Good ones there^
I still hold Interview with the Vampire as my favorite [classic styled] vampire flick

I watched The Island the other and don't think it was as bad as some people made it out to be.
It was a bit slow in parts and may have been missing something special which I can't put my hand on but, I had a pretty good time watching it.

Maybe if I spent 10 bucks at the theater I'd feel ripped off.
Dunno

But that's exactly it. If THIS is the movie that makes you think about stuff, you probably should watch something that isn't made by Michael Bay to give you some perspective. Watch a weird movie, something you haven't seen before. I'm not saying that entertaining movies should be avoided, i love blockbuster movies too, but there is a scene outside of hollywood blockbusters that offer different experiences as well and this movie is only groundbreaking and incredibly deep within the context of hollywood movies. I'll say it again, i don't think it's a bad movie at all i just don't think it's as complex and mindbogling as people would make it out to be. There is a fair amount of allegory in the movie, but i mean...does that make the movie's message any deeper or more challenging?

I'll say it one more time: It's a great movie, but it's not the revolutionary masterpiece some people would say that it is.

I liked that movie. Soundtrack was great, cool story too.

dGew&feature=related" target="_blank" >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZRWkdGew&feature...

Now that you mention it, i will watch it again next week :)

Er, that's the point I was making.

I never really proclaimed it to be more than that, and saying 'within the context of Hollywood movies' isn't really undermining it; it's still a complex movie in its own right, mostly due to the several aspects that form the overall concept. I'm a film student so I've seen plenty of these 'weird' movies, and it doesn't change the fact that I think Inception is a deep film. Nolan's achieved a great feat in blending a fairly complex premise with all the shiny bells and whistles that Hollywood has to offer, and that is definitely something to be applauded - it's also the main reason why it has been able to achieve mainstream appeal whilst also retaining a considerable level of depth that has been positively received by critics. I believe that if you strip the film to its core, Inception still reveals itself to be complex and compelling.When complimented by the film's overall theme, yes.It isn't to you, no.

blm:

The films overall theme? That humans have a subconsious that we hide shit in? Sorry, i just don't see how that is so fresh or deep. If we boil it all down and take the gimmicky idea of communal dreaming and dreams within dreams away we are left with a set of rather shallow characters and the story of a man that hides what he percieves an ugly truth in his subconsious. Maybe i just missed something? Please explain what makes that so incredible because i really don't see it. Sure we can yap on about the allegory of film making and dreaming and how all the characters represent different roles on the set and bla bla bla but that if anything just feels like a somewhat clever side-tangent to the main story.

To mee it seems the film at best builds a complex looking facade around a fairly straight forward story. It's like the film tricks people in to thinking it's a lot deeper than it is with expositional bullshit like them living out their lives in the dream world which actually has no real impact on the movie and is really only a device for the original inception. It works really well as a storytelling device but it's not adding any depth to either characters or the general story arch of the movie. Aside from Cobb's tragic story we don't know anything about him as a character at the end of the movie, nor do we know anything about any of the other characters. The only thing i walk away with from teh movie was a good moviegoing experience as it has actually occurred to me to ask "what is reality?" without having this particular movie tell me to think about it.

But i am dead serious now, please explain to me why you found the movie to be deep and what parts you think are complex because i've never heard anyone actually explain it to me, i only ever hear the parroting that it is aforementioned things with a clear lack of motivation.

I'm not going to say that it's complex(about as complex as The Matrix...that is to say, not very despite some people somehow not getting it), but I think you're being entirely unfair. To paraphrase, you're basically asking "if we take away the plot and everything that occurs as a result of said plot, then what's left?"

Ron:

I think there's a difference between the movie being deep and complex vs cleverly told with well chosen plot devices, if that makes any sense. At it's core i don't think the movie is neither that challenging nor revolutionary, even though it is presented in a neat package that, like i said earlier, quite possibly makes it seem more convoluted and complex than it actually is. For me the depth and complexity comes from the themes and message of the movie, how you convey that is less important in this context. How you tell the story is vital for a good movie watching experience but good storytelling is not the same thing as a deep and complex story form a thematical point. Again, who hasn't wondered about dreams before watching this? Did you guys not ever consider that "reality" might be a dream before watching this movie?

Is it really relevant in any sense how many dreams withing dreams there are, when the ultimate question still is basically just "what is real?"?. It makes the movie more interesting to watch but it doesn't make the message any more profound.

That aside i think the movie also fails bigtime to capitalize on the whole dream aspect as all the dreams are contemporary worlds filled with ordinary people with guns. I know that's why they have the architect and everything but it seems like a squandered possibility of making things a bit more kafaesque and unpredictable. Like the parts of the dreams that are still controlled by the dreamers subconsious should reflect that person more, don't you think? It rains when indian guy needs to take a piss, but all self defence mechanisms in all dreams are thugs with guns?

I'd say this movie plays a balancing act, and very successfully. I can see what Blm is trying to say about it as well, and I think I agree with points both of you are trying to make.
To me the reason why there are thugs with guns, or why the dreams aren't taken as advantage of as they could, is because of what it means to have a movie out in theaters. Trying to appease the masses.
The film may not be insanely deep, but the ways in which Nolan balances a movie from being hard to understand for the general audience and still making it clever is something to be impressed with.
You can still hear people talk about it and say they didn't understand, or they don't get it. Believe it or not, there are people who don't GET the movie still, even though I feel it has been made as I said more accessible. My roommate hears it at times at one of his jobs. You and I may understand, but trust me, there are people confused about it too. You have to see both sides of it.
If you look at the directors history, he's pretty much come full circle with understanding just what it means to be an accessible movie maker. Just look at how confusing Memento was, how alienating it probably was for the general public.

You aren't going to find "revolutionary" or overly original, complex, or deep movies anymore. That doesn't really happen unless you're watching some indie films that hardly see the light of day. What you'll find in theaters are generally all the same and formulaic. Compared to everything else though, Inception is pretty brilliant when you look at mainstream film. He made a film that is clever, entertaining, and accessible enough to top the box office. I'm hoping this means he's given the opportunity in the future to do more movies like this.
I'm not going to call this movie deep. I don't need to see it again to figure it out. There are people who will need to though. I will say the way it is written, the story, is clever and done brilliantly. The characters are not shallow, I felt they were given just the right amount of story. I even felt a sadness during the paper pinwheel scene, which I thought was a testament to how well written the film was.

Oddly enough after everything is said and done, this movie depressed me. Cobb's story left me feeling really strange after I saw the movie. I wanted to discuss everything that had happened with a friend of mine, but I couldn't right away.
Which is another reason why I don't feel the need to go right out and see it again. It's an interesting thing to feel in a movie that does have a lot of suspense and action in it.

The thing with the pinwheel is that it's not a powerfull scene because of the characters, it's a powerfull scene becasue it's a very general premis and just about any viewer can relate to it personally. Obviously you did i think. I mean, i'm willing to bet that you didn't find that scene touching because the movie does souch a good job of building the tension between father and son and portraying their struggling relationship, but rather becasue you can relate to the scenario of feeling inadequate towards a someone and that results in the resolution feeling a lot more powerful than perhaps it would have been, had it been solely based on the cahracters and their relationship. I also felt that it was a pretty powerful scene untill i started thinking about why it tugged at my heart strings. Depending on how you break it down it is very cleverly written, as in the example just mentioned where smart yet simple means are used to draw out emotional responses from the audience, but at the same time it uses those tricks in order to skip past solid characterisation. I'll use myself as an example; i have a very shaky relationship with my father, i haven't even met or talked to him in something like 10 years. The resolution of this scene obviously resonates deeply with me because of that, even if i didn't realize it at the time of watching. Most people can relate to a scene like that for some reason or other.

Obviously you can only fit so much in one single movie and i don't think it's wrong to do it that way, i'm just highlighting what i think are things that point this out as a typical hollywood movie, with all the ups and downs that brings.

I guess i think it's a little sad that many people seem to be so taken aback by this movie, do people not show any initiative at all when consuming litterature, movies or music? The movie is mindblowing becasue it's compared to dreck. Hold this movie up to say...Avatar and sure, this offers a lot more but that's not saying much! It's like saying a hotdog is a gourmet meal compared to a hot pocket. (ok, that might be a little extreme, but it illustrates my point).

I mean i guess it's good that people like a movie that offers a little more substance than the usual crap, but it's also terrible that so many are so unaware of the fact that there is worthwhile culture outside of the mainstream outlets and even unwilling to accept other forms of movies/litterature/music/whatever. Several times when i've tried showing a little less "conventional" movies to people (ie that doesn't follow the dramaturgial curve precicely or stem from other movie making and drama traditions than the typical american style) it's instantly branded as bad becasue it's not the comfy familiar home turf of Michael Bay. If Movies like Inception help push people away from that, even in small increments, then that is great but i fear it's going the other way if anything.

Still in Inception talk?

That is awesome that means the movie is great and needs several viewings at the very least to fully understand it right?

By the way Predators got delayed AGAIN here in my country >:( freakin hell!!

Yeah I think the conversation it generates is a sign of how good the film itself is.

Also Megido, I am an art graduate, I paint, do performance, video, sculpture, etc, everything. I know full well how horribly out of touch culture is for the most part with the arts. It is a sad reality, but it is true what you say.
I almost went into teaching art in the school system, but it is a depressing how the arts are taught or made to be taught today. So I never bothered.

Nope. It's quite easy to follow despite some inconsistencies.Has it been called revolutionary?Can you give examples of some of these movies? Maybe they are bad? If a movie only attempts to deliver deeply complex themes while neglecting an engaging story and characters, eye-catching cinematography and editing(inherent tools of the medium), and an overall entertainment value, maybe it actually is a shitty movie.

"Has it been called revolutionary?"
Perhaps not here on GSY but i am pretty sure i've read that more than once on other sites. Several reviews i've seen treat the movie as the next step in cinema, which i frankly find ridiculous.

I'm not by necessity talking about complex or deep movies in this context, just movies that don't strictly adhere to the conventional dramaturgy curve and such things. If it's outside of the comfort zone many people will instantly class it as bad or rubbish, simply because it's a format they are not used to seeing. I wen't to a smaller theater like a year or two back and watched "I'm a cyborg but that's ok" (i'm not going to call it extraordinarily deep or anything, but it was a very different movie experience and a good movie) and i enjoyed it, but the person i saw it with had a really hard time getting past that it was so "weird". I know people who have a hard time watching great movies like Spirited Away becasue it's not they expect form a animated film and so forth.

Hell, if you want pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo questioning reality try watching the last 3 episodes of Neon Genesis Evangelion ;)

sort of a spoiler warning so no IMG tag ;)
http://www.transformer-ivan.net/wp-content/uploads...

Yeah, so easy everyone was convinced they were still in Limbo. The complexity of the film doesn't come from the red line that guides you through the story you're seeing on screen nor should it, it stems from its implicit form and different perspectives. Nolan is just playing with our minds when he leaves out key scenes in the movie.

In the end you can come to the conclusion that the whole film is a dream. It has all the characteristics of a dream (what we learned of in the film anyway), in a sense it defines its own boundaries and has its own set of rules. To make an analogy: In mathematics "rules" can be defined in form of sets. But sets can't have properties, because than can cause a paradox. It's the question of who is shaving the barber when the barber is shaving everyone that doesn't shave himself and also doesn't shave anyone else.

Explicitly the film asks who the creator of these dreams is, while the creator is dreaming. Nolan can only resolve that paradox with the introduction of the totem. But leaving it out in the end means there is no certainty. The only way to resolve the ending is by accepting that we haven't seen everything. Thus the film is an illusion, a pretty good one at that.

I jsut don't think the layering of dreams makes the movie more complex in any real sense, i mean...the fact that they are trying to syncronize their actions and are separated by sleep rather than by actual walls really doesn't make it more complex than any other heist flick where they have to synchronize their shit. To me it just feels like they pull a fast one and people, becuase of the unusual premis, think it's way more complex than it really is. I have no problem imagining this film without the dreaming, i think you could pluck that away and the movie would basically work exactly the same, except for perhaps the Mal bit.

But you know, i'm done with this now. I've been pretty clear with my view on the movie and i haven't really heard anything that changes my opinion on it. That it's good for a hollywood movie just doesn't cut it for me when i look at all the praise it gets. It's a great movie, no doubt, and i'd recommend anyone to go see it but people claiming it's near perfect can go suck it.

You mean, one of the most important aspects of the movie?

Yes, that is exactly waht i mean.

But that's like saying: well, you could take the cake out of the cake and it would still be a cake... except for the cake.

Or maybe not.

To me her main role in the movie is to make Cobb seem a more sympathetic character, she doesn't really have much impact on the heist (imo main) story. The times that she does interact with them in that context she is basically completely interchangeable with any random projection. Let's take the scene where she shoots Fischer. The only reason taht it's her in that scene is to give us the moment where Cobb can't shoot her and thus we feel sad for Cobb being put in such a sucky situation. But it would have worked out just as well storywise if some guy just walked in and shot Fischer, or if Cobb missed or whatever as long as Fisher get's shot the plot will still move on. Now i think that it's good that she is in teh movie though, becasue Cobb is the only character that has even a smidgeon of character development. But the theme of dreams and comunal dreaming is what makes the movie enjoyable to watch becasue they make it feel very unique but to me it still feels like a rather standard plot underneath that shiny surface.


A more fair parable would be that you could take the frosting and fresh berries off of the top of a cake and it'd still be cake. A somewhat more boring cake, but still pretty much the same cake as you only removed the fluff on top.

Are you being sarcastic? The movie is incredibly easy to follow, and any disparity between views on the end of the movie seem to stem more from inconsistencies and a potentially cheap cop-out ending.

Mmm... cake.

Let's remember why the heist is taking place in the first place though; it all comes down to Cobb and, as a result, Mal.

And I categorically disagree about Mal shooting Fischer and Cobb being unable to prevent it bearing little signifance, because it all leads into the decision Cobb has to make at the end in letting go of Mal. The fact that he finds it so hard to let go of her throughout the movie - he even contemplates not doing it when he finally does, which is why the ending itself is thrown into doubt - makes it all the more powerful when he actually does, in my opinion. I thought the Mal shooting Fischer scene was very significant in terms of the plot.

I just don't get your mind-set. Saying things like 'oh, well if this had happened instead of this, it would have still worked' can be said of practically any movie.

The ending is just a cheap and easy way of creating buzz. The only intention with that scene must have been to have people going "ooh, what a mysterious ending! What do you think really happened?" on the way out of the theater.