INCEPTION Review Thread (SPOILERS!!)

[bytor_one]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

If it's your idea, your story but can't really get it down on paper then why not get somebody to help. It's still his story.

I agree. I think his concept was okay, but it really needed a skilled writer to put that together in a more interesting way.

You can always tell when someone is not a great writer, they insist on characters repeating the same things over and over. I cant remember how many times Leo was talking about dream levels and projections. Constantly repeating himself throughout the entire movie. Halfway through I was rolling my eyes.

Again its not that his idea was bad, thats not what I was getting at, its the amateur writing. The batman movies and prestige all have much better writing than this movie has, and I blame this on Nolan, thinking he is better than he is at something than he is. TDK's success bought him that kind of control, and I dont think thats a good thing. He should just be directing, not doing the writing as well. That's a craft all in its own that people spend a lifetime trying to master, and here he is its just one thing that he does. Well no wonder the script in this movie is crap, he's speading himself too thin.

A jack of all trades is a master of none.

[repete66211]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Shhhhhhhhh. Its a Timeless Classic Epic Masterpiece. Dont ruin it.

I know, I know...just play along, right?

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by bytor_one

I agree. I think his concept was okay, but it really needed a skilled writer to put that together in a more interesting way.

You can always tell when someone is not a great writer, they insist on characters repeating the same things over and over. I cant remember how many times Leo was talking about dream levels and projections. Constantly repeating himself throughout the entire movie. Halfway through I was rolling my eyes.

Again its not that his idea was bad, thats not what I was getting at, its the amateur writing. The batman movies and prestige all have much better writing than this movie has, and I blame this on Nolan, thinking he is better than he is at something than he is. TDK's success bought him that kind of control, and I dont think thats a good thing. He should just be directing, not doing the writing as well. That's a craft all in its own that people spend a lifetime trying to master, and here he is its just one thing that he does. Well no wonder the script in this movie is crap, he's speading himself too thin.

A jack of all trades is a master of none.

I think it helped with some becuase I still hear people say they didn't know what was going on. Even though they kept talking about it.

[bytor_one]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

I think it helped with some becuase I still hear people say they didn't know what was going on. Even though they kept talking about it.

Well I get why he might want to do that, but why would you sacrafice the quality of a script just to beat a concept into people's heads over and over?

I didnt hate the movie, I just didnt love it. It felt very disjointed to me. Although I was able to follow it to the end, I did feel the complexity of the story was starting to get away from what I love about movies. I think a great writer could have taken that concept and smoothed it out, make it more interesting.

I really walked out of there feeling the movie was kind of boring.

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by bytor_one

Well I get why he might want to do that, but why would you sacrafice the quality of a script just to beat a concept into people's heads over and over?

I didnt hate the movie, I just didnt love it. It felt very disjointed to me. Although I was able to follow it to the end, I did feel the complexity of the story was starting to get away from what I love about movies. I think a great writer could have taken that concept and smoothed it out, make it more interesting.

I really walked out of there feeling the movie was kind of boring.

That's fine. I'm not trying to change your mind. There's movies out there that people love and I go WTF! lol.

[bytor_one]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

That's fine. I'm not trying to change your mind. There's movies out there that people love and I go WTF! lol.

Oh yeah I have plenty of those.

Im not saying what im saying is fact, I just mean I dont like the writing, I dont think its very good. If someone else loves it well of course thats okay.

I wouldnt try to change someone else's mind either, thats senseless.

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by bytor_one

Oh yeah I have plenty of those.

Im not saying what im saying is fact, I just mean I dont like the writing, I dont think its very good. If someone else loves it well of course thats okay.

I wouldnt try to change someone else's mind either, thats senseless.

So are you still going to rate this movie a 5?????

[bytor_one]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

So are you still going to rate this movie a 5?????

Hehe, no I gave it a 3. It was just kind of middle of the road for me. Looks nice visually of course, the directing is good, as is the acting and sound, but I had to knock a couple off for the story/writing since to me that is the most important part.

[doctorD]

So one scene in the movie had me scratching my head

[Show spoiler]when Leo's character near the end of the movie was at the table with his wife, did she or did she not stab him twice in the chest with that knife? I thought she did but he didn't seem injured nor did he appear to have blood on his cloths when he got up.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by repete66211

I know, I know...just play along, right?

Dont rock the boat man, just go with the flow.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by repete66211

What movie were you watching? The entire premise of Inception was magic.

No it wasn't. There were no incantations. You're thinking of Harry Potter. It was all Sci-fi technology.

Originally Posted by repete66211

I will grant it's a bit of both.

Nope. No magic. All Sci-fi technology.

Originally Posted by repete66211

It was interesting, I just don't think it came together very well. Confusing at a glance, the plot unravels upon closer inspection.

I would like to see you back that up with some examples of plot unraveling.

Originally Posted by repete66211

Limbo can be a state as well as a place.

[Show spoiler]I have a real problem with two people occupying the same limbo. Unless the magical suitcase is a "server" for all of those hooked up to it, the participants must have a common "meeting place" for the dream, right? Once the host wakes up or dies, is the shared dream not over for all of them?

My real issue with the movie were the arbitrary rules and paradoxes. Who says you wake up when you die? And who says you go to limbo if you die in a dream within a dream? If the entire dream world is the creation of the conscious and subconscious, why can't you just dream that bullets don't kill you? Why would being shot in one dream level affect you in another? If one person can dream a security team, why can't you also? And so on...

You really don't understand the movie at all. The suitcase isn't magical. There were no "arbitrary rules and paradoxes" as you put it. Cobb and his team had done this many times before and as with any case where you use technology over and over, you learn the rules on how it operates. In this case the "rules" or scientific facts were in how the brain responds to the technology. And as for your example of the

[Show spoiler] dreaming of the security guards, you obviously didn't hear that Robert Fischer had been trained to project an assault team to protect him from people attempting extractions from his mind.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by repete66211

Limbo can be a state as well as a place.

I don't believe I can state this any more explicitly:

[Show spoiler]Limbo = Purgatory.

Doesn't anybody read books anymore?

Originally Posted by bytor_one

You can always tell when someone is not a great writer, they insist on characters repeating the same things over and over. I cant remember how many times Leo was talking about dream levels and projections. Constantly repeating himself throughout the entire movie. Halfway through I was rolling my eyes.

So, somebody is a bad writer if they have characters repeat specific key phrases for effect?

Stay away from literature and poetry, then... it's all bad writing.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

[Show spoiler]The Limbo space is nobody's dream... it is everybody's. All the "lost" dreamers end up in the same place. It's called "Limbo" for a reason, that's a specific reference.

[Show spoiler]
But were they referring specifically to the Catholic conception of limbo, or was that just a convenient name for being lost with no hope of return? They couldn't be in limbo forever, because their true physical bodies would eventually die, unless their existence in limbo was separate, as a spirit. However, if the spirit is trapped in such a place, then the physical body would die.

Limbo, in the Catholic sense, is a place of purification before being able to enter Heaven. It is supposed to be unpleasant and even painful, to burn away any evil so that no sin can enter Heaven. It is a place where those who are the faithful, can only have to experience a "little bit of Hell" instead of eternally being in Hell.

[Buddy Christ]

OK. I earlier posted a comment that during dream scenes, a different lens was used and during real life scenes another lens was used. I had a hard time explaining it and I removed it. I found a picture that shows what I mean. I think that ONLY during dream sequence scenes, you get this curved look to the scene. It is very noticeable in some shots. But does not appear at all in real life scenes. This tells me that Nolan is trying to show us subtle differences. Look how the outside of the shot creates a circular feel
HERE:

Eve here you can see it on the right side

[doctorD]

Originally Posted by Buddy Christ

OK. I earlier posted a comment that during dream scenes, a different lens was used and during real life scenes another lens was used. I had a hard time explaining it and I removed it. I found a picture that shows what I mean. I think that ONLY during dream sequence scenes, you get this curved look to the scene. It is very noticeable in some shots. But does not appear at all in real life scenes. This tells me that Nolan is trying to show us subtle differences. Look how the outside of the shot creates a circular feel
HERE:

Eve here you can see it on the right side

You do realize that both of those pictures are from dream sequences.

[Septimus Prime]

Originally Posted by radagast

[Show spoiler]
But were they referring specifically to the Catholic conception of limbo, or was that just a convenient name for being lost with no hope of return? They couldn't be in limbo forever, because their true physical bodies would eventually die, unless their existence in limbo was separate, as a spirit. However, if the spirit is trapped in such a place, then the physical body would die.

Limbo, in the Catholic sense, is a place of purification before being able to enter Heaven. It is supposed to be unpleasant and even painful, to burn away any evil so that no sin can enter Heaven. It is a place where those who are the faithful, can only have to experience a "little bit of Hell" instead of eternally being in Hell.

Personally, I think this:

[Show spoiler]When they say "limbo," they're just referring to a state where the person is so deep in dream time that they are stuck there for seemingly forever. They won't die, as their bodies are doing just fine and are only in a catatonic state for a moment, but their minds will be trapped in time dilation, due to dream time expanding geometrically (it's not exponential; people misuse this term all the time).

[Dreemworx]

Saw it in IMAX Saturday.

I enjoyed it for the most part.
Going in, based on the trailors, I was actually thinking i would not like it.
The film changed my mind and it was a pleasant distraction after rebuilding my back deck during the hot day.

I think the cast is superb, the acting was fine, the cinematography was super and the CGFX was exactly what the movie required.
I followed the premise the entire way.

Still, I couldn't help walking away thinking it was "just an above average flick'.
The entire reason of all that energy was to accomplish something that I really didn't care about, the inception. I thought the "dream machine" was arbitrary and could have used more explanation as to it's origin and workings but, I understand it is just a movie and we take alot of things on face value to move on.

I have to credit the film for brave new concepts and well used budget by all means.

Im thinking Matrix + Dark City + Oceans 11 here.

7/10

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by doctorD

You do realize that both of those pictures are from dream sequences.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by radagast

[Show spoiler]
But were they referring specifically to the Catholic conception of limbo, or was that just a convenient name for being lost with no hope of return? They couldn't be in limbo forever, because their true physical bodies would eventually die, unless their existence in limbo was separate, as a spirit. However, if the spirit is trapped in such a place, then the physical body would die.

Limbo, in the Catholic sense, is a place of purification before being able to enter Heaven. It is supposed to be unpleasant and even painful, to burn away any evil so that no sin can enter Heaven. It is a place where those who are the faithful, can only have to experience a "little bit of Hell" instead of eternally being in Hell.

It's symbolic, not literal:

[Show spoiler]Purgatory is an unpleasant place where you go to "purge" yourself of your sins, and you can be stuck there a long time, just as Cobb had to go to "limbo" to purge himself of his sins, his guilt, and his regret, and once he had done so, he was pretty much free to leave. He just chose to stay behind to help Saito get out, too. They were not "lost with no hope of return". Cobb does get to "paradise" after finally purging his sins, he gets to "go home", that's his paradise, his "dream", made into reality... who knows if he is still dreaming? If his "dream" is his "reality", then, as the dream room attendant in Mombasa said, "who are you to say otherwise?" It reverts back to what I said many pages ago, about 'Inception' making references to Dante's 'Divine Comedy', which explores the cosmology of the Catholic afterlife in the form of a dream of the main character, but also implies that heaven and hell are places in the mind, rather than places out in the cosmos.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Dreemworx

Still, I couldn't help walking away thinking it was "just an above average flick'.
The entire reason of all that energy was to accomplish something that I really didn't care about, the inception. I thought the "dream machine" was arbitrary and could have used more explanation as to it's origin and workings but, I understand it is just a movie and we take alot of things on face value to move on.

I think it was a good decision not to get too mired up in the details of how the technology works. As it is, many viewers have gotten too hung up on that, anyway. That's a distraction away from the story. They explained just enough:

[Show spoiler]The technology lets people share dreams. The dreams are structured the way they are, according to specifications dictated by the technology (i.e. weird and surreal dreams will result in the subconsciouses "attacking" each other, time-perception is specifically tailored by the chemical compound, etc.). The "rules" are really guidelines derived from research and experience using the technology. If one goes deeply enough into the subconscious, one enters an unconstructed "dream space" that apparently is shared by all people, because it is at such a low, basic level, that it taps into a primitive area of the brain that is essentially the same for everybody, the "reptile brain" level, so-to-speak.

They tell you enough to let you take the details for granted, since it's fiction anyway.