INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    Originally posted by RyanJackson View Post
    LMAO! I almost spit soda I'm my keyboard. I take it you're not a Nolan fan?

    Okay. Will you settle for talented then? I mean this Nolan kid has potential. He just might be something one day.
    Yeah, obviously he's talented. Good visual eye and a better than average imagination. I enjoy his movies as they're unreeling, but they generally (admittedly, I haven't seen them all) don't hold up when digesting them. It's just when he gets to maintaining internal logic that he is either lazy, cheating or just thinks his target audience won't notice. Or maybe he just gets overwhelmed himself.

    Although that's a high narrative stand. But I feel that if Nolan is gonna indulge in mindgame cinema, he needs to make sure that everything adds up in the end. Seems only fair.
    "Forget it, Jake. It's Hollywood."

    My YouTube channel.

    Comment


    • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

      Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
      There's a very big difference between having an anti-hero in an art-house flick, and being able to write a 7,000 word essay on the innumerable logic flaws in a mainstream Hollywood feature - the type of film that relies on everything making sense so the target audience, the lowest common denominator, can understand.

      Don't make excuses. You are not as stupid as Hollywood thinks you are.

      2001 is an entirely different beast. Nobody watches a film like that for plot, because it was not made with that intention. It's an art film, not a mainstream Hollywood feature, and we enjoy those types of films for different reasons. Saying that one is flawed because it's not like the other is pretty stupid.

      Inception is *not* an art film. It's mainstream, and therefore open to mainstream criticisms.

      And I don't know about everyone else, but I don't go into a movie hoping it's littered with problems. So when I notice obvious problems, it upsets me.
      This is not a valid argument to me. 2001 may be considered an art film today (it's not), but it was mainstream back in its day. Check its box office figures. It did well. THE CREMASTER CYCLE is an art film. SATANTANGO is an art film. WAVELENGTH is an art film. LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD is an art film. 2001 is popular entertainment. And you're selling the film short to say its plot is not logical. Too deliberately paced, too cerebral, too chilly for the TOY STORY 3 crowd maybe. But Kubrick made popular art, just like Nolan.

      But that's my opinion, because you can't just place these arbitrary labels on films to support your own subjectivity. 2001 is immune to the type of criticism one is allowed to level at INCEPTION because one is an art film and one is popular entertainment? Huh? To say that something meant for wide theatrical release must be custom fitted for the lowest common denominator.. that's a fallacy. And it's partly these types of assumptions that have led to so many retarded movies recently.

      You keep mentioning obvious problems. They're not obvious if you're in an extremely slim minority that's having these issues. INCEPTION currently has a 9.4 on IMDB, which places it at #3 in the top 250. It has a 85% score on Rotten Tomatoes. It did 62 million this weekend. I'd say your "obvious flaws" are not a factor for most.

      Comment


      • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

        Originally posted by bioprofessor View Post
        I love movies. I love the pure entertainment of film. I love how films can teach us something about our humanity. I love quirky little indies, shorts, and tentpole blowouts. I love documentary. I'm fascinated by the art and craft of film. That's why I took up screenwriting.

        No ivory tower here. I was very interested in Inception's premise, because I'm in the midst of a major rewrite of my mind-control script. But, from my perspective, a story should not take 30 minutes or longer to make me care about at least one character. It should not take over 30 minutes of exposition and CGI to connect me to the story. That said, I'm willing to give it another shot. I like Nolan's work and all of the actors in this film. Nice thing, I'll be able to hit FF on the DVD player.
        No admission to the ivory tower until you watch more than half an hour of the movie.

        Comment


        • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

          Originally posted by Gwai Lo View Post
          This is not a valid argument to me.

          ... you can't just place these arbitrary labels on films to support your own subjectivity. 2001 is immune to the type of criticism one is allowed to level at INCEPTION because one is an art film and one is popular entertainment? Huh? To say that something meant for wide theatrical release must be custom fitted for the lowest common denominator.. that's a fallacy.
          Ditto.

          Comment


          • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

            Forget the film for the moment and get the soundtrack! JUSt got it.

            Hans NAILS IT! freaking haunting on my system...

            Comment


            • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

              Funny audience reaction to the end:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk1Xwqh69R0

              Pretty much sums up the reaction when I saw it

              BTW I really like the score from the last few minutes, good stuff from Zimmer.

              Comment


              • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

                sppeterson wrote:
                It's interesting that one of the key criticisms directed at Inception, that it's emotionally cold and too cerebral, is also one of the criticisms people have about 2001.

                I think that's a valid criticism -- though Inception is practically Spielbergian compared to 2001.

                But that doesn't matter to me.
                As a lifelong fan of 2001 Space Odyssey and a lukewarm viewer of Inception, I can draw the following distinction between them, insofar as both can be considered emotionally cool and intellectual. For me, 2001 was a thrilling exploration of the deepest questions about reality. Despite such a daunting theme, the environments portrayed in the movie were (until the end) highly realistic and entirely believable, lacking in contrivance. I feel Inception, on the other hand, was wall-to-wall contrivance, with expedient things like a handy-dandy drug specially formulated to promote multi-level sleep, itself a hard-to-swallow concept. Such obvious contrivances did not invite me into the story and its world; rather, they pushed me away. The movie failed to persuade me to suspend my disbelief or to care about its characters. In fact, it did essentially the opposite.

                So I can be an ardent fan of 2001 and mostly indifferent to Inception, even though both movies can characterized as emotionally/intellectually cool.
                Biohazard wrote:
                2001 is an entirely different beast.
                I would point out, however, [as I see Gwai has] that 2001 was not an art-house movie, although some people today might call it an 'art' film. It was a major studio production with wide release. So in that sense, it is fair and appropriate to put it and Inception in the same 'category' and compare the two in various ways.
                Last edited by Donreel; 07-19-2010, 02:59 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

                  SPOILERS

                  Just got back, frankly a bit disappointed as was really really looking forward to it. I thought it would have more interesting and suspenseful if less convoluted. The reviewer in Salon I believe said that Nolan's dreams must not be very interesting... personally, I tend to agree. Where are the actual DREAMS? I don't dream of buildings, nor do most people I know, so why all the emphasis on architecture? Where is the sex and the fantasy? Compare the dreamscapes of THE CELL, yeah that was one fvcked up mind, but at least it felt like a dream.

                  I thought the BIG visuals were actually less impressive than I expected, too clinical imo, whereas the smaller ones were stunning. I LOVED all the zero gravity stuff, and I loved the quick cuts back to the van slowly crashing, that was really cool, with the CU's of their faces bouncing up and down in slow mo.

                  Some major issues were unexplored in my opinion, namely HOW do they actually build someone else's dream? All this talk about architecture and mazes yet it almost went nowhere as far as I could tell. What was Ellen Page actually DOING?

                  Finally, for me the big problem with this kind of conceit is, to enter someone else's dream and control it means that you would have to control your own subconscious, which they state elsewhere is impossible.

                  In the end, I did enjoy it, but I didn't think if fully explored the dreamscape possibilities, the goal was weak and the risk ultimately small, since Leo just sort of wakes up on the beach, talks to the other guy for five minutes and then, boom, is back on the plane.

                  But, I'm glad I saw it and I'm glad it got made, anytime big expensive original scripts get produced is cause for celebration for all writers and I agree we have to support them by spending a few bucks at the box office.

                  Comment


                  • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

                    I thought it was fantastic on every level. Some of those action sequences were incredible. This was a heist film, and an action film of all things, that felt like a serious drama. And to have a dream within a dream within a dream and still make perfect sense - skillful exposition, that.

                    I guess some of you guys didn't like it. That's cool. I sure as hell did.
                    Chicks Who Script podcast

                    Comment


                    • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

                      Originally posted by Donreel View Post
                      So I can be an ardent fan of 2001 and mostly indifferent to Inception, even though both movies can characterized as emotionally/intellectually cool.
                      I can understand that. To each their own. You're not passive-aggressively calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot.

                      The conceits they used for the story didn't bug me. Generally, I'm pretty loose on the core conceits that make the story possible. So the Duracell fudginess in The Matrix didn't bug me either.
                      Steven Palmer Peterson

                      Comment


                      • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

                        Originally posted by MontanaHans View Post
                        @RyanJ: Eminem and Drake. There's your problem.
                        LOL! I didn't say they were the best albums I have on my ipod, just the most recent. I'm a big east coast 90's era hip hop fan. So I have a lot of old stuff that I listen to like Illmatic, Reasonable Doubt, Capital Punishment, Enter The 36 Chambers etc. I like rap were the rappers can actually rap. There's some newer artists I like too though. I also dig Lupe Fiasco's music.

                        BTW I think Recovery is disappointing.
                        Excedrin Migraine. Red Bull. Fade in.

                        Sinister Scrawlings

                        Comment


                        • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

                          Originally posted by Signal30 View Post
                          Yeah, obviously he's talented. Good visual eye and a better than average imagination. I enjoy his movies as they're unreeling, but they generally (admittedly, I haven't seen them all) don't hold up when digesting them. It's just when he gets to maintaining internal logic that he is either lazy, cheating or just thinks his target audience won't notice. Or maybe he just gets overwhelmed himself.

                          Although that's a high narrative stand. But I feel that if Nolan is gonna indulge in mindgame cinema, he needs to make sure that everything adds up in the end. Seems only fair.
                          That's a fair assessment.
                          Excedrin Migraine. Red Bull. Fade in.

                          Sinister Scrawlings

                          Comment


                          • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

                            Originally posted by 12916studios View Post
                            How the kicks worked was already explained above, but I'll go over again just for the hell of it. They have to be kicked out of the dreams in a specific order. If they're in limbo, they have to be kicked out of there first before they can be kicked out of tier three, into two, and then from two into one. Once they're in one, they can wake up on their own. This is why all the kicks had to be synchronized perfectly, which is where the music came in. By the time the roll came, everyone but Levitt's character (Arthur) was in dream tier three, so they couldn't be woken up by the tier two kick. I think Arthur fought off the potential of an unplanned during the roll, whilst also fighting the baddies in the hallway (which was a byproduct of the rolling van). Additionally, they were ALL heavily sedated so that they could go down into tier three. My assumption is that Levitt's character sedated himself as well just to make sure he didn't get kicked from tier two by accident, something which would have royally f*cked the entire operation over.

                            The reason their brains aren't scrambled to mush is because he rescues him out of limbo in time to get kicked out of all of the dreams, then back to the airplane. Your brains would turn to mush if you missed all the kicks and got completely stuck down there. The difference in relative time between each of the tiers is what allowed Cobb to save Saito. They said something about how ten hours of real life are forty hours in tier one. Our brains process everything at massively fast paces when we are asleep. When you add a dream within a dream, it's like factoring it to the Nth degree. The relation is exponential from there on out, so ten seconds in tier one translates to a week in tier two, which is six months in tier three, which is decades in limbo. This is how over the course of one afternoon, Cobb and Mal spent a lifetime together. This is also why, in real life, you can dream six hours of adventures in five minutes.

                            They said in the movie that the tier one kick was happening already, because they could feel it in tier three. That is what cause the avalanche, and why they specifically stated that Arthur had three minutes left in tier two, while they had an hour left in three. So because of the exponential difference in dream-time between each of the tiers, Cobb and Ariadne had enough time to pop into limbo and back before everything kicked out. And even after Ariadne and Fisher kicked out of limbo (with the fall and defibrillator respectively), Cobb had enough time to find Saito. Once he did so, they used Cobb's gun to kill themselves. Cobb would be kicked out of limbo into tier three from that alone, but Saito also needed to sync the shooting of himself with the defibrillator. Again, none of this is seen, but it is discussed in part (at least the defibrillator part is) and the rest is assumed. Also, this time, there is literally a chekov's gun. In one of the first shots of the film, Cobb's gun in revealed. And in one of the last scenes, it is used (though with its usage is implied through shot reverse shot).

                            I saw this movie once two days ago, and I remember extraordinary amounts of it. For a complex film, it was really f*cking straightforward if you pay attention. The plotholes you perceive are really just gaps in your understanding. If only you'd paid attention just a LITTLE bit more.
                            Like I stated, I'll give it another shot, sit up straight and pay "little" bit more attention. But...

                            Isn't the need to write a 600 word essay to explain the film's "****ing straightforward" plot, defacto proof of the film's weakness and a flaw in your logic?

                            Comment


                            • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

                              Originally posted by bioprofessor View Post
                              Like I stated, I'll give it another shot, sit up straight and pay "little" bit more attention. But...

                              Isn't the need to write a 600 word essay to explain the film's "****ing straightforward" plot, defacto proof of the film's weakness and a flaw in your logic?
                              so then by your logic if it is said that there is no way God exists, then does it make that true?

                              Comment


                              • Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

                                Originally posted by Gwai Lo View Post
                                This is not a valid argument to me. 2001 may be considered an art film today (it's not), but it was mainstream back in its day. Check its box office figures. It did well. THE CREMASTER CYCLE is an art film. SATANTANGO is an art film. WAVELENGTH is an art film. LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD is an art film. 2001 is popular entertainment. And you're selling the film short to say its plot is not logical. Too deliberately paced, too cerebral, too chilly for the TOY STORY 3 crowd maybe. But Kubrick made popular art, just like Nolan.
                                Nolan made as many art films as my dog, who has made none, in case you were wondering. Well, unless you count Memento. That isn't very mainstream in its design. And just to clarify, Nolan made that one, not my dog. My dog is smart enough to have left out the completely pointless filler scene(s).

                                2001 is an art film. A lot of people saw it and enjoy it even today. That makes it a popular art film - but an art film nonetheless. It doesn't follow the same general blueprint as nearly all mainstream films do. It does it's own thing. Christ, it opens with 25 minutes of apes sitting around the desert or whenever the hell they were. You can't get much different from the mainstream method of opening a film than that.

                                Originally posted by Gwai Lo View Post
                                But that's my opinion, because you can't just place these arbitrary labels on films to support your own subjectivity. 2001 is immune to the type of criticism one is allowed to level at INCEPTION because one is an art film and one is popular entertainment? Huh? To say that something meant for wide theatrical release must be custom fitted for the lowest common denominator.. that's a fallacy. And it's partly these types of assumptions that have led to so many retarded movies recently.
                                I said people enjoy different types of films for different reasons. One of the reasons people enjoy mainstream films is because they are easy to follow and understand. People enjoy art films because they offer a different perspective to storytelling.

                                It's impossible to compare the two. It's like comparing a book to a film. Can't do it. Well, you can, but you're better off masturbating with your genitals than with two entirely separate modes of storytelling that do not typically correspond.

                                Ever notice how 100% of the music on mainstream radio is simple and catchy? Predictable, even. There's a reason for that.

                                Originally posted by Gwai Lo View Post
                                You keep mentioning obvious problems. They're not obvious if you're in an extremely slim minority that's having these issues. INCEPTION currently has a 9.4 on IMDB, which places it at #3 in the top 250. It has a 85% score on Rotten Tomatoes. It did 62 million this weekend. I'd say your "obvious flaws" are not a factor for most.
                                Newsflash - people pay theater admission BEFORE they actually see the movies! Cash comes first, viewing second. To gauge a film's quality or appreciation on a dollar figure is retarded, and exactly what Hollywood is banking on. If people knew bad movies were bad, nobody would go.

                                And the IMDB's shady top 250 list holds as much weight as...well, nothing.

                                Originally posted by Donreel View Post
                                I would point out, however, [as I see Gwai has] that 2001 was not an art-house movie, although some people today might call it an 'art' film. It was a major studio production with wide release.
                                I don't care what theaters it played in or what studios funded the project. None of that has anything to do with the CONTENT or the STYLE of the film itself, which are the determining factors in this discussion.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X