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, 11:25:23 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Inception

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Shoulders?-Stomach!

I'm not totally sold on Di Caprio as an actor. He's past the age of playing whiny spoilt kids like in The Basketball Diaries/Romeo + Juliet, but he does play obsessives and neurotics quite well.

I don't think he does gravitas particularly well, he's not really a commanding presence and he's a sappy choice for a romantic lead. I think he's generally overhyped and has a narrower range than people think.

I don't really hate him, and I wouldn't say he stinks in anything. He's generally a really committed actor who is sometimes miscast.


El Unicornio, mang

I thought it was brilliant, and definitely had some emotional weight that was missing from his earlier films. Also it was funny to hear a huge gasp from the audience
Spoiler alert
at the end when the thing was still spinning
[close]

localhero87

Going to see this tonight. I have high hopes for it, especially considering Nolan's track record.

lipsink

When I saw the trailer for 'Bronson' Tom Hardy reminded me of Patrick Marber for some reason:



Still haven't seen the film yet, but I reckon Nolan will have some of the cast (Joseph Gordon Levitt? Hardy?) in Batman 3.

non capisco

Tom Hardy, like Michael Fassbender, is one of those chameleonic actors who I sometimes don't quite recognise until about five minutes into their first appearance despite having seen them in loads of stuff. Oh, fuck, that's who that is! There's a ton of great young British actors about at the minute, I put him in a bracket with people like Daniel Mays, Andrew Garfield and Riz Ahmed who I've noticed being good in stuff for a while and are now all starting to come to prominence. Hardy was the best thing about 'Bronson' but he was also great in the title role of "Stuart: A Life Backwards" which I really need to watch again.

Saw 'Inception' this morning and loved every second. It's been trailed in some quarters as being a confusing headfuck so I was quietly smug that I was able to follow it all the way through without much difficulty. Critics of Nolan who say he's all head and no heart should be able to credit him with a bit of the latter on this one I'd say. I can already tell it's going to be one of those films I'll be mulling over for days.

CaledonianGonzo

Well, if only all blockbuster movies were so chock-full of tension, plot, actorly chops and skillful storytelling sleight-of-hand.

It really is all that and a bag of chips.

Quote from: Artemis on July 16, 2010, 07:21:26 PM
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.

For me, the fact that nothing is spelled out into a fair way into the movie is a major tick in the plus column.  The fact that the audience is asked to work and put the jigsaw together themselves is a bonus.  It's still full of exposition - it's just that its usually exposition that adds complexity to the world of the story.

On the debate about Nolan's filmography as a whole, his various stylistic tics, his repertoire of actors, and and the fact that there are even arguments about his place in (or out) of any list great directors could be regarded as an indicator that he's someone worth having behind the camera of big-budget films.  In a world of identikit cinema and directors for hire, it's nice to see someone who's practically an auteur be given the finances to realise his most unwieldly and complex fantasies and stories onscreen. 

Hence Inception.

Ja'moke

Just got back from seeing this. My initial reaction: a very good film, perhaps even a great film, but not without its faults, and not my favourite Nolan film.

It certainly wasn't as confusing and mind-bending as I expected it to be based on various hype and reviews, and after the introductory 'example' of the type of extraction work Cobb does, I understood the concept and found the plot relatively easy to follow, and that's definitely a positive. My main problem lies with the dialogue, which far too often felt cold and hollow, I understand the need for exposition in a high concept film such as this, but there was just too much of it, and for the most part, it wasn't delivered with a whole lot of confidence.

The delivery of the concept visually however, was excellent, as others have mentioned, the exploration in to the various layers of the dream-world was very nicely handled. I loved how the action sequences were taking place simultaneously in each layer, and having a cause and effect on each other, impressively done. There were lots of cool sequences: the zero-gravity fighting, the deteriorating buildings, the city on top of a city, they all looked amazing on the big screen.

As much as I enjoyed the aspects of the dream-world that were explored, I never quite felt as if I was in a dream-world, and I think this again comes back to the exposition, which of course a big part of is explaining to us that we are in a dream, and that's fine, I understand that is necessary for the plot, but as a viewer I would have liked to have been in that world with them. For example, when I watch a David Lynch film, like Inland Empire or Lost Highway, I'm absorbed in to this dream-like reality, and those films aren't particularly about dreams themselves, but they visualise and express what a dream feels like perfectly, that unpredictable, oddness that can only truly be felt in a dream (or in a Lynch film). There were times when Inception came close, I particularly liked when  Cobb and Araidne took the elevator through Cobb's memories, and the scenes were the projections began staring at you, those moments had that strange, unsettling feeling of the dream-world. I know Lynch and Nolan are completely different film-makers, I wasn't expecting backwards talking dwarfs in Inception, but I would have liked to have been sucked in to the dream more than I was.

Overall though, I thoroughly enjoyed the film, I thought the pace, the plotting, and the concept were excellent, and it had good performances all round, especially from DiCaprio, Hardy, Gordon-Levitt, and Cotillard. It just fell flat with me on the expositional dialogue, and not quite realising the full potential of the dream-world.

There are so many ways to exploit a film of this type that it's almost unbearable how STRAIGHTFORWARD the plot is. The twist ending is the cheapest form of metaphysical trick available when a far better ending is accidentally foreshadowed in the introduction to the film. In the course of it all it's hard to distinguish between what's an action film cliche and what's an intentional stab at dreamlike unreality especially when the dreams become successively more cliched the further down we go and that the action scene in 'reality' is the most dreamlike of them all. The stalwart refusal to engage in any kind of perceptual shenanigans means that the lack of clues or motifs makes the ending essentially a valueless choice, do we choose a shitty film with a twist ending or an above average action film without one.

As for the film itself, it has some impressive action sequences and a story that doesn't really capitalise on the the premise...or is consistent in the least...or has any emotional depth.

For a better example of screwing with the audience's perception of reality in an action film see Total Recall.

(Edit: I did like the film, I'm just disappointed with how average it is.
Edit again: Aaargh! How could you just make the antagonists nameless goons?! HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO FEEL TENSION?!)

vrailaine

The only major problem I had with it was that it seemed to lack any climatic moments, or there were so many stacked on top of another that it lacked everything else.

Lame enough ending too, but I was expecting that all the time, didn't bother me hugely.

localhero87

Just watched this. Thought it was awe-inspiringly good. Possibly the best "big" film released so far in 2010 for me. I still need to think it over and get my head round it as it has a feq different layers to it, but personally I absolutely loved it. Just the premise of the film alone is spectacular, and I praise Nolan for even coming up with it never mind being able to write a whole film around it and shoot it.

Lame ending? Without saying anything to spoil it for those who havent seen it,  I thought the way it ended was probably the best way it COULD have ended!

vrailaine

Well, I think I agree with you, still though.

All of Nolan's standard flaws are present in the film too, I doubt anyone was expecting otherwise, mind.

MuteBanana

Tom Hardy going to the way of Jason Statham? Fuck. Off.

Watch Stuart A Life Backwards. Part 1

Tom Hardy is the new Paddy Considine.

And this film. Tom Hardy AND Ellen Page? Fuck yeah.

lipsink

I thought it was bloody fucking great.
Spoiler alert
Was funny how Joseph Gordon Levitt setting them all up in the lift to wake up went on for half an hour but would've only lasted a minute or two in a typical action movie.
[close]
I thought it was surprisingly easy to follow.
Spoiler alert
Except, when someone gets killed in a dream they just sink down into a deeper level dream and have to be revived from that one. Is that right? The trailers led me to belive it was going to have a much more bleaker ending where Leo ends up stuck in the dream forever. Though who's the say that wasn't the case?
[close]

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: MuteBanana on July 18, 2010, 01:22:46 AM
Tom Hardy going to the way of Jason Statham? Fuck. Off.

Watch Stuart A Life Backwards. Part 1


I watched that last night (got it from thebox though) and it was ace. Hardy is an excellent actor, and Inception plus the upcoming Warrior and Mad Max could propel him towards the A-list where he belongs.

Santa's Boyfriend

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on July 16, 2010, 04:58:31 PM
d does not seem to have a truly 100% credible sense of its pwn physics

The Matrix sequences became known as Bullet Time, I hereby forward the motion that the Inception sequences become known as "Pwn Physics".

EDIT to pose a question about the ending: 
Spoiler alert
I loved how the film deliberately left the question open as to whether the final part of the film was a dream or not.  The more I think about it, the more the final scene is overly staged, suggesting it is a dream - not just that the house and everything in it was the same as in the dream, but the fact that the kids haven't aged, even though De Caprio's character must have been away for quite a while.  Am I right in assuming it would mean that everything in the film was a dream, and that the wife had been right - that they had one more level of reality to go and she was already there, waiting for him?
[close]

non capisco

temporarily deleted because i fucked up the spoiler quotes



Quote from: Santa's Boyfriend on July 18, 2010, 11:42:44 PM
Secrets

Spoiler alert
The problem I have buying into that interpretation is that in all the dreams portrayed in the film there are no interactions with the projections beyond armed skirmishes, the dialogue suggests they're manifestations of the dreamer's subconcious but even that much isn't taken much beyond "Wife = Guilt". It seems to me to be more of a twist ending for it's own sake.
[close]

lipsink

Spoiler alert
I was surprised that nothing more was made of the people attacking them in Cillian Murphy's dreams. It ended up just being his subconscious because he was trained. The way Joseph Gordon Levitt said "We must have missed it." made me think they'd been set up.

Also I was thinking half way through that DiCaprio thinking he couldn't go home was going to turn out to be an idea that had been planted in his subconscious.
[close]

kidsick5000

Quote from: Madison on July 16, 2010, 10:43:31 PM
Spoiler alert
Brazil style
[close]

Oddly, it is the second big film with a strong element of that this year

MojoJojo

Quote from: Corn on the Cobb on July 18, 2010, 12:27:42 AM
(Edit: I did like the film, I'm just disappointed with how average it is.
Edit again: Aaargh! How could you just make the antagonists nameless goons?! HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO FEEL TENSION?!)

I think that worked quite well for generating tension - it was just an endless stream of bad guys, they were never going to be able to beat them, it was just a question of how long they could hold out before they had to escape.
Maybe playing video games makes this work better, since that type of set up is quite common.
(it should be noted the attacking subconcious thing was done almost exactly the same in Psyconaughts. Except there they were called "censors", looked that nerdy office types and attacked with big rubber stamps. But the principal is the same.)
What did screw up the tension was the taxi/minibus being turned into swiss cheese, and only one person getting hit. It did a real suspension-of-disbelief break for me. Actually, the whole scene was overdone - I realise the idea was to make a big shocking entrance with the violence, but it just became silly. We're supposed to believe they weren't expecting anyone with guns to turn up, but they all pull out automatic weaponry and defeat an ambush with minimal casualties?

With the ending, I think I choose to see that as just a little joke. I was expecting a Game like twist, and found myself thinking back to earlier parts of the film to see if there was any clues to it all being a dream. The relatively straightforward plot was actually somewhat refreshing. I don't think there was anything that hinted "it was all a dream" before that, and I don't think it would add any menaing if it was all a dream. Dom Cobb has performed his penance and let go of his dead wife, now he gets his reward.

Mister Six

Quote from: MojoJojo on July 19, 2010, 11:32:13 AMWhat did screw up the tension was the taxi/minibus being turned into swiss cheese, and only one person getting hit. It did a real suspension-of-disbelief break for me.

Yeah, I agree. Also, the bits in the snowy army base when Tom Hardy's running along while bullets whizz around his head, like he's in an 80s action movie. It saps the film of tension. This, though...

QuoteActually, the whole scene was overdone - I realise the idea was to make a big shocking entrance with the violence, but it just became silly. We're supposed to believe they weren't expecting anyone with guns to turn up, but they all pull out automatic weaponry and defeat an ambush with minimal casualties?

They fabricate them from dreams. Tom Hardy says as much when he creates that grenade launcher to pick off the guy who's shooting at Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Madison

I like that absolutely no one agrees with me about the ending, which means I enjoyed a slightly different film to everyone else, but we all enjoyed it. Which is the sign of a good film. (Also the ending 'doesn't matter' really, does it, seeing as one-man's reality is a relative thing, like WOAH dude)

MojoJojo

Quote from: Mister Six on July 19, 2010, 01:04:02 PM
Yeah, I agree. Also, the bits in the snowy army base when Tom Hardy's running along while bullets whizz around his head, like he's in an 80s action movie. It saps the film of tension. This, though...

They fabricate them from dreams. Tom Hardy says as much when he creates that grenade launcher to pick off the guy who's shooting at Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

I suppose that sort of works - and they can't just dream up nuclear weapons because warping reality attracts more attention, like what Juno did with her city folding antics. Although again that would seem to distort the tension a bit.

As I think about it more I find other things which stick out a bit, but I think they are minor issues. One slight issue you could complain about is that the actual "Inception" part wasn't very inciteful - a bit trite if anything. All that stuff about how you can't tell some one an idea because they'll know it wasn't theirs seemed to get thrown out the window, when they told Scarecrow the idea almost immediately. Considering inception is supposed to be impossible, it's a bit jarring the armed mooks don't really seem to slow them down much - it's only the dead wife who really manages to cause problems. I mean, I have trouble getting the shopping in when heavily armed mooks are trying to kill me.
But that's really a minor issue, as the actual inception isn't the heart of the film, as it's about Leornardo not scarecrow.

falafel

I reckon the whole thing was a charade to incept Leo. Also felt like the entire first half of the film was too hazy, oddly edited and full of strange fortune not to be a dream. Also: didn't that room in the snow base look an awful lot like the 'training room'?

Johnny Townmouse

The longer I sit with the film in my head the more I like it, whilst at the same time increasingly frustrated that they created such an uninteresting and undramatic main goal for Di Caprio's character. I personally feel it would have been far more interesting if the whole goal of his character was to retrieve Moll from the depths of dreams, possibly failing. Instead, its about him spending time with his kids, who apparently do not have passports.

DJ Solid Snail

Now that I think about it, that ending wasn't ambiguous at all, really, was it? The spinny thing started slowing down, which means it was definitely going to topple over - it would only keep spinning if it kept the same speed. The cut to black was just a joke. His kids being the same age... well, it was never specified how long before his wife had died, was it? Or was it?

El Unicornio, mang

Plus, when he was imagining his kids, I think he was imagining them at the age they would be in the present time, not the age when he last saw them.

Madison

But he wasn't imagining the last time he saw his kids, was he? It was very clear that it was a memory, because that was meant to be a big dream-world no no, building worlds from memories. Or something. Juno was worried because Titanic was wallowing in his memory worlds.

(Ps I didn't get the spinning (or lack of it) of the top being significant - wasn't it just that every person has their own totem, (Juno's chess piece, Darlene's Boyfriend's loaded dice) and the significance of the top was that it was MOL's totem, not Titanic's, even though he had it in the real world? Was the spinning meaningful then?)

MojoJojo

Quote from: falafel on July 19, 2010, 02:10:37 PM
I reckon the whole thing was a charade to incept Leo. Also felt like the entire first half of the film was too hazy, oddly edited and full of strange fortune not to be a dream. Also: didn't that room in the snow base look an awful lot like the 'training room'?

Yeah, incepting Leo was one of the things I was trying to work out during the film. Or maybe we were all still in the Japanese guys head, and this was just an incredibly elaborate way to get the informatin they were trying to get at the start. I can't understand any idea Leo could have had incepted - get over your dead wife? If that was the idea then you'd expect some parallels between scarecrow talking to his dying Dad and Leo talking to his dying wife, but there weren't any. And if they were trying to get secrets out of the Japanese* guy, they failed.
The whole buildup is very much Ocean's Eleven, which means it's a bit odd there is no twist at the end. And it's why the ending is a sort of joke (I say on the basis of one viewing).

Quote(Ps I didn't get the spinning (or lack of it) of the top being significant - wasn't it just that every person has their own totem, (Juno's chess piece, Darlene's Boyfriend's loaded dice) and the significance of the top was that it was MOL's totem, not Titanic's, even though he had it in the real world? Was the spinning meaningful then?)

Yeah, the spinning was significant. The idea is that only you know exactly how your dice spins around and wobbles, so if you're in someone else's dream, you'll know because it won't spin/do it's thing properly. So when Mr. Ripley's spinning top thing wobbles all over the place he knows he is in the real world, and when it spins neatly it means he is in someone else's dream. Although being able to dream up guns in other people's dreams calls this into question a bit - what's to stop you dreaming up your totem wobbles and all?


*Is there any indication that he is Japanese - or have I just implemented a "rich asian= Jap" prejudice? That's disgraceful.

DJ Solid Snail

Quote from: Madison on July 19, 2010, 02:39:05 PM
(Ps I didn't get the spinning (or lack of it) of the top being significant - wasn't it just that every person has their own totem, (Juno's chess piece, Darlene's Boyfriend's loaded dice) and the significance of the top was that it was MOL's totem, not Titanic's, even though he had it in the real world? Was the spinning meaningful then?)

He says at one point that his totem never stops spinning once it starts, so if it topples over, that means he's not dreaming, he's in the real world.

...Er, right?