Inception (with implanted spoilers)

Leo's world was Vogsphere from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie crossed with Wall-E's opening sequence = Cobb was just an sf nerd.

All of those actions are happening at the same time; the issue is that perception stretches the sensation out. You would expect the jolts in the van to affect the dreamscape in the hotel exactly when they happened, only the sensation in the hotel would last what, 12 times? as long to the people in the dream.

yes but in the hotel the gravity was shifting as fast as the car was spinning out in rainy city dream. if it was 12 times faster they wouldn't have been flung around like that, it would have been more like the hallway was slowly rotating

or ~would it~

also, those who said it was hard to hear the dialoge were right; it was really hard to understand anything Saito said, and not just because of his accent; the volume just wasn't loud enough (compared to how fucking loud everything else was, including the score). maybe it was the theater I was in.

it was not my man

Mal is so unpleasant in Cobb's subconscious because she's an embodiment of his feelings of guilt.

Nolan does like to use fucking mad big dynamic range between dialogue and BOOMS; the DVD of Dark Knight is nightmarishly loud for the explosions and gunshots and very very quiet for the hushed spoken wordy bits.

i loved this and the more i think abt it the more it seems that it would take enormous self-belief to conceive of this story and then not immediately scrap as waaaay too convoluted and silly. to actually pull it off is pretty amazing imo.

I didn't have any trouble hearing the dialogue.

I didn't have any trouble hearing dialogue either, but the francophone couple sitting next to us got up and walked out 20 min into the film. I figure it was because they couldn't follow the dialogue.

or didn't like the 'mad french broad' stereotype

yes but in the hotel the gravity was shifting as fast as the car was spinning out in rainy city dream. if it was 12 times faster they wouldn't have been flung around like that, it would have been more like the hallway was slowly rotating

Well no, not really. Think about how fast that spinning would have been in the rainy city dream; maybe that car would have rolled 5 - 10 seconds? The speed at which gravity was shifting in the hotel was a good bit slower and not directly synchronized with the rolling van, although it appeared that way due to editing since they kept jumping out to the higher level to show the dream van rolling, then back into the hotel to show how it was fucking with gravity, then back, with both events stopping when the van righted itself.

you may be right but i still think they cheated it a bit... which is fine, movies cheat with space and time all the time

Oh yeah, I don't think it was a perfect ration or anything, but they made enough of a nod to the time dilation for it to make sense, kind of like how dude got a faceful of water in the van and rain pelted the window of the hotel for several seconds, or how he slumped over in the van on a hard turn and hotel trembled for several seconds and the water in all of the glasses tilted for a good bit longer than the turn actually was.

yeah i think the hotel was rocking more slowly than the car was rocking. it didn't matter too much to me really: i thought the interaction between the two was great. but the snow fortress stuff, partly because there was no correspondence, was less interesting. they spent less time there so it wasn't a big deal.

the raining/peeing thing was funny esepcially because i really had to pee at the time

marion cotillard looked less fishlike and way hotter in this than she sometimes does which I attribute to good angles.

one of my friends just facebooked complaining that Mr. Nolan didn't need to make his movies "10 hours" long. Is 2 hours and 20 minutes really that long?

It REALLY didn't feel like a long 2 hrs 20 mins to me..

Felt completely opposite there for me, I honestly thought we'd only hit the two hour mark when the film ended! And I knew it was two and a half hours long so I was expecting more. (I try not to look at the time when watching a movie first time through; even if you know how long the movie is that way you can let it hopefully unfold at its own pace.)

i don't suppose it pays to inspect the internal logic of a summer blockbuster too closely (friend of mine used to call this "james bonding" a film) but i feel like either it's all leo's dream or things are awfully ham-handed. i choose the former.

premises are too simplistic -- fuel monopoly superpower! one call from saito fixes all troubles! if i just accomplish this one task everything will be fine!

hey juno's name is ariadne wot a coincidence.

i guess those bad guys in mombasa were agents of leo's former employer (who set him on saito)? the whole sequence was awfully dream-like with dudes coming after him and then look! saito is here, in a car, protecting his investment!

who was michael caine? was he a professor in paris or was he looking after the kids in the usa, as at the end? why couldn't he just take the kids outside the country to where cobb could see them? (was he mal's dad? and if so, why wasn't he pissed at cobb for "killing" her?)

dude like cobb flits around the globe like bond but is compelled to enter the usa through an airport on his own real passport? he couldn't just steal the kids away?

was there any explanation for why the top had to fall over if things were real? like, why couldn't you just dream it falling over?

anyway, i liked it a lot and yeah you don't want to make the movie five hours long trying to explain every detail. and there are limits to how crazy you want to get in the movie. pretty sure if those were my dreams, in some level i (and/or everyone else) would be naked, wandering around my college campus trying to find the class i've skipped all semester so i can take the final i need to graduate. (tmi?)

the great pete postlethwaite was sadly underused imo. dude should have been 50 feet tall tearing shit up in cillian's dreams.

i feel like either it's all leo's dream or things are awfully ham-handed. i choose the former.

There've been very few movies I've seen where I wonder what happened both before the very first frame and after the very last one, so I really have to give the movie that.

premises are too simplistic -- fuel monopoly superpower! one call from saito fixes all troubles! if i just accomplish this one task everything will be fine!

this doesn't matter, and tonnes of "more serious" films have things like it. who gd cares.

i guess those bad guys in mombasa were agents of leo's former employer (who set him on saito)? the whole sequence was awfully dream-like with dudes coming after him and then look! saito is here, in a car, protecting his investment!

it is indeed dreamlike... as mol says in the film! this is part of its ambiguity/have cake and eat it license.

*spoilers everywhere in this thread*

XPs: The dudes weren't getting thrown around all quick-like in the spinning hallway. It was more like they kept losing their balance and fell over a few times.

I'm still taking the end of the movie as reality restored and the stuff like the kids wearing the same clothes are merely coincidences there to make you believe the contrary (and be planted with the same type of seed Mal was planted with). It's a hedge war but I'm on the right side this time. Saito's awesome power of Cobb's passport has no sway in the pro-dreaming argument for me. Dude's got connections. I was thinking that everything could be a dream throughout the whole movie (or just post waking up on the plane) - did anyone else forsee that the ending would ultimately reveal that it was all a dream or leave it questionable? I mean the dream within a dream idea was planted as a possibility right from the get go

The totem idea was a cool concept but you have to take it for fact because the logic behind it is weird

Also, I couldn't help but wonder why the snow world wasn't in Zero gravity

Those are just minor grievances and maybe there's a good explanation I don't remember hearing

Saw it last night. Bear in mind I was asleep for most of the second half, but I thought it was loud and kind of unrelenting and strangely dull. Also pretty much everyone seemed totally miscast. But I freely admit this type of movie is not my cup of borscht and I wouldn't normally even go to see such a thing, but it was hot and wifey dragged me.

the moombassa scene was so weird... what was with the whole "let's meet back here, they'll never guess" thing? seemed totes unness.

Probably gonna go and see this again tomorrow.

re: the length. like any film, it just seems longer to some people if there's a lot going on and a lot to take in.

pretty sure the guy in the member's only jacket killed. calling bullshit on the russian from pine barrens playing a role.

i really felt avatar's length and would have walked out if i'd been on my own

and i generally deplore long-ass run-times

biut i was chill with this

I liked Avatar in parts.

I do have to give this film props for trying to do what it tries to do on such a budget. But I'm still not sure if I don't prefer my popcorn movies to be expensive genre films rather than expensive art films. So is this the new Matrix or what? I honestly hadn't heard about it until I saw this thread popping up a week ago.

Haha that looks like "I liked Avatar in pants". The only way to see a movie.

So is this the new Matrix or what?

kinda doubt nolan would want to sequelize it, but i wonder if it's in his control

it is the new matrix insofar as it's an original (so far as these things go) blockbuster (i mean, it isn't based on a named toy/theme park ride/comic book/computer game) with philosophical themes that does interesting things, formally

Good 30 min interview with Nolan

http://memegenerator.net/Philosoraptor/ImageMacro/1705024/Philosoraptor-WENT-AND-SAW-INCEPTION-POSTED-ABOUT-IT-ON-THE-INTERNET.jpg

surprised that max liked this so much :/

saw this tonight + enjoyed it immensely altho it was def. 30 too long for me.

here is the main thing i don't understand. did they get out of limbo because they were run over by a train (in this scene they both looked young) or did they grow old in limbo together and just wake up when the sedatives wore off (a short time in real world but 50 years or so in limbo) as was suggested by a different scene?

~both~

it didn't feel long, but it was boring and i was glad when it finished. full marks for trying formally interesting things, and i thought a lot of the plot problems were solved in visually interesting or conceptually clever ways. but if you're going to make a movie about the mind that is kind of centred around a relationship drama then that relationship should be one that faces real problems. use the very clever macguffin to explore human drama, not to explore the very clever macguffin. otherwise you've got two hours of nonsense concerning trains and images from dreams and dreadful firefight set piece direction. note: not complaining about sci-fi films or fantastical events/technologies. eternal sunshine is the obvious film to which this compares unfavourably. but even the druggy episodes of star trek:tng get this right.

maybe i don't like all the ones i've seen for other reasons, but i don't think i've ever enjoyed a riddle movie either. certainly not enough to rewatch. are there more of these films than their used to be? do films with this kind of left-brained rewatch appeal make more money? can't imagine they actually do.

The idea of 'real problems' is one that occurred to me as well; Mal's death is hardly a common situation, shall we say. But the idea of empathizing over a mistaken decision with tragic consequences is at least there.

idiotic zimmerthon score all the way through and inaudible dialogue mix at times. there was an hour around the middle that feelt like a montage.

As for rewatching, I think you could always see it in different ways each time as to where a framing dream stops and ends, but I'll have to rewatch it myself to see if that holds!

xxp, hmm. i don't ~think~ i'm being to hard on that aspect. a preposterous mistaken decision taken as a result of insanity just feels terribly arbitrary to be the core of the film. the similar thing was better used in shutter island because you felt like leo da vinci actually changed as a character having dealt with the fallout, but in this he just changes his address.

worried i'm Robert McKeeing this now, and maybe it was just retarded.

idiotic zimmerthon score all the way through

^OTM think u can count the score-less scenes on one hand

my problem with the film is that it didn't explore any dream symbolism whatsoever. it was so literal. too literal.

It was really wasn't a story about dreams-as-such though -- I forget where I stumbled across the quote this weekend but it was a psychiatrist noting that because dreams are so potentially all over the place that films that get closer to dream symbolism aren't going to be tautly plotted out thrillers. A friend of mine who went in wanting that kind of story about dreams really hated the film as a result.

yeah i hate this film. it's a boring action movie with a horrible snow shoot out. it makes no sense.

the anonymous "projections" really irritated me as well

at least color coordinate the players in a snow shoot out so i can actually give a fuck about what is going on

"A boring action movie with a horrible show shoot out!!!! A++++++"

CUTTY, KILX-TV

shouldve gone with red/blue lasers

my dreams have fucking lasers