cool but you don't know where it fits in your movie, put it in a dream. (something to that effect)
I'm not sure I agree, there are a LOT of people who did not like Avatar at all. Most people love inception, and the nay sayers don't hate it, they just don't see how people think its so mind blowing. At least thats what I've gathered.
I thought the film was fantastic. Great story, great actors, nice ideas, entertaining cinematography, sweet action scenes, music etc. and gets you thinking.
It's a very complicated film so people who dont want to pay constant attention etc. will propobly find it confusing
Its perfectly normal that the movie's script doesn't appeal to everyone in the same way, but one thing that is almost indisputable is that its a wonderfully crafted film. One of the things that I often see being thrown at Chris Nolan is hi alleged disregard for detail. I never understood this argument that supposedly basis itself on how less attention Nolan gives to character development. I actually think that Nolan simply doesn't stop to explain everything. In this movie, like in most of the previous movies, the characters are developed as the story progresses, there is no need to stop the story from going forward to tell you the background or explain how a dramatic event in the past traumatized a character in order to explain his choices and actions. This is done in parallel with the action.
i agree with cocytus. i didnt feel like it had much of a story at all. first, he's right that leo pretty much played the same character as in shutter island, which was disappointing. not because he wasnt cool in si but i would have liked to see something different.
The entire purpose of the film wasnt even to tell a story, it was to explain this big crazy inception system that nolan spent god-knows-how-long working on. Literaly 85 percent of the movie was adding a detail to this layer of dreams and how it all works and the rules and whatever. the story itself was pretty bland, not a prevelant part of the film at all. it just served as a catalyst for the drama.
Dont get me wrong, nolan is a fine director, and it takes a lot of time and patience and creativity to pull of something like this, i just dont think it served the purpose of a film and that is telling a story and developing an interesting character.
I know what you mean.
I thought that the dream imagery in The Cell was much better than most of the imagery in this movie.
And that was made in 1998.
Nolan is a talented director (I think that The Dark Knight is one of the best Hollywood movies of the 21st century, so far) but I also think that he really slipped w/ this one.
W/O giving anything away,I was struck by the fact that the main premise (somebody having killed someone else) was presented in such a ridiculous manner.
There were (and are) a half a dozen ways that could have been presented in a believable manner and yet the route that was chosen wasn't among them..
Perhaps a "Director's Cut" of this movie will be better than the theatrical release,but I'm not holding out much hope.
cocytus, I respect your opinion on this but strongly disagree with you. That said, I would like to know where you are coming from with your position, what it is that you saw and a whatnot.
However, since the movie is new and I don't want to spoil anything for others on here can I take a rain check to discuss this with you? Let's pick this up in say...late September to early October.
And I respect yours.
I posted above one of my primary concerns about the film.
There are many ,many others but since this one affects (IMHO) the entire logic behind the film,I was never able to get past it.
Honestly,for a movie that was supposed to be about dreams,the dream portions (with a few exceptions) surprisingly bland. That and the one dimensional supporting cast made watching this movie a chore.
The good news: It's a very entertaining movie made by a master craftsman at the height of his powers.
The bad news: Disappointed by the lost opportunity -- here you got the almost infinite landscape of the subconscious and the dream world to explore, filled with metaphoric and symbolic possibilities and what do we get? An action flick within an action flick within an action flick, with all the usual action-flick tropes and imagery, done to a fine-honed edge of professional craftsmanship.
I know Nolan spent a long time writing it. And yeah, the concept and execution kicks ass. IF ONLY...
I thought it was a pretty good movie. I thought the idea and story were well thought out and I thought that the effects didn't overwhelm the movie, but helped the storyline along.
I don't really go see too many Di Caprio films. I saw Shutter Island, but the disapointment for me was the fact that Alan Parker did a better job with Angel Heart back in 1987. Creepy. Never saw Titanic, just don't care.
-- spinner
EDIT: Yeah, I know it was Scorsese, but I'm just sayin'...
And I respect yours.
I posted above one of my primary concerns about the film.
There are many ,many others but since this one affects (IMHO) the entire logic behind the film,I was never able to get past it.
Honestly,for a movie that was supposed to be about dreams,the dream portions (with a few exceptions) surprisingly bland. That and the one dimensional supporting cast made watching this movie a chore.
Disappointed by the lost opportunity -- here you got the almost infinite landscape of the subconscious and the dream world to explore, filled with metaphoric and symbolic possibilities and what do we get? An action flick within an action flick within an action flick, with all the usual action-flick tropes and imagery, done to a fine-honed edge of professional craftsmanship.
i agree, though one of the more original things out of hollywood in the last years, it still is a rather conventional action movie, including psychological inaccuracy.
Sure, if by "a LOT" you mean almost none. Whatever.
I like Chris Nolan a lot. "Dark Knight" is on my top-5 movies of all-time list. He is a master storyteller. But, I'm gonna have to say "Inception" is only kinda cool.
I don't like it when a movie tries to be so deep that people debate what it's really about. I'm not saying there isn't any worth to that kind of thing; it has it's place. But that's not really storytelling.
I like the fact that at the end of "Sixth Sense", we know that
Bruce Willis is dead
. There is no debating that. In "Million Dollar Baby", Eastwood
kills her, against his own wishes, because he loves her.
No debate on that one, either. In this thread, a lot of you keep mentioning "Shutter Island" --
he is definitely a patient, and he makes the concious decision to be lobotomized.
In all of the movies I'm making examples of, the ending is unexpected (at least, when you walked into the theater, it's not what you expected), but there's no confusion as to what's going on. And, there's no deeper hidden meaning. In each of these examples, the ending is just the perfect way to wrap up a well-told story.
STORY.
I don't go to movies for symbolism. Some people do, and that's fine. I, personally, just want to be entertained, and at the end of the day, it's a well-told story that does the trick.
"Inception" is cool. I didn't not like it. But ultimately, I think it's no better than a slickly-produced popcorn flick. And that's okay.
I teach college screenwriting courses, work as a screenwriting (and the IndieTalk.com dvd reviewer) and, watching "Inception" I recalled my 8th grade creative writing teacher who advised me to avoid dream/"and then I woke up" narratives at all costs, because it is just too easy to explain everything in a dream world, it's like an invitation to be incoherent and just make things up as you go along.
