I just watched it. It seemed like every line Juno had was a question. It was like "Let's dump all the exposition on the wide eyed 12 year old." After a while, the explanations got annoying.
I didn't like how they had to rationalize everything in each dream state. Since when are dreams rational? Who hasn't flown in their dreams?
I liked it as a high concept heist movie. It wasn't as deep as people have you believe though. Nolan's sort of like the Mariah Carey of storytelling, relying on narrative gymnastics to engage the audience.
I just watched it. It seemed like every line Juno had was a question. It was like "Let's dump all the exposition on the wide eyed 12 year old." After a while, the explanations got annoying.
I didn't like how they had to rationalize everything in each dream state. Since when are dreams rational? Who hasn't flown in their dreams?
I liked it as a high concept heist movie. It wasn't as deep as people have you believe though. Nolan's sort of like the Mariah Carey of storytelling, relying on narrative gymnastics to engage the audience.
Nolan needed her character so he could explain the plot to the audience without directly explaining it. Usually, that role is reserved for the main character ie Luke Skywalker, Will Smith in MIB, etc, but this time we learn what's going on through a side character, which was a little obvious.
Joan: What does the "T" stand for?
Jack: Trustworthy.
Finally saw this - car overheated on the way to theatre (radiator spewing coolant, oh boy!), so my reality was a bit stressed before we went in the theater, knowing that the car would have to be towed home afterwards.
I liked parts of it. I hated the soundtrack - too much like Dark Knight's for me.
But, it went on too long, I remember thinking ("and we still haven't gotten to level three yet!"), not something you want your audience thinking.
The acting was good, DiCaprio very good. The concept fascinating, it was just the execution that, I think, could have been tightened up. Also I found it a bit unbelievable that some characters who were envolved in gun battles escaped without being hurt, at all!
So, I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars. Better than the Dark Knight! I would see a sequel, if they go there, which hopefully would be a little less ponderous, and more succinct.
Forgot to add - loved Cillian Murphy and Michael Caine. The actress playing the wife also excellent. Actually the whole cast was great - and their performances provided the thread that pulled me through the movie. Great job by all of them!
you know who i did like? Tom Hardy as Eames. LOVED that guy! not only is he the best at what he does (like Cobb) but at least he's got a damn sense of humor about the whole no-win situation. make him the freakin protagonist, cause he stole the whole movie from all the other named talent.
I loved this guy too, the movie came alive every time he was on screen!
The biggest problem with the film is that it's not focused! The film needed to be about one thing. It's either about Cobb overcoming his guilt or stealing an idea. They are not linked, they are two different movies.
I'm surprised that many writers are not picking up on this, but accuse us of being dumb because we don't get it -- we don't get it because I don't know what I'm supposed to focus on.
Watch all your favourite films from yesteryear -- they are about ONE idea, not multiple ideas. One of my favourite films is Apocalypse Now. It's about one thing, it has one plot, ONE GOAL: FIND KURTZ and KILL him.
BACK TO THE FUTURE - one plot: GET BACK HOME. All the subplots and obstacles relate to that ONE GOAL.
The INCEPTION trailer promises that the hero's goal is to steal an idea -- but the movie can't make up its mind what goal the audience should be focused on because Nolan doesn't really know either.
"What's worse than being talked about? Not being talked about."
The biggest problem with the film is that it's not focused! The film needed to be about one thing. It's either about Cobb overcoming his guilt or stealing an idea. They are not linked, they are two different movies.
I'm surprised that many writers are not picking up on this, but accuse us of being dumb because we don't get it -- we don't get it because I don't know what I'm supposed to focus on.
Watch all your favourite films from yesteryear -- they are about ONE idea, not multiple ideas. One of my favourite films is Apocalypse Now. It's about one thing, it has one plot, ONE GOAL: FIND KURTZ and KILL him.
BACK TO THE FUTURE - one plot: GET BACK HOME. All the subplots and obstacles relate to that ONE GOAL.
The INCEPTION trailer promises that the hero's goal is to steal an idea -- but the movie can't make up its mind what goal the audience should be focused on because Nolan doesn't really know either.
I agree with the basis of what you're saying, but I see it as a STRENGTH of Nolan's style, not a flaw.
I heard the same arguments about Dark Knight, B. Begins, etc. As a writer that likes to write multi-layered plots, I respect the style.
It's also more realistic. How often in life does "one thing" happen that we can just focus on individually? Never. Usually we have to handle that one thing as well as the 7 other things that pop up in the meantime.
It's a matter of taste. No wrong or right. I would argue that the film is about 30 minutes too long (another Nolan quirk).
"U don' know me, muddafugga..." - Al Pacino, Carlito's Way
I think Inception is a good thing for cinema, but I don't think his writing is smart, it's unfocused.
You talk about multi-layered plots -- it should be ONE plot. Subplots are where you examine the central question of your story. Multi-layered storytelling is weaving subplots within the main plot, in other words its informing the main story to gives us a deeper insight of what the film is about, but in Inception the subplots are not informing the main plot. What's Cobb's personal story got to do with the main story? They are TWO distinct stories.
"What's worse than being talked about? Not being talked about."
The biggest problem with the film is that it's not focused! The film needed to be about one thing. It's either about Cobb overcoming his guilt or stealing an idea. They are not linked, they are two different movies.
They were linked. His guilt, his wife, jeopardized the mission. Guilt is internal. The mission is external. What was cool was the mission took place IN the internal world where the "guilt" could manifest into an active antagonist. In any case, he had to overcome one to achieve the other.
Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams telling myself it's not as hard, hard, hard as it seems.
They were linked. His guilt, his wife, jeopardized the mission. Guilt is internal. The mission is external. What was cool was the mission took place IN the internal world where the "guilt" could manifest into an active antagonist. In any case, he had to overcome one to achieve the other.
The point ShaneBlackFan is making is still valid.
Guilt in this story was EXTERNAL, because it manifested itself as an active protagonist in the dream space. And the whole scenario for how/why it happened is complex enough to make its own film.
So dealing with his guilt (i.e. putting away his wife for good) is a completely different plot than achieving the mission.
The whole movie could have been Leo trying to put away his wife for good, because she had implications in his internal and 'external' world. If something affects other characters as well, it becomes external. And Leo's guilt was an external threat to the mission.
Yes, the guilt and the heist are linked in the movie but poorly. That's the point. It's really difficult to give 2 distinct, EXTERNAL goals for the protagonist. Generally, it's a bad idea, especially for theme.
Cobb's guilt -- as personified by the wife and the occasional train --functioned in the story like the "joker in the deck" character in an Alistair McClean actioner.
Stories like this are extremely difficult to pull off. Not fitting the standard template in all respects is kind of a hazard of the genre. I liked it plenty for what it succeeded at.
Guilt in this story was EXTERNAL, because it manifested itself as an active protagonist in the dream space. And the whole scenario for how/why it happened is complex enough to make its own film.
So dealing with his guilt (i.e. putting away his wife for good) is a completely different plot than achieving the mission.
The whole movie could have been Leo trying to put away his wife for good, because she had implications in his internal and 'external' world. If something affects other characters as well, it becomes external. And Leo's guilt was an external threat to the mission.
Yes, the guilt and the heist are linked in the movie but poorly. That's the point. It's really difficult to give 2 distinct, EXTERNAL goals for the protagonist. Generally, it's a bad idea, especially for theme.
Yep. They are two goals in this film and neither have anything to do with each other. There's nothing at stake for Cobb to help Saito, but the wife and children story is completely personal -- that's the story and a GREAT emotional concept to explore on its own.
I see why folks think it's an inner need -- and it's a good one -- but it's a big story for it to be effectively considered an inner need because when he overcomes it it does not affect the main plot line which is to plant an idea into someone's head*.
*I can't remember all the details of the film.
"What's worse than being talked about? Not being talked about."
The biggest problem with the film is that it's not focused! The film needed to be about one thing. It's either about Cobb overcoming his guilt or stealing an idea. They are not linked, they are two different movies.
BACK TO THE FUTURE - one plot: GET BACK HOME. All the subplots and obstacles relate to that ONE GOAL.
That's what I said about 740 posts ago.
If Jaws was like Inception, Quint and Hooper would go out to kill the shark while Brody stayed behind to deal with his fear of water.
Comment