Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

[matrixschmatrix]

This is going to be a movie that's going to make party discussions unbearable for the next fifteen years, but it's nice to enjoy the pleasures of this film now.

That is one thing that worries me- I'm afraid this will be like the Matrix or Memento in that people will endlessly discuss it in a way that focuses on the most trivial parts (or pretends that it's the greatest philosophical work in history and never talk about anything remotely dream related without forcing it to relate to the movie.)

I've already seen a number of discussions where people remember the ending wrongly-

Spoiler

either dead sure the top falls or dead sure it never wobbles

and get mad when people suggest that they may be misrembering. That's... not fun.

[R0lf]

I think this movie is so concerned with the overall story and constructing each scene in context of the story that it ends up ignoring the value you can construct with character and dialogue to make each scene entertaining as well. The frenetic pacing reminded me a bit of a Zulawski movie where he throws you in the deep end and then just continues the entire movie at full throttle while you begin to slowly absorb where it is going and what is happening as the plot unfolds. Where I think Zulawski succeeded in his movies was also in the fact that he had thoughtful and well delivered dialogue and execution. While I realise that it might be unpopular to overwrite - play like - dialogue into semi realist films I think Nolan could have countered this with more measured delivery of the dialogue and having a low key score.

Spoiler

I did wonder like others if Mal could have been trying to pull Cobb out of his dream reality. After the movie finished I also came to the conclusion that this is not the case or important because the idea she was not living in reality was placed there by Cobb she would continue to kill herself in all the waking realities until she killed the real self. The possibility also occurred to me that Ariadne was Cobb's daughter trying to pull Cobb out of his dream reality. This would tie into why she was suddenly introduced by Cobb's father and with the time passed between the different levels this might have been possible.

[Quot]

Interesting tidbit about Zimmer's score:

Inception Music Comparison

[Roger Ryan]

Interesting tidbit about Zimmer's score:

Inception Music Comparison

That's very cool!

It almost makes me forgive Nolan/Zimmer for cramming so much of that score into the film.

[wattsup32]

Interesting tidbit about Zimmer's score:

Inception Music Comparison

That's exceptionally slick! I thought using the Piaf was really corny because of the obvious Cotillard connection. This explains it. I confess I hated the score for what I thought it did to the pacing and emotional depth of the film. This makes me wanna rewatch it.

Is this dreaming slowing of the real-life song a function of the time conversion in dream space? Sort of like the appearance of slow motion in film is the result of overcranking the reel. So, hearing the song in real time in reality, it has to get slowed down to fill out all the extra dream time? Does this give us a clue about whether or not it may all have been a dream?

[HistoryProf]

that's pretty awesome. Gives a whole new appreciation to it all - and I was in the camp that found it a tad overbearing.

[Joe Buck]

A detailed report of my ordeal, if you are interested.

LINK

[mario gauci]

07/24/10: INCEPTION (Christopher Nolan, 2010) ***

[Spoilers Ahead]

The death of my beloved 11-year old dog Renoir (aka Reggie), the crashing (yet again) of my PC and the stifling heat of the Maltese Summer have collectively conspired to create another unforeseen hiatus in my film reviewing activities; however, when something ‘special’ like this comes along, it is virtually impossible to hold back one’s desire to have a go at praising, deconstructing or interpreting it – so here goes…

Seeing how Luis Bunuel (the master in the depiction of cinematic reveries) is my all-time favorite auteur, it goes without saying that I am fascinated by dream sequences in movies and the notion that INCEPTION was going to be an elaborate exploration of the dream-state in arty sci-fi/caper thriller terms was a potentially invigorating one. I must say that director Nolan assembled quite a remarkable cast here (even though it does feel sometimes like their names were ticked triumphantly off of a list of actors he has been wanting to work with): Leonardo Di Caprio, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page and Ken Watanabe (being the established “heavyweights”); Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon Levitt and Dileep Rao (the up-and-coming “new breed”); Tom Berenger, Lukas Haas and Pete Poslethwaite (the “comeback” crowd); plus Michael Caine and Cillian Murphy (from Nolan’s own “stock company”). All the actors rise deftly to the occasion but I would single out Cotillard (as Di Caprio’s enigmatic dead wife who haunts him constantly), Gordon-Levitt and Hardy (as members of Di Caprio’s elite theme of dream-stealers) for particular praise. Two equally impressive contributions to the film’s overall success are Hans Zimmer’s powerful score and some truly dazzling special visual effects (especially during the amazing ‘folding city’ sequence). Besides, for a typically (by today’s standards) protracted 148-minute movie, it was a surprisingly fast ride.

Now, as is perhaps my custom for contemporary fare, comes the barrage of reservations I had with the film which, in some people’s minds, might disqualify the *** (i.e. good) rating above!: above all, I had a problem with the film’s relentless desire to “have the cake and eat it too” by turning out what is, essentially, the cerebral version of the action-packed Summer blockbuster. The members of Di Caprio’s team are supposed to be technological geeks but the extraordinary life-saving feats they accomplish in the movie (albeit only ever taking place in their subconscious) would make James Bond dive for his hat and pension cheque!; the latter’s iconic presence is particularly recalled in the final snow-bound dream sequence that literally plays out like the 21stCentury version of ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE (1969). I also found the gravity-defying flying antics of the hotel room set-piece hard to take and not a little silly (especially when Gordon-Levitt has to carry out his dormant companions on top of one another!) – and this is coming from somebody who has so far resisted the urge to watch (sacrilege of sacrileges) THE MATRIX trilogy. Again, I understand that most of what we see is supposed to be taking place in the dream-state but it felt pretty ridiculous to me to have six people all asleep at one time all the time…even though every manner of bullet and bomb is exploding all around them! Amusingly, that enormously extended slow-motion shot of the van tumbling into the sea reminded me of Howard Hawks’ (unjust in his case) denigrating comment on one of my all-time favorite Westerns i.e. Sam Peckinpah’s THE WILD BUNCH (1969)!

On one hand, I am in awe of Christopher Nolan for having undertaken such a dauntingly complex task – creating a multi-layered maze of dreams within dreams – all by himself (even if it took him a good eight years to do so); on the other hand, however, I do not accept the fact that this should excuse several illogicalities that bugged me as I was watching it, namely: why would Di Caprio accept a newbie (albeit one as graceful as Page and who had been recommended to him by his father-in-law Caine) as part of the team for one final fling at his ultra-specialized job with an all-important outcome (reuniting him with his long-lost children)?; similarly, how on earth could a mere industrialist (Watanabe) nullify Di Caprio’s murder charges by making one phone call?; what was the point of the team risking their lives repeatedly to discover the contents of Poslethwaite’s vault when it has been telegraphed in advance (in that recurring photograph of Murphy as a boy) all along? – irresistible shades of CITIZEN KANE (1941)’s “Rosebud” climactic revelation perchance?; I am sure there was a rock-solid reason for Nolan and Zimmer to go for Edith Piaf’s “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien” anthem as the team’s ‘wake-up’ tune…but the Cotillard connection made it seem far too deliberate. The one cardinal sin that the film commits, in my humble opinion, is that none of the dreams seemed the least bit dream-like to me! They are far too realistically realized and cleverly choreographed to ever attain the jumbled-up and repetitive nature of a true dream [sic]. Although one could easily tell whose dream we were in at any given point in time (since that character is virtually the protagonist in his own vision), I have to admit to losing sight of the stakes in some of them and, what is worse, I did not really care! Equally unimportant, it seems to me, was whether the totem would stop spinning, fall off the table or whatever in that ‘not-all-that-unexpected’ open ending!!

Seeing how some have taken INCEPTION to be a treatise on the nature of dreams in movies, I cannot finish off this review without name-checking a few films myself: it seems telling that I found Nolan’s THE PRESTIGE (2006; also featuring Caine) and Martin Scorsese’s SHUTTER ISLAND (2010; with Di Caprio) – both similarly using a time-shifting narrative structure – as superior and more satisfying movies; on the whole, Alex Proyas’ DARK CITY (1998) was a more striking and enjoyable visionary sci-fi/thriller; judging from its already having claimed the #3 spot in the irrelevant “IMDb Top 250” list, INCEPTION is bound to go the overrated route of Nolan’s previous effort, THE DARK KNIGHT (2008); as a multi-layered narrative film, it is not a patch on Wojciech J. Has’ supremely entertaining picaresque Polish epic THE SARAGOSSA MANUSCRIPT (1965) and, almost a hundred years on, D.W. Griffith’s uniquely ambitious INTOLERANCE (1916) remains the undefeated champion of how such a densely interlocking narrative film should be made.

[gokinsmen]

Saw it. Oy vey:

1) Dreams don't have hard-and-fast logic.
2) So don't make a movie where 70% of the time is devoted to explaining that non-existent logic.
3) I'd forgive all that if there were any emotional/philosophical resonance to the film.
4) There ain't. It's just a crossword puzzle and the ending seals that fate.
5) Nolan, lord love him, still can't shoot action sequences. Whatever you think about The Matrix or Speed or even Pirates of the Caribbean...Nolan could learn a thing or two from those action sequences.

This is my one and only post on this movie. Or is it? It is. It's not. It could be. Or maybe not. It --

[flyonthewall2983]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/ju ... edith-piaf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mr. Ned]

This is my one and only post on this movie. Or is it? It is. It's not. It could be. Or maybe not. It --

I see what you did there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/ju ... edith-piaf

*places La vie en rose into Netflix queue* You have to admit, though, that's some pretty snappy work by Mr. Nolan and Mr. Zimmer. It make the resonance of fog horns bearable, at least.

[Mr Sausage]

1) Dreams don't have hard-and-fast logic.
2) So don't make a movie where 70% of the time is devoted to explaining that non-existent logic.

There is a block of posts in this thread which explains why "this movie isn't about my dreams" is not a valid criticism. You should read what other members have written and try to engage in the discussion.

[knives]

There's also about five pages on why the film does have some emotional and philosophical layers to it, the later more than the former admittedly, it's really helpful to read a bit about what has been said before outright dismissing a film. The film manages to reach beyond crossword puzzle (how does that even make sense as an analogy). Maybe if you at least skim over the last couple of pages, specifically where Mfunk is concerned, you might be able to bring forth an argument of some sort.

[Marcel Gioberti]

I don't think the issue of emotional engagement regarding Inception can be solved through literacy (E.g. - Re-reading all the praise for the movie). It's entirely too subjective.

I was completely unmoved by all the expository information about Cobb and his wife and his golden-headed kiddies. It was hammy, perhaps intentionally, but does it matter? All of Cobb's past felt and looked like it was lifted from a Hallmark channel cutting room floor. Because I found all the gunplay juvenile at best and absurdly immature at worst, it was only though characterization and emotional gravitas that I was gonna buy Inception. Unfortunately, the script was very thin, awkwardly self-serious, and the edit was pared down to the bone so I had no time nor inclination to feel involved with Cobb.

I would hate to deny anybody else their glowing read of Inception, but I don't share it. However, please don't call me retarded or question my literacy. I'll cry.

[Svevan]

Keep your opinion, that's fine - but what's the difference between juvenile and immature? I'm wondering which one is worse.

[knives]

That's a real surface reading of the film. The Hallmark aspects actually fit into my interpretation of the film for example. If you dislike something and you have avaliable to you differing opinions from trustworthy sources, some of the members of this board, why would you be unwilling to at least be aware of why they would have such an opinion. If you don't go in with that learning/teaching POV there isn't much of a reason to visit a forum in the first place. Instead of bringing up imaginary attacks, no one except you has brought up retardation or illiteracy, why not just focus on the topic at hand. Hell if you find nine pages of information not worth sifting through on this film I'll be willing to quote a few posts that could help out (though just looking at Domino, Sausage, and Mfunk's posts should work fine).

[HistoryProf]

5) Nolan, lord love him, still can't shoot action sequences. Whatever you think about The Matrix or Speed or even Pirates of the Caribbean...Nolan could learn a thing or two from those action sequences.

--

nonsense. The scene with JGL in the Hotel Room and then the elevator was one of the most ingenious and elegant "action" sequences i've ever seen. And he did it without CGI - which is more than I can say for the examples you posted.

[Grand Illusion]

5) Nolan, lord love him, still can't shoot action sequences. Whatever you think about The Matrix or Speed or even Pirates of the Caribbean...Nolan could learn a thing or two from those action sequences.

--

nonsense. The scene with JGL in the Hotel Room and then the elevator was one of the most ingenious and elegant "action" sequences i've ever seen. And he did it without CGI - which is more than I can say for the examples you posted.

I agree that the sequence you mention is visually stunning. Still, the rest of the gunplay, car chases, snowmobile chases, etc. are shot and chopped up with the incoherence of a Michael Bay movie.

But this one sequence does make the film better at action sequences than both Batman movies.

[Sheriff Chambers]

I've just seen this film and must say that I'm very surprised at the level of interest it's generated on this site. I found it to be a terrible muddle in all respects. I really don't understand why anyone would think it's conceptually interesting (perhaps it might be for some teenagers) and it troubles me that Nolan and others should talk about the film as a serious work (a phenomenon that affected Avatar too). I’m curious as to why some viewers are so interested in plot and narrative where this film is concerned, and I doubt we would talk about a James Bond film in the way that some talk about this film, though I can see no difference between those films and Nolan's latest overblown action flick. A desire for complexity in such a straightforward film strikes me as pretentious.

This is a really ordinary action film and Nolan strikes me as an ordinary filmmaker. Do people really believe he makes interesting films? This, and his other films, are mostly forgettable – surely their value lies in showcasing technology and visual effects, but that's about it. Are we really still impressed by these factors? We all know what can be done with technology now.

I think Nolan is deluded if he thinks he's making a valuable contribution to film culture - and I write as someone that enjoys action and adventure cinema! If the film does have a place in contemporary film culture it's probably one that is concerned with the function of films of this type (why are theses films so successful etc.?, which I do think is interesting) rather than the 'text' of the film itself.

[Steven H]

A desire for complexity in such a straightforward film strikes me as pretentious.

That sentence boggles my mind. Just turning it over in my head for the last couple minutes has aged me ten years. Your post adds absolutely nothing to this discussion and is borderline trolling. Try reading what other people have posted, then think of things to say that might explain why the film is what you say it is, and don't adopt the holier than thou attitude of "I don't know WHY *you people* even care, heavens!" etc.

[Brian C]

I really don't understand why anyone would think it's conceptually interesting (perhaps it might be for some teenagers) and it troubles me that Nolan and others should talk about the film as a serious work (a phenomenon that affected Avatar too). I’m curious as to why some viewers are so interested in plot and narrative where this film is concerned...

If only there was a way to find out what the film's defenders on this forum thought was interesting about the film...

[Svevan]

The teenagers remark is especially insulting, to those of us who liked the film and aren't teenagers, and to teenagers in general.

[Sheriff Chambers]

I'm inclined to disagree with defenders of the film (here and elsewhere). I genuninley think it's a silly fantasy film for boys and I'm surprised that it's found so much support. Just my opinion on having seen the film - I'm sorry if I've upset anyone. Am I so out of step with contemporary tastes?

[swo17]

I'm inclined to ignore the opinions of people who refuse to engage in an actual discussion about the various merits and weaknesses of a given film.

[Svevan]

I'm inclined to disagree with defenders of the film (here and elsewhere). I genuninley think it's a silly fantasy film for boys and I'm surprised that it's found so much support. Just my opinion on having seen the film - I'm sorry if I've upset anyone. Am I so out of step with contemporary tastes?

No one is upset about you being "out of step with contemporary taste." Earlier posters in this thread have commented on the things they didn't like in this film with grace and intelligence; what they DIDN'T do is attack the audience of the film, following the Jonathan Rosenbaum school of criticism, where the critic figures out "who the film is for" and then denounces the film for that reason alone. Mfunk even took note of all the people on here who DID like the movie, and struggled to figure out why; he showed us some respect while never changing his tone or opinion.

Almost all of the statements in your original post fall into two categories:

1) Stupefied wondering about who could possibly like this film,

and

2) Assumptions about what Nolan's motivations were, but this wasn't even specific to the film but rather whether Nolan thought he was "making a valuable contribution to film culture." That's nothing more than a way to criticize the filmmaker without actually discussing the merits of the movie.

In both cases you focused on the people around the movie (those who tend to be fond of it) and not on the movie at all. Even your response about "contemporary tastes" is an attempt to discuss things OTHER than the movie. No one here cares about contemporary tastes. I, like many others, was surprised to find that I liked this film, when I generally don't like Nolan. The only things you actually said about Inception were that it was "a terrible muddle" and an "ordinary action film."

Hate this movie, man. You have permission. But don't talk down to those who like it, don't act incredulous when others like it, don't criticize the movie for the age/sex/location of its viewers, don't assume you know whether the filmmaker is a gasbag or not, and don't get butthurt when people call you out for contributing nothing.

edit: I just went back to re-read this:

If the film does have a place in contemporary film culture it's probably one that is concerned with the function of films of this type (why are theses films so successful etc.?, which I do think is interesting) rather than the 'text' of the film itself.

which is an admission of your lack of concern with the film at all. You seem to have skipped over that part of the conversation altogether, and are more interested in some "cultural" analysis that says "oh dear, oh my, why do these plebieans like such a thing?" as if you were watching us cheer on two gladiators murdering each other or something.