New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inception

post #1 of 37
7/6/12 at 6:36am
Thread Starter 

This is a brilliant film nearly destroyed by two pretty big flaws.

 

1. The majority of the action scenes are poorly shot

 

2. The film is something like 70% exposition

 

This film could be called Exposition the movie.  And while it's fun learning about Inception and the dream world, it becomes incredibly tedious and unnecessarily complex for its own good.

 

The reason I take marks away because of the excessive exposition is because most of it is not needed.  For instance, during the Mr. Charles gambit, Levitt explains the gambit, why it's needed, how it works, and what the consequences are.  But some of this information is already available.  Like the fact that the projections will start seeking them out because they sense something is wrong.  This was established much earlier in the film, so it's redundant information.  And as Leo does the Mr. Charles gambit, it becomes fairly obvious what he's doing and why.  So we really didn't need Levitt to explain this.  It's as if Nolan is afraid the audience wont be aware of the stakes...every other scene in this film is like the Death Star strategy meeting towards the end of Star Wars A New Hope.  The film is filled with these unnecessary moments of exposition.  It's as if Nolan doesn't trust the audience, or it's possible, the studio wanted him to explain everything ad naseum because they were afraid people would check out of the movie from confusion.  But exposition is usually a last ditch effort to explain stuff that can't be expressed in the plot...and the exposition in Inception could've been cut in half (at least), if Nolan was a little less cerebral and little more cinematically clever...this is one my biggest problems with him as a filmmaker.  He thinks too much and doesn't let the medium work for him as it should (ironic, considering he made Memento).

 

The upside is the film is incredibly engaging, funny, thrilling and really keeps your mind working.  There's never a point where you can just sit back and zone out, letting explosions, tits, gunfire, fighting, and swearing wash over you like a warm bath, like the majority of Hollywood blockbusters that require you to leave your brain at the door.

 

All the performances are exceptional, but sometimes it's a bit difficult to understand some of the dialogue, mainly from the foreigners in the film...Watanabe, and Cottilard.

 

The complexity of the film is invigorating, because of all the different levels of action going on in the dream world.  This is where Nolan's overbusy mind is a strength rather than a weakness.  But I would've like to have seen him collaborate with another writer (his brother perhaps) in order to help with that ridiculous exposition.   


Edited by Ambler - 7/6/12 at 7:34am
Reply
post #2 of 37
7/6/12 at 9:40am

I'm very certain that the movie would not have been the hit it was without the amount of exposition the film used.  When you're dealing with this much abstract rules and stakes, the general audience will appreciate having things reiterated or reminded of it right before it is relevant again.  It prevented the audience from becoming lost (as opposed to enjoying the sense of 'complexity' the film has).  It's easy to say in hindsight how much exposition the movie did or did not need, I think.  But if you're the filmmaker spending all this big money on an original movie full of ideas... you're gonna wanna make sure this stuff gets through to audiences.  After the immense success of The Dark Knight, I'm not gonna rush to blame the studio for this.  I think Nolan made the film he wanted.

 

That said, I AGREE with the criticism about the movie being EXPOSITION: THE MOVIE.  Even on the 2nd watch, it was pretty hilarious just how much exposition there was in the movie that the actors did their damnedest to spout off naturally while constantly on the go.

 

The line that makes me laugh the most is Cobb spouting the line, "The stronger the issues, the powerful the catharsis!" while rushing to load up the van and get out of the warehouse.  Something about DiCaprio's delivery reminds me of Uncle Frank in HOME ALONE going, "10 PIZZAS TIMES 12 BUCKS!!!"

 

I'm sure even Nolan was fully aware of the amount of exposition, since he essentially makes fun of it in the moment Ellen Page just blurts out, "Wait, so who's dream are we going into again???"

 

 

 

Damn, Ambler.  First you hate women... now you hate us foreigners with our craaaaaazy accents!  Haaahahahahaha.  No, I had a lot of trouble understanding Watanabe's lines in the movie.

Reply
post #3 of 37
7/6/12 at 9:44am
Thread Starter 

The film may not have made as much, but it would've been a better film...which is all I care about.

Reply
post #4 of 37
7/6/12 at 9:48am

The first Matrix film, 90% of Neos lines are questions. Exposition isn't necessarily a bad thing when they're questions the audience is asking too. And in this case, Ariadne is the one who needs the answers, and like Neo, is the one that uses the rules to set the climax in motion. It's dense, yes, but very, very necessary.

Reply
post #5 of 37
7/6/12 at 9:50am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post

The first Matrix film, 90% of Neos lines are questions. Exposition isn't necessarily a bad thing when they're questions the audience is asking too. And in this case, Ariadne is the one who needs the answers, and like Neo, is the one that uses the rules to set the climax in motion. It's dense, yes, but very, very necessary.

 

I don't think most of it was necessary, I think only the essentials were (most of which is in the first half)...but alot of it becomes redundant info we either already have gathered, or will be played out cinematically in the near future and doesn't need explaining.  Like Spielberg said, watch movies with the sound off...if you still know what's going on, the film is working.

Reply
post #6 of 37
7/6/12 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

The film may not have made as much, but it would've been a better film...which is all I care about.

 

A better film for yoooooou???  Heheheh.  In INCEPTION's case, I think the film making the big money had more correlation to how much it clicked with audiences than most pre-packaged blockbusters.  So in this case, the choices Nolan made did result in a 'better film.'  Consider all the conversation the film generated during its release.  That was even with all that exposition.  People still culled other subtle things from the film despite all the spelling out the movie did constantly.

 

To come back to Justin's point about Neo/Ariadne/audience POV,  because Ariadne's not really much of a character, her function in the screenplay is so blatantly obvious.  Coming back to the run-and-gun nature of the exposition in INCEPTION, another bit that makes me laugh is when someone brings up limbo.  Ellen Page just goes, "LIMBO????"  Heheheh

 

That exposition-filled first-half serves the same function as the CG recreation of the Titanic's sinking.  I agree that most of the action in INCEPTION wasn't anything to write home about.  But all that setup made it FEEL like something grand because we were so pumped and ready for it when it finally came (specifically the rotating hallway sequence).  We knew what was going on and why (except for the snow stuff... I found that dull even the first time).

Reply
post #7 of 37
7/6/12 at 10:01am
Thread Starter 

The film is really good, but I think there was a better film inside of what we got, but that's just me.

Reply
post #8 of 37
7/6/12 at 10:04am

What the film really needed was a Doc Brown to explain everything.  That man can sell exposition.

Reply
post #9 of 37
7/6/12 at 10:18am

JP-Mr.DNA.jpg

 

"And that's what we call inception!"

Reply
post #10 of 37
7/6/12 at 11:46am

I keep stumbling over the issue of dreams in this film. Had an argument with a friend who was completely against the film, rattling on about Freud's interpretations of dreams, and how this movie featured a world where dreams were pretty staid action-adventure tropes. I thought he was too wedded to Freud as a master text, but he had a point. Even with the issue where these characters can't let on that they're in a dream, you'd think there'd be some sort of metaphysical weirdness going on.

 

But what do we have to compare it to? Our own dreams? That just seems limiting, I'm not an expert about what others dream about.

 

In this world, I buy that these dreams occur. I also buy that if anyone else is doing something convoluted and weird in a dream, your dream projection of them is going to fall over explaining it in a stupid manner. Which is probably bending over backwards to accomodate Nolan's needless wordiness in this films, but hey... this thing is pretty close to my idealized version of CHASE: THE MOVIE. I'll bend for Nolan. Oh Chris.

 

I would have liked if there was one sequence like the moment in Being John Malkovich where Lotte chases Maxine through Malkovich's memories, though. That would have been the highlight of the movie.

Reply
post #11 of 37
7/6/12 at 2:07pm

You nailed it Ambler.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

To come back to Justin's point about Neo/Ariadne/audience POV,  because Ariadne's not really much of a character, her function in the screenplay is so blatantly obvious.

 

 

That's why exactly it feels like EXPOSITION DELIVERY SERVICE!!! instead of a character learning stuff. Because the way it's executed makes Ariadne feel like a device instead of a person. The way Keanu and the Wachowskis played Neo makes him feel like a person.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

I keep stumbling over the issue of dreams in this film. Had an argument with a friend who was completely against the film, rattling on about Freud's interpretations of dreams, and how this movie featured a world where dreams were pretty staid action-adventure tropes. I thought he was too wedded to Freud as a master text, but he had a point. Even with the issue where these characters can't let on that they're in a dream, you'd think there'd be some sort of metaphysical weirdness going on.

 

 

I think as much as the dream events in the film make a little too much sense to feel a lot like the way many (most?) people dream, I do go with them because when I dream all the weird shit happening in the dream feels "real".

 

Also, the other way Nolan could have played it would have been to have the dreams be more "realistically" trippy and have the actor sell that they believe in what's happening despite that trippiness (the way we believe in the trippiness of our real dreams as we dream them), but I think the idea is that in this world where inception exists targets for inception are more suspicious of goings on in their dreams. People like the team's targets in the film are on the lookout for anything which tips them off to the fact they're dreaming, so the team must build dreams which feel more real than true dreams.

 

Hope that makes sense. I just woke up.

Reply
post #12 of 37
7/6/12 at 2:15pm

Yeah, I always took the diegetic explanation for the mundane look of the dreams to be that the team specifically designs them to arouse as little suspicion as possible.  Not that it needs one; it's a sci-fi conceit to get at the metaphor, which is the important part.

Reply
post #13 of 37
7/6/12 at 2:22pm

Speaking of exposition... even poor Leo's sob story about his kids is delivered in the most expository method possible: him treating Ariadne as a free psychiatrist as the movie takes a long break for a 'character' moment.

 

People praised this movie for having a warmth that previous Nolan films lacked, but I found that to be BS.  I probably cared more about the assholes in The Prestige more than I did the characters in this.  Of course, most of the actors get by on pure charisma (Hardy, Gordon-Levitt, Watanabe, Murphy).

Reply
post #14 of 37
7/6/12 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

I keep stumbling over the issue of dreams in this film. Had an argument with a friend who was completely against the film, rattling on about Freud's interpretations of dreams, and how this movie featured a world where dreams were pretty staid action-adventure tropes. I thought he was too wedded to Freud as a master text, but he had a point. Even with the issue where these characters can't let on that they're in a dream, you'd think there'd be some sort of metaphysical weirdness going on.

 

But what do we have to compare it to? Our own dreams? That just seems limiting, I'm not an expert about what others dream about.

 

In this world, I buy that these dreams occur. I also buy that if anyone else is doing something convoluted and weird in a dream, your dream projection of them is going to fall over explaining it in a stupid manner. Which is probably bending over backwards to accomodate Nolan's needless wordiness in this films, but hey... this thing is pretty close to my idealized version of CHASE: THE MOVIE. I'll bend for Nolan. Oh Chris.

 

I would have liked if there was one sequence like the moment in Being John Malkovich where Lotte chases Maxine through Malkovich's memories, though. That would have been the highlight of the movie.


Well I read somewhere (probably on the Internet) that we don't remember most of what we dream, so Nolan is postulating that the majority of our dream life is pretty mundane, and perhaps we only recall the exciting or weird bits when we awake. Or maybe you're dreaming this message board right now GabeOMG!

Reply
post #15 of 37
7/6/12 at 3:46pm
I'm sorry guys, I think this is one of the finest films ever made. If that's wrong, then I'm happy to be as much.
Reply
post #16 of 37
7/6/12 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBar View Post

I'm sorry guys, I think this is one of the finest films ever made. If that's wrong, then I'm happy to be as much.

Don't worry--I like this movie too.

 

Let's hug it out, bro.

Reply
post #17 of 37
7/6/12 at 4:51pm

Yeah, despite the ribbing I'm giving it, I love it too.  Saw it in theaters 5 times and I got that thrill of exhilarating filmmaking each time.

Reply
post #18 of 37
7/7/12 at 1:00am

I consider one of my close elder relatives to be fairly intelligent in many aspects. When I asked him (a few days after he saw it on dvd) what he thought about the final shot with the spinning top, whether he thought that layer of reality was the real one or not, he didn't know what I was talking about, why that would even be a question.

 

This spun into an hour long conversation about where he didn't really understand when or why the people were in a different reality/dream layer throughout the movie. He was also sure that Cobb's wife hadn't really died, even after I went over how the movie spelled it out. It just wasn't sticking, I guess. He said he was very engaged and into the movie, and was paying fairly close attention.

 

Maybe it was a few too many beers, or there is just a certain percent of the population for whom twice the normal amount of exposition isn't quite enough. All my friends that I know who have seen it understood it just fine, most of whom probably did need exactly that amount of exposition. I'm fine with Nolan doing what he needs to make sure the elaborate architecture he's built is comprehensible to 95% of the audience.
 

Reply
post #19 of 37
7/7/12 at 8:48am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese View Post

I'm fine with Nolan doing what he needs to make sure the elaborate architecture he's built is comprehensible to 95% of the audience.

 

There are at least 3 separate times in this movie where somebody describes Inception as being very hard to implement.  That's pretty ridiculous.  There are many other examples of this kind of redundant information being fed to the audience.  The movie simply would've been better without it (and as nooj mentioned, Leo's backstory with his wife and the talkiness that ensues about it is excessive).  A compact, well oiled machine is better than a bloated behemoth.  Exposition is not a good thing.  Filmmakers go crazy trying to hide it or minimize it because they know this.

Reply
post #20 of 37
7/7/12 at 8:58am

I just want my kids back.

 

I just want my kids back.

 

I have to see my children.

 

Wah wah wah.

 

 

That early scene between Michael Caine and DiCaprio.  UGH.  Characters blatantly telling each other things they already know.

Reply
post #21 of 37
7/7/12 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese View Post

I consider one of my close elder relatives to be fairly intelligent in many aspects. When I asked him (a few days after he saw it on dvd) what he thought about the final shot with the spinning top, whether he thought that layer of reality was the real one or not, he didn't know what I was talking about, why that would even be a question.

 

This spun into an hour long conversation about where he didn't really understand when or why the people were in a different reality/dream layer throughout the movie. He was also sure that Cobb's wife hadn't really died, even after I went over how the movie spelled it out. It just wasn't sticking, I guess. He said he was very engaged and into the movie, and was paying fairly close attention.

 

Maybe it was a few too many beers, or there is just a certain percent of the population for whom twice the normal amount of exposition isn't quite enough. All my friends that I know who have seen it understood it just fine, most of whom probably did need exactly that amount of exposition. I'm fine with Nolan doing what he needs to make sure the elaborate architecture he's built is comprehensible to 95% of the audience.
 

Most of the plot dynamics of all movies go over the head of probably 80% of the audience. Few people genuinely think, well, wait, how did so-and-so get from here to there?

Reply
post #22 of 37
7/7/12 at 9:16am
Thread Starter 

      Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

Most of the plot dynamics of all movies go over the head of probably 80% of the audience. Few people genuinely think, well, wait, how did so-and-so get from here to there?

 

Exactly.  I generally find people just kind of let modern Hollywood films wash over them, rather than being actual participants.  And while people can generally distinguish a good movie from a bad one, the actual specifics tend to go unnoticed (as the example of Kyle's friend shows).  I think it has alot to do with the change in filmmaking/editing styles of today versus pre 90s films.  I think your unconscious mind is always paying attention, always soaking everything in, while your conscious mind kind of goes in and out because it's it's being overloaded with too much stimuli.

Reply
post #23 of 37
7/7/12 at 4:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I just want my kids back.

I just want my kids back.

I have to see my children.

Wah wah wah.


That early scene between Michael Caine and DiCaprio.  UGH.  Characters blatantly telling each other things they already know.

I liked that early scene, it seemed to suggest his relationship with his family was an opportunity he could miss out on. A time sensitive matter. My biggest problem with Inception is that despite being beautifully acted and crafted, the Mel/Cobb relationship and subplot fails to engage me emotionally. It all feels very clinical and detached, and I just don't really care about them. It doesn't feel like an urgent concern. I'm not sure the chemistry was right between the leads. In any case the idea of getting home to America carried more weight for me than DiCaprio moving on from grieving for his wife he sort of murdered. It was interesting, but it didn't tug at my heart strings effectively enough to be gripping. For me at least, it bogs down the movie in an unnecessarily sullen atmosphere.
Reply
post #24 of 37
7/8/12 at 1:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


I liked that early scene, it seemed to suggest his relationship with his family was an opportunity he could miss out on. A time sensitive matter. My biggest problem with Inception is that despite being beautifully acted and crafted, the Mel/Cobb relationship and subplot fails to engage me emotionally. It all feels very clinical and detached, and I just don't really care about them. It doesn't feel like an urgent concern. I'm not sure the chemistry was right between the leads. In any case the idea of getting home to America carried more weight for me than DiCaprio moving on from grieving for his wife he sort of murdered. It was interesting, but it didn't tug at my heart strings effectively enough to be gripping. For me at least, it bogs down the movie in an unnecessarily sullen atmosphere.

 

100% agreed.  I never cared for or totally bought into the Mel/Cobb relationship...I don't know if it was lack of chemistry, or just poorly handled scriptwise, or both.

Reply
post #25 of 37
7/8/12 at 1:55pm

It doesn't help that she's constantly portrayed as a psycho ice queen that is hell-bent upon getting in Cobb's way.  Or perhaps the fact that she's not really a character to have a relationship with, since she's really just a projection of Cobb's memories of her...

 

I certainly didn't feel anything significant for that relationship either.

Reply
post #26 of 37
7/8/12 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

It doesn't help that she's constantly portrayed as a psycho ice queen that is hell-bent upon getting in Cobb's way.  Or perhaps the fact that she's not really a character to have a relationship with, since she's really just a projection of Cobb's memories of her...

I certainly didn't feel anything significant for that relationship either.

Well put. But even when we're dealing with flashbacks, I'm not entirely sold on the chemistry. I just can't ever picture the two of them having been in love, smiling, taking a walk on the beach.
Reply
post #27 of 37
7/8/12 at 3:07pm

We do only ever "see" Cobb's subconscious reflection of her in the film, which has been curdled by past events. 

Reply
post #28 of 37
7/8/12 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post

We do only ever "see" Cobb's subconscious reflection of her in the film, which has been curdled by past events. 

 

exactly.  All we ever get is Cobb's remembrance of her, and he even tells his memory of her that it's not the same, that she can never be like the real thing.

Reply
post #29 of 37
7/8/12 at 3:48pm
I understand that, and as I said it is an intriguing dynamic, but it's not emotionally engaging for me, and feels kind of flat and sullen on screen.
Reply
post #30 of 37
7/8/12 at 4:05pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bain View Post

 

exactly.  All we ever get is Cobb's remembrance of her, and he even tells his memory of her that it's not the same, that she can never be like the real thing.

 

But Nolan sets up the relationship as the film's emotional centerpiece.  It's the heartbeat of the film.  And it fails to engage.  Again, this is where Nolan irritates me to no end.  He puts so much emphasis on emotional things only to poke at them with a cerebral stick, defeating the purpose of the emotional dynamic .  I wouldn't be so hard on the Cobb/wife thing if it wasn't so heavily dwelled upon and setup as the centerpiece.  

Reply
post #31 of 37
7/8/12 at 7:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

It's the heartbeat of the film.  And it fails to engage.  Again, this is where Nolan irritates me to no end.  He puts so much emphasis on emotional things only to poke at them with a cerebral stick, defeating the purpose of the emotional dynamic.

Putting it that way, he almost seems like the Bizarro Lindelof, with the big ideas explore satisfactorily at the expense of emotion, whereas Lindelof (at least on Lost) paid lip service to the big ideas, yet all of his best payoffs were on a strictly emotional level.

Reply
post #32 of 37
7/8/12 at 7:35pm

This is another one of those "lets discuss my subjective reaction as if it's an objective fact" kinda threads again, huh.

Reply
post #33 of 37
7/8/12 at 8:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

I understand that, and as I said it is an intriguing dynamic, but it's not emotionally engaging for me, and feels kind of flat and sullen on screen.

 

Well, it was made by Christopher Nolan.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

This is another one of those "lets discuss my subjective reaction as if it's an objective fact" kinda threads again, huh.

 

Well, it was made by Ambler.

Reply
post #34 of 37
7/8/12 at 9:01pm

Everyone bangs on about the exposition, but if my experience with, let's call them, Normal Film-Goers is anything to go by Nolan was absolutely right not to "trust the audience" on this.  People still don't get it and still talk about it.  I doubt anywhere like the same number of people would have been able to follow along at all if things weren't clearly explained and then reinforced on a fairly regular basis.

To some extent this is Nolan as stage magician too.  It's direction and misdirection through words.  You need to establish reality and tap the sides of the box repeatedly so the audience goes along with it being a box at all.  Nolan, for better or worse, is trying to show off a pretty weird box for us to believe in.  There's a lot of stuff it's necessary for you to buy that isn't really explained properly, or makes a whole lot of sense when you think about it (dreams within dreams would go as fast as the 'system' making them, not slower because of some inherent property of dreams.  But please ignore this or the movie isn't as cool).  It's noticeable on the second or third viewing (very), but I doubt the first viewing would have worked if they hadn't.

Reply
post #35 of 37
7/9/12 at 1:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

I keep stumbling over the issue of dreams in this film. Had an argument with a friend who was completely against the film, rattling on about Freud's interpretations of dreams, and how this movie featured a world where dreams were pretty staid action-adventure tropes. I thought he was too wedded to Freud as a master text, but he had a point. Even with the issue where these characters can't let on that they're in a dream, you'd think there'd be some sort of metaphysical weirdness going on.

 

But what do we have to compare it to? Our own dreams? That just seems limiting, I'm not an expert about what others dream about.

 

In this world, I buy that these dreams occur. I also buy that if anyone else is doing something convoluted and weird in a dream, your dream projection of them is going to fall over explaining it in a stupid manner. Which is probably bending over backwards to accomodate Nolan's needless wordiness in this films, but hey... this thing is pretty close to my idealized version of CHASE: THE MOVIE. I'll bend for Nolan. Oh Chris.

 

I would have liked if there was one sequence like the moment in Being John Malkovich where Lotte chases Maxine through Malkovich's memories, though. That would have been the highlight of the movie.

 

These are not regular dreams though. When you dream your subconscious flits around like crazy, chopping and changing at will. The dreams in Inception though aren't that, the "dreamer" has consciously created setting and all the subject does is fill is with characters from his subconscious. It's a whacky conceit, but it works. 

Reply
post #36 of 37
7/9/12 at 8:32am

See, I don't agree that Ariadne doesn't have her own character. She's pragmatic, creative, empathetic, and catches on very quickly that Cobb is burying his emotional problems to the detriment of the team. That's why she gets so pushy about it. In fact, one could make the argument (and I admit to slightly lifting this from a friend on another forum) that she performs her own sort of inception on Cobb. She repeatedly insists that he confront Mal, yet when he finally does near the end, it's become his own idea, and he legitimately puts her "ghost" to rest. Only after that does Ariadne shoot Mal.

 

Love pretty much every inch of this movie.

Reply
post #37 of 37
7/9/12 at 9:26am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

This is another one of those "lets discuss my subjective reaction as if it's an objective fact" kinda threads again, huh.

 

Does the distinction really need to be made in a thread about a personal review of the film?  I guess I should start putting disclaimers up.

 

Or is this gonna turn into one of those "somebody doesn't feel the same way I do about a film, therefore I feel threatened and must retaliate" threads?


Edited by Ambler - 7/9/12 at 9:36am
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video