Inception

[Silver]

Love it? Hate it? Bored by it? How did you all like it?

I thought it was excellent.

[Lachlann]

I really liked it.

I don't know how people have a hard time following it, though, lol. I can understanding debating what actually happened at the end and all, but following the general storyline isn't all that hard.

[Silver]

I expected to not get it since people said it would be so difficult and I am not very good at keeping track of storylines.

But I didn't have any trouble at all.

[Steph]

It's on my must see list.

-={LR}=-

[seanstartrunning]

I saw it yesterday. It definitely blew me away. A very intelligent movie, indeed. Makes you think.

[Shang]

I loved this movie!  I watched it a week ago and it was fantastic!  I had no issue following the storyline or anything in it.  It amazes me a little bit that people have issue following it.

[VeryGnawty]

The hype ruined the movie for me.  I kept hearing from critics saying it was either overcomplicated self-aggrandizing, or they were saying that it was a must-see.  It turns out that the movie was neither complicated nor a must-see.  I went into the movie expecting it to be a brainwreck movie like eXistenZ.  However, it is nothing like eXistenZ.  It isn't even as complicated as The Prestige or Memento.  But for a general audience, that may not matter.  If you are not familiar with lucid dreaming, then Inception might brainwreck you more than once.

For a Christopher Nolan movie, I expected a much deeper grasp of the material he was covering.  Instead, it was more like a beginner's guide to lucid dreaming, in entertainment form.  The movie does a good job of covering the psychology behind dreaming and behavior, but fails to comprehend the complexity of the physics of dreams themselves.

The movie has a lot of interesting ideas, but it's not the most complex movie in existence.  In terms of movies that deal with dreams and reality, it doesn't even make my top three list.  If you want an easy to follow movie that deals with the concept of reality, then watch Inception instead of eXistenZ.

If you aren't familiar with lucid dreaming, watch Inception.  It covers lots of topics like dreams within dreams, time distortion, reality checks, and other phenomena that illustrate the difference between dream and reality.

[Sinnyo]

Eee, eXistenZ brings some awkward memories back. I'm a game designer, so the idea of a late-night film set around an MMO appealed to me.. and what followed was like watching a Pangalactic Gargleblaster.

Inception, however, rang very familiar to me. There is some debate over how dream-like it really was, but I didn't struggle much with that; it was believable enough for me, since a genuine dream would have made for a terrible film. Mine never have good plots. It struck me as a metaphor for game design - the creation of worlds ad scenarios which are intended to guide a protagonist to their goal. I enjoyed the way this played out, and that rather nifty layering. I thought Nolan's film showed that hierarchy quite well.

I confess my heart leapt a bit on seeing Eames, the Forger, pull his trick in the hotel bar. It fulfilled a guilty dream of mine from the Matrix - yay for gender-swapping avatars.

[VeryGnawty]

There is some debate over how dream-like it really was, but I didn't struggle much with that; it was believable enough for me, since a genuine dream would have made for a terrible film.

That was a bit of a cache22 for the filmmakers.  Real dreams don't necessarily follow logical sequences or cause and effect events.  But if they would have tried to do that in the movie, then it really would have been too hard to follow.  (Apparently, some people already think it is too hard to follow)

[justmeinoz]

I liked it, but then I did watch it two nights after watching the first episode of "The Prisoner", so it was relatively easy to follow.   I thought it had enough twists to keep you wondering what was next.

[AmySmiles]

I saw it last night.  It was enjoyable and not at all confusing, but I could see how some people might not understand what was going on.  The last clip before it cut to the credits was definitely a cop out.  What an irritating way to make you question the validity of the whole movie

(Thanks for reminding me about eXistenZ, I need to watch that again)

[VeryGnawty]

The last clip before it cut to the credits was definitely a cop out.  What an irritating way to make you question the validity of the whole movie

Nolan tried to do in this movie what he did in The Prestige.  It worked in The Prestige because of the built up suspense and the double-twist.  It doesn't work in Inception because you can see it coming a mile away.  Considering that the third act of the movie constantly beats you over the head with the idea that Cobb doesn't have control of his own mind, it's not terribly surprising that Nolan tries to pull one over one you in the ending by suggesting that everything was a dream all along.

The first half of this movie is the characters telling each other what they are going to do in the second half of the movie.  You already know what's going to go down, and you already know they are going to get stuck in limbo (because of Ken Watanabe's character at the beginning).  There was nothing to figure out.  To use the totem as a twist at the end of the movie is a really weak attempt by Nolan to try to make the movie smart, when he should have had you trying to figure all that stuff out during the movie, instead of at the end of it.  When watching The Prestige, I was constantly trying to figure out what is happening in the movie.  When watching Inception, the characters are constantly telling each other what is happening in the movie.  The only thing I was trying to figure out in this movie was why I was still watching exposition dialogue an hour into the movie.

The clues that were in the movie (Saito's overreaching influence, Mal's constant appearances, the seeming ease of assembling the dream team, Cobb's being chased by corporate thugs, the strange narrow alleyway) were never emphasized nor touched upon.  The audience has no reason to care whether or not Cobb is still dreaming, because his reality (if he were ever in such a thing) is just as ridiculous and inconsistent as his dreams.  Nobody really cares whether Cobb is in some crackpot nightmare, or whether he really is the victim of Mal's ploy, because these themes were never really developed, and many of them are completely absent in the third act of the movie.

[Declan]

I just saw it yesterday, and I thought it was excellent. My friend and I talked about it for ages afterwards. It definitely makes you think.

[Lachlann]

I ended up seeing it again and enjoying it just as much as the first time.

And I'd agree, it'd only be confusing for those who are unfamiliar with lucid dreaming or even astral projection. However, I don't think we were meant to really care about the characters as much as we were to figure out what actually happened, and as such there are several different theories that I can think of. I think that's the fun part of it, discussing all the possibilities. I mean bringing in continued consciousness, lucid dreaming and astral projection only makes the discussion of all these theories much more exciting imo. And I think that was the idea... it was Nolan's inception that people get talking about it.

The story is complex, but that doesn't make it 'smart' exactly. It doesn't try to be more than it is, it doesn't try to patronize the audience either. However, people who are not familiar with lucid dreaming and mythology(Ariadne's character for example is glaringly obvious) they might get lost. The movie is laced with obvious references, but it's put together in a maze or labyrinth fashion.

I thought the ending was perfect. I think people watching Inception expecting a linear story with a definite ending are going to be frustrated or confused. I really don't think it's a movie that tells a story, it's a movie that tells an idea.

[tekla]

It worked in The Prestige because of the built up suspense and the double-twist.

It worked that way because that was the thing in and of itself.  In its very essence magic (the show-type magic that The Prestige focused on) is suspense and a double-twist.  Michael Cane describes it perfectly when he says: "Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"."  That is the double twist, and it's there in every magic trick, we all expect the first twist - the making it go away.  It's the second one, the Prestige that makes us doubt what we know, and doubt is essence of suspense. 

I do so love the way Nolan has made Cane his kind of 'everyman' narrator in a lot of his films.  As for Inception isn't he just making the same movie as the Batmans, and The Prestige?  Isn't this just the next installment - with a very fine Leo doing the lead - of his unending film "What profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul"? 

In the beginning I was kinda hoping the Nolan would kind of go out to that area where Kubrick made films, but (and it's fine) he went another way that is clearly discernible in The Inception.  And he is very good (and I think it's almost impossibly hard) to make his kind of movies without getting all CGIitis - great effects can get in the way of a plot and ruin it, and/or great effects will not cover up a crappy plot, crappy writing, and/or ->-bleeped-<-ty acting - all over the place.

But that essential Nolan, the battle between gain and the cost of a soul - in his Batmans Nolan finally gets the batstory right in that Batman (the only real 'human' classic superhero) is a very black person, cold, distant and ever lonely because that's the price of vengeance and revenge.  In The Prestige, how much would you pay to be a star?  To do that one great trick that will forever make you the best, and not the other guy, who you hate with a passion?  There is a lot of hate to deal with in these films.  Hate is what Nolan sees as the end price of success, and that's pretty trippy. 

[brainiac]

I have to agree with VeryGnawty and Lachlann here. People were saying it was mind-blowing, complex, and deep. I found it entertaining but not much else.

The jargon they spouted throughout it made it sound like a bad video game adaptation, and the incorrect psychology and neuroscience it was presumably based on left me unimpressed. The action scenes were well-done and fun to watch, particularly the slow-mo matrixy elevator one. The floating droplets of blood were a nice touch.

Also, the two female characters were very clearly only there as 2D vehicles for the male protagonist's story and feelings. Even the other male side characters who got less screen time had more character development. You can argue that it's because this is all in HIS head, but it's more likely the same kind of lazy writing of female characters we consistently see in Hollywood.

Plus, I was hoping for some actual grime in Cobb's past. It looked that way for a while, but no, it was all less sinister and it was REALLY the crazy sexy b***h's fault.

I did find it hilarious that at the very last cutaway the whole crowd in my theatre made a loud, betrayed "AWW" noise.

[tekla]

People who find movies mind-blowing, complex, and deep don't get out much.  They should try a thing called, 'a book'.

[Pica Pica]

People who find movies mind-blowing, complex, and deep don't get out much.  They should try a thing called, 'a book'.

Biggles Goes West  -it's mindblowing.

[Miniar]

I liked it well enough, but found it a little to "predictable" to make it any more than a "not bad, s'alright" in my book.

[brainiac]

People who find movies mind-blowing, complex, and deep don't get out much.  They should try a thing called, 'a book'.

I think that means they should stay in more, then.