Inception (with implanted spoilers)

er you said it was a straightfoward summer movie. it wasnt. straightforward summer movies are things like transformers. this was attempting to be something more.

explain what that means.

Transformers 2 was an incoherent, convoluted mess. "Straightforward" is the LAST word I would use to describe that movie.

You've got a shit-ton of baggage if you think this movie was trying to be anything more than entertaining.

disagreed. Christopher Nolan was clearly trying to mobilize the government to take pre-emptive measures against dream terrorism.

anything that tries to be more than SLAM BANG POW action strung along by nothing but cliché is totally pretentious wank that should be left to Lynch/Kelly/The Fountain imo

I mean, if you want to talk about movies that are "attempting to be something more", go to the horror thread and talk about "A Serbian Film".

i'm not sure baggage enters into this

baggage and ilxor often tend to go hand in hand IMO

Transformers 2 was an incoherent, convoluted mess. "Straightforward" is the LAST word I would use to describe that movie.

You've got a shit-ton of baggage if you think this movie was trying to be anything more than entertaining.

talking about the first transformers. but you sound like one of those people who say things like 'bah its only entertainment! stop reading so much into it'.

Wait, so what did you read into the first Transformers, then?

The first Transformers was ALSO a very straightforward movie. you don't have to be a family-pandering action movie to be straightforward!

I also note that instead of actually talking about how "Inception" isn't straightforward, you're just throwing your hands up in the air. Which basically is about what I expected; you didn't like the movie because it wasn't what you wanted it to be, and now you are bending over backwards attempting to ascribe intentions and motives to it that it didn't fulfill for you that may not have even been part of the movie's intent.

"I wanted it to be THIS and it wasn't" is a very different (and defensible!) criticism from "The movie tried to do THIS and failed" (which can be defensible but actually requires more work than lazy disdain and incomplete arguments).

I mean, I agree that the movie wasn't very deep, but I don't think it was trying to be. This is pretty common in most of Nolan's work (at least in the movies I've seen); he takes an off-kilter premise and then tells a pretty simple, easy-to-follow story within its framework.

first Transformers was an allegory for the Desposyni

Nolan says in that Voice interview that, following his success, he feels "a massive responsibility to do something that you genuinely feel to be meaningful," which sounds like he wants it to be a LITTLE more than just "entertaining," though yeah, I think his main goal was to make people go "oooh, a puzzle!"

my problem is that none of the human drama stuff is credible or about life as it is lived. this is not in general a problem in lots of movies, but it's clear that the people came after the premise. and in this case it's a total failure. there is no character development. who gives a shit about imaginary problems due to mental illness induced by an imaginary technology? and his goal is to accept he was right and successfully move house?

anyway, you're left with an action film about a technological idea and the entire weight of the film is on the audience finding (what nolan does with) the premise interesting per se. so yes, exploring dreams is more than just a macguffin, but not in a good way.

puzzle movies = buy yourself a killer sudoku book and get tae fuck.

his is pretty common in most of Nolan's work (at least in the movies I've seen); he takes an off-kilter premise and then tells a pretty simple, easy-to-follow story within its framework.

ehhh I don't know: TDK had lots of psychobabble put in the mouth of Heath Ledger about good and eeee-vil, and that's not counting the way he shot, lit, and edited him so that he gets maximum time to impress the audience with it. The first Burton Batman had drivel in its script too, but it was faster and sillier.

my problem is that none of the human drama stuff is credible or about life as it is lived.

Good point. Also I must comment that humans vary rarely get upset that the father of their unborn son is killed after traveling in time by a machine, so let's throw out Terminator too while we're at it.

yeah but that movie had AWESOME action sequences

Terminator is a successful action film, which is something no one afaict is claiming for this movie.

erm I thought the last half hour of Inception was pretty awesome visually, both on and off IMAX. Not so much the combat as much as how the three dreamstates were integrated.

and Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn are very good in it.

xpost

lol so the rules only apply to films people don't consider action? fwiw I considered this sci-fi with a touch of drama and action.

translation of the above: "It doesn't apply to Terminator cuz I liked it"

I think, in general, I am more of a structuralist when it comes to enjoying movies, in terms of I often don't give two shits about how relatable I find the characters if I find the mechanics of the plot engaging. As a result, I didn't care that Ellen Page was about as convincing as a pancake (aside from when they were in level 4, where she made me lol hardcore) or that every main character aside from Ken Watanabe and Tom Hardy looked like they were still in high school; I thought the plot and how it all fit together was awesome.

definitely will admit this movie's a gift for architects

I prefer movies about dreams that actually convince me that these dream sequences are possible – and much shorter than two-hours-plus. Not a fair comparison, but Buñuel's Mexican movies were pure pulp (basically telenovelas), cost $18, and boasted non-existent acting, but they're totally batshit in the best way.

not sure you know what straightforward means if you think inception fits the bill. but yes, transformers was.

I mean, I agree that the movie wasn't very deep, but I don't think it was trying to be. This is pretty common in most of Nolan's work (at least in the movies I've seen); he takes an off-kilter premise and then tells a pretty simple, easy-to-follow story within its framework.

and how do you know it wasnt trying to be? until you have confirmation from nolan you should prob hold back on this kind of speciousness.

Wait, so what did you read into the first Transformers, then?

oh, funny.

Man I have a feeling I shouldn't debate kung-fu cinema with half the people in this thread!

until you have confirmation from nolan you should prob hold back on this kind of speciousness.

Well, really, who cares what the director thinks? Intentionality doesn't matter.

and how do you know it wasnt trying to be? until you have confirmation from nolan you should prob hold back on this kind of speciousness.

That pendulum swings both way, is the point I am making and which you appear to be too thick to comprehend.

or, as Alfred puts it, "who cares what the director thinks?"

Once the work is out there, it's out there. People are going to interpret it however they want; if you want a specific meaning taken out of it, you'd better make sure you build your context accordingly.

I don't know about "a gift for architects", another film with a fundamental misunderstanding of what an architect is/does.

VERY VERY, BARELY A SPOILER ALERT HERE:
Minor nitpick with the film in that regard, when Juno was constructing her totem on that drafting board she had the vise screwed to the tabletop directly above the straightedge, which would have prevented the straightedge for being useful on that drafting table AT ALL.

I think, in general, I am more of a structuralist when it comes to enjoying movies, in terms of I often don't give two shits about how relatable I find the characters if I find the mechanics of the plot engaging.

This, pretty much. There were certainly points throughout the film where I was all 'hmm, whatever' but the larger mechanics as noted carried it. That's why I'm wondering what a second viewing will be like.

I thought "a gift for architects" meant "a gift for people who like outlining movie plots", not "a gift for actual, real-life architects because finally they are getting the film representation they deserve"

@Ned--I will say after I got the basic plot digested after the first viewing, I noticed the interactions of the characters more the second time around, and there's more there than meets the eye. Although it isn't exactly ARthur Miller.

All interpretations are valid, intentionality doesn't matter.

xpost

No, I know, I was just tossing out a general gripe off the back of that comment.

(xpost)

"a gift for actual, real-life architects because finally they are getting the film representation they deserve"

The Fountainhead! oh wait...

No, the criticism of the absence of successful character development or engaging human drama in Inception doesn't apply to Terminator not because Terminator is labelled an "action" movie, but because it does action sequences very well. Most people seem to agree that the action sequences in Inception are not its strong point (they're right, the action sequences are turd), and I don't think _anyone_ is saying they carry the film like they do in Terminator.

Inception shouldn't be held to higher standards because it's an attempt at intelligent mainstream film -- if there was an dully directed snow palace sequence in Eternal Sunshine then I would have been fine with that, especially if the director appeared to have a sense of humour. But when it totally fails to explore the things its actually about (the mind, human relationships) because Nolan is too busy talking to a (depressingly uninteresting) production design dept., it's OK to criticise it's failure to do _anything_ except take a giant turd on my Sunday morning.

xxxxps to San Te there btw

Is San Te new or is he one of Dom's btw?

Well, really, who cares what the director thinks? Intentionality doesn't matter.

i agree. what matters really is what you can see. although its easy enought to have an idea about what the intent was from all the trailers, the lead ups, the marketing, the general bits of blurb you hear from everyone involved. its pretty easy to get the gist of what they were aiming for.

"which you appear to be too thick to comprehend."

says the person who is unable to read properly so is still trying to argue that oh actually transformers IS straightforward when ive already said as much.

xpost Considering the depths he'll go to avoid facing a depressing reality, I'm guessing he's Leonardo DiCaprio.

this may be newbieism here but what/who is Dom?

the lead character, christ weren't you paying attention?

why do you think DiCap's always got a scrunchy face?

xxpost

(depressingly uninteresting) production design dept

Now, see, I thought the design of the snow palace was pretty awesome. I loved the Bond villain hideout aspect.

referring to this, da croupier:

Is San Te new or is he one of Dom's btw?

It was a joke, Leo.