INCEPTION Post Release - Page 2

But what's the point of making the entire movie one long dream, particularly when we don't know who the dreamer is or what he's trying to accomplish/resolve? For me, that reading just makes the entire movie weightless: it's a bunch of imaginary characters going through the motions in order to accomplish some meaningless goal.

I feel like there's no narrative arc unless the beginning and ending of the movie are both "real." The slight changes in the Watanabe bookends still bug me, though...

Are the changes anything more than a little compression in the latter one, though? Are any lines of dialogue actually changed?

Even in dreams you become emotionally involved in its proceedings. Does knowing it could be all not real effect you that much? Especially when everyone knows films in general aren't real either.

Also, excellent point, Devin, about the walls closing in and Watanabe showing up so quick. I really bought it because I just assumed it was all in reality. But like Cobb said, we only realize how strange things are when we wake up.

I definitely need to see this movie again, but how much of Murphy's breakthrough with his father was "real" and how much of it was a result of the idea being planted there? I suppose either way it doesn't matter to Murphy because if the Inception holds he'll think it was his own idea anyway. But is it truly a meaningful breakthrough if this idea is a) false and b) not even his own idea to begin with?

Kudos to Nolan for raising so many questions about reality vs. perception and using the best summer blockbuster in years as a vehicle to explore that.

Another example that the real world is also the dream world. When Cobb receives the kick by making him fall back into the tub. Nolan implements the slow mo just as he did in Murphy's first dream level when they're falling back into the river with the van.

But they never claimed that was the real world. That was a kick to bring him out of the second level of the dream.

Nevermind, covered.

Woops, I forgot.

But that's what the movie is ALREADY about. Either way you interpret it, the focal point of both versions is still Cobb coming to terms with his guilt and making peace with his past. The "everything-is-a-dream" reading might add a little narrative complexity, but it doesn't add anything thematically or emotionally. If anything, it reduces some of the emotional heft by reducing characters like Murphy and Page and Watanabe to simple subconscious projections.

By the way, I agree that the Morocco segment felt off. But I think that has less to do with hidden meanings and more to do with Nolan's inherent weaknesses as a director. He's always been shitty when it comes to street fights and foot chases, and the entire sequence felt like Nolan was rushing through the obligatory introductions in order to get to the good stuff.

Case in point: the narrow alley that Cobb squeezes through. The alley obviously had to be wide enough to admit the film camera, which means there was more than enough room for someone as skinny as Leo. That's why he contorts his whole body and tries to pass through at a 45-degree angle (instead of pressing flat against the wall, like you or I would do), which is why the whole scene looks so fucking awkward. Because there's obviously no *reason* for him to get stuck. Maybe that signifies that the entire narrative is just a house of cards, or maybe it's just Christopher Nolan out of his comfort zone.

Really? I thought it was executed quite well. The camera work and editing was great.

My initial take on the ending is that Cobb never came back from the void, while the rest of the film is as close to reality as the concept allows. But I've seen some people elsewhere say that interpretation labels the ending as a twist; I disagree with that. The most important moment of the ending to me isn't the spinning dradle, it's the fact Cobb sees that it hasn't stopped and chooses to look at his children anyway. He's accepted Mal's notion that one reality doesn't supercede others.

I really need to see this again. Can it be Friday?

The Morocco (actually, wasn't it Mumbai?) scene wasn't a standout, but the bit when the goon got hit by a van was wonderfully visceral.

Oh, and the movie's a lock for sound design and sound editing Oscars.

One thing that I thought about seems to be, at best, a missed opportunity or at worst, a plot hole: they establish Ellen Page's architect power/skill at reshaping the geography and physics of the dreamscape on the fly early in the film, then never put that skill to use during the actual mission. Instead, her role shifts from architect to therapist.

Sure, they tell us that using that power calls attention to you and makes the dream projections attack you, but by the time they're three levels deep into Fisher, that's already the case. When things started going to hell, why didn't Ariadne collapse the space to help them reach the fortress sooner or erect walls to protect them?

I loved it. But I agree with other critics that said the movie is a bit emotionally distant. Even if the heart of the ending is emotion, it feels very cold and clinical, less like the emotion of the moment and more like the scars of emotion from the past. If you go in expecting a movie with flourish, one that blooms, that's not what Inception is. It's a movie that was constructed, layer upon meticulous layer.

I also thought it could have lost maybe five minutes. At a certain point, I felt like seeing stuff on the first layer of the dream, after all the characters except Rao had departed, was unnecessary, i.e. the fifteen shots of the van falling into the water.

Yeah, that's nuts. Falling van might be the greatest ticking clock of all time.

I didn't hate every shot of the van. But eventually it was just the same shot, and I felt it was repeating too frequently. Nolan could have shown different shots of the van or the passengers inside.

I got the impression the audience agreed. The last time the same shot appeared before the van actually hit the water, they were clearly on the verge of laughing at it.

They're were probably laughing because it's fucking audacious. I know I had a giant grin on my face during that entire sequence. Some of the most brilliant editing and pacing I've ever seen in my life.

Absolutely brilliant. An easy 10.

It's so meticulously designed that watching it once at the cinema is not going to be remotely possible. Despite some complaints that it's a bit cold and calculated, I found it very emotional. All the big moments in the movie came from that.

I was also confused about the role of the architect... and I'm certain this was addressed but I must have missed it. How can she create a maze in somebody else's subconscious?

And again- Why does she not collapse the architecture willy-nilly when the shit hits the fan?

But oh my lord- what a fucking movie.

There was some laughter at the van shot when I saw it as well, but I'm pretty sure it came from a place of "Oh man, this shit is crazy!"

From the discussion about this, and the trailers telling me absolutely nothing of the premise, I get the feeling that this is not going to work for me, but I can't wait to see if I'm wrong.

Jim Emerson has some nifty comment on the backlash-backlash and the nature of today's critic-crazed media frenzy surrounding big releases (using Inception as his example).

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2...e_reviews.html

I need to let it simmer before I can put down any real detailed thoughts, but the movie is flat out amazing. Every superlative you can think of should be thrown at it. If there was ever a 10/10 movie, this has to be it.

The only real problem with it is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World can now only aspire to be my second favorite movie of the year.

I hate to say this, but I didn't like it. It pains me saying that, it really does; visually, it's basically perfect. I really don't know what to say about what I didn't like, other than it reminded me way too much of Vanilla Sky only with more explosions and Tom Berenger instead of Kurt Russell.

Just got back from the IMAX midnight screening and... dear god that was great. Can't say anything else at the moment now (too sleepy), but that was a brilliant mindfuck. Bravo, Nolan! Oh, and who the fuck is badmouthing Vanilla Sky? Why I oughta...

I definitely connected this together, but I'm still unsure whether the whole mess was a massive dream. At least not all of it. He made the breakthrough that he needed to advance past his guilt about his children, but I think that was still within his own 'world'. That spinning top was not going to drop, but as someone else said, it wouldn't matter to him. He can see his kids' faces now.



***SPOILERS FOR SHUTTER ISLAND***I also found this to be so very similar to Leo's character arc on that film as well. Coincidental that they get released in the same year. ***END SPOILERS***



Ultimately, I'm just so happy something original has been made, and to mass effect, with tons of money to develop it, and certainly tons of box office to praise it. I hope it's a trend that spreads and continues.

But is it so much that he CAN now see his kids' faces or that he now chooses to?

It blew me away. I almost had to take a step back during the third act to marvel at how how Nolan was juggling all of the different plotlines and action sequences. This is going to sound ridiculous but afterwards I started to think of the prequel trilogy and how Lucas tried to do the same thing during the final acts of those films and how Nolan was able to be so successful where Lucas failed.

I think it may have to do with that Inception every one of those sequences relied on the other and in the prequel trilogy there was no need to have them all together. It almost felt like a symphony in how Nolan was pulling everything together. Yes, I compared Inception to the prequel trilogy.

Glad I wasn't the only one thinking of Shutter Island during/after this, and not just because they're both DiCaprio films. That's two in a row you've been haunted by guilt over your dead wife, Leo! And both ending.. not with a "twist" but something to come to your own conclusions about involving the state of his character.

So INCEPTION; Loved this. Zero-gravity hallway fight was just mindblowingly incredible, all the ticking clock, dream-within-a-dream stuff perfectly realized, and everyone brought great moments to characters that, for the most part, don't really get fleshed out and as mentioned are defined more by their specialities. Super relieved that even with all the whiz-bang, city-folding-itself-in-half fx that the heart of the story wasn't compromised in an effort to purely be flashy either.

Also, like others said, my entire audience let out an "Aww" when the screen cut to black on the spinning top.

Since I can't help but compare them slightly, I did prefer Shutter Island on an emotional level - I just felt the moments of realization, flashbacks and catharsis were more touching in Scorsese's film, but Inception will probably win out as the film I go back to and revisit more (I seriously need this on bluray yesterday).

Both great films and great experiences, frankly I feel pretty blessed as a movie lover these days..

ETA: Just wanted to add, great review(s) Devin, Nick and Renn!

Pretty odd how similar this is to Shutter Island in theme. Leo needs one more great director to make a weird dream movie about accepting something to do with a dead wife and having a son and daughter to have a good trilogy going.

Does it ever make any reference to how long ago this thing with his wife happened? I would think that would be a big clue in since his son and daughter apparently haven't changed in how long he's gone. Could have just been like a few months I suppose.

Loved it. Too tired to really dissect it right now, but blow away. Need to see it again!

Blown away. Definitely work watching. It's giving my mind a nice workout.

I took some caffeine pills so I wouldn't fall asleep for the midnight show... and it made a crazily trippy movie even more so. I think it's some kind of masterwork. If this isn't nominated for Best Editing there's something seriously wrong. I'm still mulling over the movie in my head... that spinning top and the final shot is still playing over in my head. Nolan's best film, without a doubt. Best film of the summer, and probably the year, without a doubt.

I didn't think the film was "cold" either. There's a deep emotional base to the film that made that ending really powerful for me. I think DiCaprio does his best work here, but I think the performance that I really loved the most was Ken Watanabe's.

That hallway fight raised the bar in my opinion. I can safely say I've never seen anything like this movie before. I'm seeing it again Saturday. I feel compelled.

I like the idea of the whole film being a dream but it makes me question the significance of Cillian Murphy's character - how planting the idea assuages Cobb's guilt over the death of his wife. If they are all part of his dreamworld what is each character's psychological significance? I also think it's no accident that Ariadne looks like a young Mal and she's his sort-of guide through his guilt. Maybe she's an aspect of Mal - the young, naive optimist.

Wouldn't aribitrarily altering the reality of the dream or doing so out of panic alert the subject to something being out of whack?

Also, I think Ariadne was created by Cobb for the purpose of getting him out of the "maze", not necessarily building it. The fact that he chose a woman to be the Architect, I think, is no coincidence when you consider Mal.

Great movie, but I'll have to expand later.

What organization did they work for? Seemed to be such a big thing in the beginning, Leo saying that if he failed, he would be killed, etc... maybe just another aspect of how the entire film is a dream. I also think the "no explanation" phone call that Watanabe makes, is also another reason to think it's a dream the entire film. Who did he call?

Also, did we ever learn what Leo was going after in Ken's mind in the beginning?

I'm still chewing it over, but loved it. It's a film that can only benefit from repeat viewings, though whether I'll see it again in the theater or wait for DVD, I don't know.

The tight, masterful weaving of the third act - specifically the timing and editing of the four dream layers (five, I suppose, if Devin is right) - is done so incredibly well that it's not something you even notice at first: you're so caught up in the story, and the editing and visuals do a fantastic job of letting you know what's happening where - that you're not thinking about how Nolan's informing you. You're just ingesting the information and moving along with the movie.

One of the things I think Devin hit right on the head with his review: Nolan managed to find a story that transforms his usual weaknesses to strengths. DiCaprio also should get a share of the credit; he's now specializing in haunted, obsessive characters who immerse themselves in worlds that aren't real for a higher purpose, and evokes empathy and loyalty from the viewer.

I think the key is that throughout the film we're told that the top, Cobb's totem, belongs to his wife. And then at the end we learn that Cobb pulled it from her dream-safe. Thus it was never real and the significance of it not falling is that Cobb accepts the dream. Maybe.

Could it be argued that he simply pulled the knowledge of what her totem is from the dream-safe, thus enabling him to have it in waking life? Or is that unnecessarily complex?

I'm finding the arguments narrowing in on the ease and casualness of the set up of the heist being some of the strongest ones for the entire film being a dream. How there are enough people in the world who can do this sort of thing that Cobb can hand pick a team - and that Fisher can be trained in dream defense. It could also be cinematic shorthand - making what is fantastic to us workaday to make the film's reality, such as it is, more believable and, well, real. But I'm wondering.

Also, just to be really nitpicky: memory says that in the final shots, the top is first wobbling pretty profoundly, and then in the last shot, is spinning with a lot more stability. Assuming I'm recalling correctly, it would somewhat beggar belief that Nolan would allow us to see the top about to stop spinning and then be righted without it being purposeful.

It did the wobble when he hugged his kids. I think Cobb is dreaming still at the end, and the top starting to wobble is representing him accepting this dream as reality.

FUCK...ME! This was absolutely incredible. The casting, the story, the effects. Man, I havent walked out of a theater feeling like Inception made me in a REALLY long time. An absolute masterpiece. There really was no better way to end it than the way Nolan did. I feel like this is the kind of movie that only gets better on repeat viewings. Also, I do believe that in the end Cobb is in a dream. I have the same belief as Nordling does.

Also, I have no worries about this doing incredibly well in theaters. The midnight showing last night was sold out, on the largest screen at the really really awesome Regal Biltmore Grande 15 theater here.

but remember, they made a point to show you that you can't use another's totem. So if it was his wife, then it wouldn't do him any good, right? I need to see the film again.

But, with that in mind, Saito does touch Cobb's top at the end.

Ending has to be a dream, aren't the kids wearing the same clothes?

Exactly what i'm saying. Because the top was her totem, it really had no bearing on reality/dream for Cobb.

Yeesh. Yeah, they are. This would seem to be a pretty clear indication that it's not real.