Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 03:21:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Inception

Started by CaledonianGonzo, July 08, 2010, 08:36:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thugler

Quote from: hundred on July 13, 2010, 11:29:41 PM
That's just nonsense. He's consistently good. He even did a good South African/Zimabwean accent, which no-one has ever done. Not even South Africans.

What's eating gilbert grape he's pretty good, I'll give him that. BUT:


Shutter Island (2010) .... Teddy Daniels
Revolutionary Road (2008) .... Frank Wheeler
Body of Lies (2008) .... Roger Ferris
... aka "World of Lies" - Japan (English title)
Blood Diamond (2006) .... Danny Archer
The Departed (2006) .... Billy Costigan
The Aviator (2004) .... Howard Hughes
Catch Me If You Can (2002) .... Frank Abagnale Jr.
Gangs of New York (2002) .... Amsterdam Vallon


He stinks in all of these. In shutter island he can't even say words properly for fucks sake.
Gangs of new york is one of my least favourite films ever. Catch me if you can is passable, but he's not exactly great in it.

El Unicornio, mang

The only one of those I didn't like him in was Gangs of New York, although it wasn't helped that he was overshadowed by Day-Lewis' awesome turn.

copylight

He we go. The time worn chestnut on the debatable merits of LDC, much like the Tarrantino debate is proven to be as intractable as the Cats Vs Dogs argument. I want him in the next Tarrantino film just to have all the eggs in one basket so to speak, and to the naysayers who say he can't act, that his stand-alone charisma is a tangible talent in itself and worthy of a bit of recognition in some of the films he's done as The Unicorn has said already.


chocolateboy

Quote from: copylight on July 14, 2010, 12:06:38 AMas intractable as the Cats Vs Dogs argument

Could we keep religion out of one fucking thread, please?

biggytitbo

DiCaprio is really good in the Departed, certainly better than both the woeful Matt Damon and the hammy Jack Nicholson.

Sam

Quote from: Rev on July 09, 2010, 01:04:07 AM
It just looks so empty...it needs a tiny red drop of humanity in there, and it's something that Nolan doesn't seem to be able to pull off.  His films are all decent, don't get me wrong, but they're all hollow...I'm beginning to suspect that he's never actually met another human being.

This sort of attitude always puzzles me. He is making the films he wants to make to the best of his instincts and abilities; I didn't realise he had to call Rev and check there's enough fuzziness in his script before he rolls. Do you go into McDonald's and complain they don't serve fois gras? Or critize Lady Gaga songs for not utilising integral serialism? Nolan is simply the guy that makes those films, and if he didn't somebody else would. Except not as well. So, in other words we're lucky that he's at the forefront of the cerebral popcorn movie genre. Now, I'm off to watch The Passion of Joan of Arc: it better have some decent fucking exploding skyscraper scenes or I'm really going to lose patience with this Dreyer cunt.

SavageHedgehog

Quote from: chocolateboy on July 13, 2010, 11:09:03 PM
I take it neither of you have seen What's Eating Gilbert Grape? He's astonishing in that (and unrecognizable).

Around the same time I also thought he was really good in This Boy's Life and (though my memories are vague) The Basketball Diaries. He's been decent in things since then, but not quite reaching the level of those pre-superstardom post-Critters 3 performances. He did seem a little off in Revolutionary Road, but then I think he was a little miscast.

copylight

#37
Quote from: non capisco on July 08, 2010, 11:50:09 PM
I like the fact Leo's losing his looks, he's always been a great actor and the less of a heartthrob he looks the less chance he'll be cast in something uninteresting.

regardless of ageism, the sexist nature of Hollywood is a far more self evident demon than De Caprio ''looking fatter''.



Kilmer's 3rd trimester satisfaction. Yesterday.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

There's a prequel story in online comic form here: url=http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/inception-comic.html

El Unicornio, mang


Rev

Quote from: Sam on July 14, 2010, 10:30:54 AM
This sort of attitude always puzzles me. He is making the films he wants to make to the best of his instincts and abilities; I didn't realise he had to call Rev and check there's enough fuzziness in his script before he rolls.

Then you have no idea about how Hollywood works.  They all come through me, sweetheart, and I've not noticed any missed calls from a C. Nolan.

You can fuck off with 'fuzziness', though.  That isn't what I was suggesting at all.  There is an austerity to his films that - and this is crucial - I don't think is entirely deliberate.  I've recently been reminded of the way that Oliver Stone initially tried to make Nixon in the same style as Natural Born Killers; raised eyebrow or no raised eyebrow, the subject matter of the films is different and the style therefore needs to be different.  He really wanted to do it that way, though, until he either realised himself, or someone cattle-prodded him into realising, that getting attached to a certain way of filmmaking doesn't necessarily do the film a great favour.

That seems to be Nolan's problem.  He's sticking to a method that worked once.

He's a mainstream film director, not a maverick, and so far it seems that he's operating with a limited palette.  He's a guitarist who can't quite manage to form C, but apart from that he's fine.  And Inception is probably a lot of fun, but it'll probably have all of the depth and characterisation of a mobile phone advert, because, as you say, those are the kind of films he makes.

El Unicornio, mang

He might not have done anything massively original yet, but from what I've heard, Inception is very unique and a step up from his previous work (which I like anyway). Besides which, the characters in most of Kubrick's films had very little depth but they're still masterpieces.

Squink

Lots of critics panning this in the States. I'll judge for myself, but it sounds like a dud.

New York Mag
Village Voice
NY Press
Observer
Movieline
Indiewire

El Unicornio, mang

Any film is going to get bad reviews from some places, Inception has gotten good reviews from almost everyone though, and has a 9.6 rating out of almost 3000 votes on imdb.

copylight

Quote from: Squink on July 15, 2010, 01:23:28 AM
Lots of critics panning this in the States. I'll judge for myself, but it sounds like a dud.

New York Mag

That was a fun read and echoes what people have said here about Nolan's coldness and sterility. Still, such a critique intrigues enough in what it denies the film to have achieved in the first place.

QuoteInception is full of brontosaurean effects, like the city that folds over on top of itself, but the tone is so solemn I felt out of line even cracking a smile. It lacks the nimbleness of Spielberg's Minority Report or the Jungian-carnival bravado of Joseph Ruben's Dreamscape  or the eerily clean lines and stylized black-suited baddies of The Matrix—or, for that matter, the off-kilter intensity of Nolan's own Insomnia. The attackers in Inception are anonymous, the tone flat and impersonal. Nolan is too literal-minded, too caught up in ticktock logistics, to make a great, untethered dream movie.

This sounds like a really ambitious film.

no_offenc

Quote from: Squink on July 15, 2010, 01:23:28 AM
NY Press

You do realise Armond White is a complete troll of a reviewer, right?


biggytitbo

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/inception
It's weird, I don't think I've ever seen a film on here get a collection of extremely high marks and a collection of extremely low marks like this.

chocolateboy

Quote from: no_offenc on July 15, 2010, 07:07:31 AM
You do realise Armond White is a complete troll of a reviewer, right?

Point? You do realise Chris Morris is a troll, right?

Armond White trolls the dickless massive who equate a Rotten Tomatoes score with their own virility. For some reason, Christopher Nolan films bring out the worst in this element (check the most commented-on reviews for The Dark Knight and Inception).

Why would you not want to troll these idiots?

kidsick5000

Quote from: biggytitbo on July 15, 2010, 08:30:39 AM
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/inception
It's weird, I don't think I've ever seen a film on here get a collection of extremely high marks and a collection of extremely low marks like this.

It is stunningly ambitious. Even if that ambition is to ask the audience to actually pay attention, because, and I can't stress this enough, Johnny Exposition is not part of the cast. Sorry folks. You'll have to watch this one.
Watch, take it in and evaluate a solution for yourself. It is a puzzle.

Just to call it now, Inception deserve's some Oscar recognition next year.

Tom Hardy is so fucking ace in this film. I know he's the new Mad Max, but it seems criminal that Sam Worthington is being offered all these roles and Hardy isn't. Hopefully he will now. He deserves huge success after this.

Rev

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on July 15, 2010, 12:05:00 AM
He might not have done anything massively original yet, but from what I've heard, Inception is very unique and a step up from his previous work (which I like anyway). Besides which, the characters in most of Kubrick's films had very little depth but they're still masterpieces.

Oh, he's been original enough for someone making the kind of films he does, and to be clear, I've enjoyed all of them.  Apart from Insomnia, of course, which is objectively shite, but the problem there was the shite source material.  It was still a competent film, though, and the best job anyone could have made of it.

I've enjoyed all of his films, but only while I was watching them.  Not one of them has stayed in my mind after I've left the cinema, and that's a weird thing to say about the output of a director who is clearly so capable.  His flicks feel far more disposable than they should be, and I can only put that down to the lack of the human touch.

Which is, of course, what Malcolm McDowell criticised Kubrick for lacking, and what he thought prevented him from being a genius.  I do have the same problem with Kubrick - there's a sheet of thick glass in front of the screen in all of his films - but I have a greater problem with Nolan because he's so obviously influenced by him, right down to picking up the bad habits.

But Inception's probably great.  I really do expect to enjoy the arse off of it, have a great discussion about it in the pub afterwards, and then completely forget what it was about the day after.

Johnny Townmouse

I just watched it this afternoon. I don't have time for a massively long review, but I will do my best not to be too pithy and slight.

Overall I came away feeling like I had watched an extremely well-crafted and lovingly put together piece of mainstream cinema. After all my experiences with mainstream action films recently it was good to see something that at least entertained me, and allowed me to be occasionally challenged. I do think overall Nolan has been ambitious to the point of folly, but only just. It is definitely trying to do too many things and the different aspects of the film seem to jarr.

For me, the closest film by far to Inception is not The Matrix, or Dreamscape, or some of the other films being mentioned by reviewers, but
Spoiler alert
Tarkovsky's Solaris.
[close]
I won't say much more about that, but for those who have seen both films, you may share my inability to get that 70s masterpiece out of my head.
Spoiler alert
The pathetic figure of DiCaprio's wife, unreal but with a real-world presence, wrapped up in the main characters guilt and sense of loss, is rather evocative.
[close]
There are some amazing moments in the film - I particularly enjoyed the use of
Spoiler alert
time within the different levels of dreaming which really made your brain have to keep on the ball about which dream was which. It reminded me of Banks' sci-fi novel Excession which used a similar device, and in that sense I wish the use of time had been the entire point of the film - if everything in the main portion of the film was happening over a few seconds in some other reality. Time obviously becomes important - especially when you see that the main couple actually do grow old. That had a lot of the people in the cinema I was sat in head for the exit doors. I think half the audience left during my showing. I wonder what that means? I don't like to assume that they did not understand the film, they may have simply shared my own dislike of the tonal problems, and the sometime descent into stock action film running around with guns, and the use of crushingly expositional dialoue. And that is really one of the problems of the film - not the idea that a University student could suddenly be an action hero, or the idea of all these people getting involved just so Caprio can see his fucking kids rather than using Skype - but the fact that the film is often confusing, and does not seem to have a truly 100% credible sense of its pwn physics, despite the CONSTANT expositional explantations for EVERYTHING that was happening. I think it gets caught up in its own world logic, but not enough that you feel completely comfortable about the potential jeapordy for the characters.

Side points - did anyone else find it surprising that there wasn't more made of the possible 'real world' being a dream, and indeed the idea that all the characters in the film were projections trained by Di Caprio? I know that the final scene leaves that open, but I was very much expecting a massive twist.
[close]
Also, I have to say that the casting was rather fantastic, I count myself as a born-again Caprio adorer. I seem to enjoy films exponentially more by just his presence. However, I think it is fair to say that this film will be the one that finally propels Tom Hardy into the Hollywood A-list. He is fantastic all the time - I just hope he has the sense not to go the Statham route.

To sum up - very enjoyable, very entertaining, but doesn't fully satisfy. Not me anyway. I think the type of audience that thought The Matrix was mind-bending SF on a grand scale will be leaving half-eaten boxes of popcorn behind. Only a man with the power of Nolan could deliver this kind of film - which is where the comparisons to Kubrick begin and end.
Spoiler alert
Except for the bed scene of course.
[close]


kidsick5000

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on July 16, 2010, 04:58:31 PMHowever, I think it is fair to say that this film will be the one that finally propels Tom Hardy into the Hollywood A-list. He is fantastic all the time - I just hope he has the sense not to go the Statham route

Yeah. Out of everything you wrote, I picked on the Hardy part.
But he really does comes close to taking the film from DiCaprio.

I dont know what you class as the Statham route, even though was he has done is pretty amazing, but Hardy's next film is called Warrior, all about MMA fighting.

I see him as having something of the Olly Reed about him, but yeah. He has to be a shoo-in for all the plum roles now. They're possibly recasting Bond and Superman soon.

But then he also seems a tad barmy in interviews.

Artemis

*SPOILERS*     (It's out now and I'm not putting the whole post in black bars)




Saw it this afternoon. By the final half hour, I was convinced I was watching something verging on flashes of absolutely brilliance, but that shot itself in the foot with an introduction to the concepts and more basic plotline involved that was clumsily introduced. Had they established things properly at the beginning, I wouldn't have had to spend two and half hours trying to piece the plot together and would have just enjoyed the weirdness of it all. As it was, it's not really until the girl appears and Cobb explains things to her that you have any basic grasp on what's happening, so the entire opening act is an indulgence that a proof-reader somewhere should have pointed out bore little logical sense to anybody watching, short of some cool time-slowing-down shit. In fact, the entire first act was pretty much redundant, and should have been told in a much more linear fashion which allowed the viewer to become properly immersed and invested before leading on to the oddness of it. That's where The Matrix got it right.

Di Caprio? Yeah he's good. He's nowhere near as good in this as he gets praise for from some quarters (I'm looking at you, Empire), but he's good enough. The other male characters in the movie often seem like fodder, though. Totally unexplored, there's hardly any characterisation to them, so it's hard to give much of a fuck about anybody really. Di Caprio himself didn't cry out for me to invest in him either, so ironically by the end of it, I felt more for his dead dream-wife than I did for him. I don't think that was the intention.

Visually, the movie was ok. Ultra slow motion isn't a revolutionary effect though - I thought we learnt that from Planet Earth. It has good moments, but contrast it to effects landmark movies like Jurassic Park, A.I. or The Matrix and it doesn't come close.

What I liked best about the movie though was how it so ingeniously explored dream worlds, in terms of each layer becoming deeper, weirder and time-stretchier. At one point I was convinced that in layer 4 we'd see a million John Malkovich's. The to and fro between dream layers was very deftly handled and though much of it only just made sense, it was fun to join the ride.

So yeah - all in all, it had concepts and the occasional moment of brilliance, but it was opened badly and void of anything that warranted any investment, particularly.

Mister Six

Quote from: Artemis on July 16, 2010, 07:21:26 PMHad they established things properly at the beginning, I wouldn't have had to spend two and half hours trying to piece the plot together and would have just enjoyed the weirdness of it all. As it was, it's not really until the girl appears and Cobb explains things to her that you have any basic grasp on what's happening

Really? I picked it all up as I went along, and I'm thick. I thought it was tremendous - satisfying emotionally, intellectually and WOOSH-BOOM-BLAMMILY, and with an absolutely stonking cast. Pete Postlethwaite got short shrift for such an excellent actor, but I imagine most of his scenes were cut for time.

SPOILERS BELOW FOR INCEPTION AND SHUTTER ISLAND!

It's very much a companion piece with Shutter Island - both films about memory and perception, and both star DiCaprio as a grieving spouse-killer; the difference here was that Inception's character was able to confront, accept and integrate those terrible actions into himself, while Shutter Island's character deliberately pushed them away. It's a tremendously rich and satisfying film, and incredibly clever in its use of time and nested climaxes.

Madison

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on July 16, 2010, 04:58:31 PM
Spoiler alert


Side points - did anyone else find it surprising that there wasn't more made of the possible 'real world' being a dream, and indeed the idea that all the characters in the film were projections trained by Di Caprio? I know that the final scene leaves that open, but I was very much expecting a massive twist. 
[close]

Ah! Interesting
Spoiler alert
that you thought it was all Di Caprio's projections - my reading of the final scene (not that I'm totally convinced) was that it was MOL's dream - after all, the spinny top totem was hers, not Leo's. I felt like everything from the waking up on the plane onwards was Mol's dream, though left open to the interpretation of a happy ending, Brazil style. Prove me wrong, kids!
[close]

purlieu

I thought it was marvellous.  Not perfect, but the slight headfuckery of
Spoiler alert
having four plots all heading towards one pivotal points in different time streams at the same moment
[close]
was really enthralling and clever without seeming too clever.  I thought it was excellent, visually, and had no trouble grasping the concepts or plot. 

lipsink

I don't get it. If they're recreating the 'world of the dream' will they have somone's mother farting wasps into a bassoon? Or is it just me that has those dreams? Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the film today.

Sam

Quote from: Rev on July 14, 2010, 11:59:31 PM
1) There is an austerity to his films that - and this is crucial - I don't think is entirely deliberate. 
2) That seems to be Nolan's problem.  He's sticking to a method that worked once.
3) He's a mainstream film director, not a maverick

1) I think it is deliberate. You seem to be falling into the trap of criticising a film according to your whims and not using the more platonic ideal of doing so against what the film sets out do. It seems the films are too austere for you therefore they are bad. I recall reading a lengthy interview with Nolan in Empire (sorry, I know it's tabloid film journalism but it was a friend's copy at work) where he was asked about the coldness/no human touch views of his films and he replied very well, describing why he makes the films like that and why he doesn't believe these criticisms to be accurate or indeed relevant.

2) All director's do this; they all make the same film over and over. Even the ones whose trademark is to make diverse films every time are still doing this, precisely because this is the element of consistency. Your second point there only serves to describe Nolan as an auteur (yes, auteur theory is bullshit).

3) Memento was not a mainstream film. He  has ended up becoming a mainstream director, and as someone else said making a very complicated and ambitious film with no concessions to lazy viewers is definitely a maverick thing to do.

By the way, I agree with you  -  Nolan's films are great fun but they don't "do" it for me. I think they are a bit empty too. Doesn't mean they're not ace films and that Nolan isn't a brilliant director, though.


Madison

Quote from: lipsink on July 17, 2010, 08:06:00 AM
I don't get it. If they're recreating the 'world of the dream' will they have somone's mother farting wasps into a bassoon? Or is it just me that has those dreams? Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the film today.

I'm quite glad that aspect of dreaming isn't fully explored - there's a whole other film to be made that isn't essentially an industrial espionage heist, but it's already sort of been done with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind.

There's a few bits of symbolism (safes and suchlike) and excellent use of a sexy lady decoy, but it would be a six hour epic if it went into every aspect of how people dream. I also liked how the science isn't explained, because it just doesn't need to be. Here is a box, when you attach yourself to it, you're all in the same dream. In this universe this is a thing, viewers. (Reeves and Mortimer rules "how does it work?" "I don't know, but it does".)