Film Inception

[Wordswords]

i think i gave this 4 stars and from another perspective could be deserving of 5.

but, it wasn't as introspective psychologically as it was visually.

 

[TyphlosionDragon]

Can't believe that Nolan got snubbed for Best Director in this years Oscars. What a travesty

 

[tambourine-man]

^

True. Mark Kermode notes that Inception was not only one of the best films of the year but, ironically, probably the 'most directed' film of the year.

 

[Rasclatt]

shit even mark kermode likes this one.. I have an explanation though

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-%26-entertainment/inception-director-implanted-idea-that-people-who-don%27t-like-inception--are-stupid-201007302959/
8):D

 

[Rasclatt]

I'm going to watch this again soon and give it another chance, I didnt even watch it to the end tbh (partly because it annoyed me but possibly as much because I didnt have the energy to sit through it all) and almost everyone seems to at least like this film so I think I owe it to myself to give it another go.

 

[verso]

I dont see how anyone can't understand this movie. They basically held your hand throughout it explaining it to you.

Really? You really don't see how someone might find the movie just the tiniest bit confusing?

I mean, for starters, whatever mechanism is used to put a person immediately into a dream-like state is never explained. Yes, they show the briefcase-computer thing and the wrist-bands and whatever, but what the hell is all of this and how does it work exactly?

But you understand the movie, don't you? Yes, you understand the movie...

 

[grimble crumble]

Really? You really don't see how someone might find the movie just the tiniest bit confusing?

I mean, for starters, whatever mechanism is used to put a person immediately into a dream-like state is never explained. Yes, they show the briefcase-computer thing and the wrist-bands and whatever, but what the hell is all of this and how does it work exactly?

But you understand the movie, don't you? Yes, you understand the movie...

how does understanding the mechanism that put people into dreams have anything to do with understanding the plot?

thats like saying starwars is hard to understand because you didnt know how they traveled at light speed

 

[verso]

how does understanding the mechanism that put people into dreams have anything to do with understanding the plot?

thats like saying starwars is hard to understand because you didnt know how they traveled at light speed

Yeah, it's like saying that Star Wars is hard to understand because you don't know how they travel at light speed, if light speed were a huge, huge part of Star Wars. It isn't.

Dreams, on the other hand, putting people into dreams and their being able to control dreams is not a small part of the movie. It's a huge part of the movie. It is the movie. I want to know how they're able to put people into the dream-like state and I want to know more about the person's subconscious helping to create another person's dream. It's never explained.

If I had to describe the movie to someone, I would say this: Be prepared to watch a whole lot of people waking up from dreams but rarely ever them falling into the sleep to begin with.

I mean, for the love of God, I watch David Lynch films, OK? If I say that Inception is confusing, then something's seriously wrong here...

 

[Mr_Fluffykins]

most over rated movie of 2010, and i can't believe most people voted 4 or 5 stars thats stupid,

 

[grimble crumble]

^^^ ok let me rephrase that, thats like saying starwars is hard to understand becuase you dont get how the force works.

the movie was not about how to scientifically put someone into a dream, it was about cobb more than anything

 

[verso]

^^^ ok let me rephrase that, thats like saying starwars is hard to understand becuase you dont get how the force works.

the movie was not about how to scientifically put someone into a dream, it was about cobb more than anything

And they talk about the force! They talk about the force all the time!

I'm not looking for a "scientific explanation." I'm just looking for some explanation, some insight into how all of this works. Is that too much to ask? Really?

 

[TheDeceased]

Even though I didn't like the film, you're missing the point.

The beauty of fiction is that ideas that cannot be explained/rationalized can be explored. Conceptual science fiction is full of technology that is as a context for such exploration. We are expected to suspend disbelief. Also, it often comes across as forced when a character attempts to explain the inner workings of something for the audiences benefit. And since there is no science to back it up, it ends up being fake science. Should Doc in Back to the Future have explained the "flux capacitor"? Something as complex as time travel would take an enormous amount of time to explain which is why when characters attempt to justify technology to the audience by explaining it, it sounds forced. You can't sum up the science behind time travel in a sentence, especially when that science doesn't exist.

An insight into how it works requires a scientific explanation. The writers could have just made one up, but what's the point?

The story exists in an alternate/future reality where this sort of thing is possible.

Just like how some stories have dragons.

 

[Psychodelirium]

As I remember one of the worst things about this movie was how the characters kept explaining the action to each other. I can't imagine how anyone could complain that they didn't explain enough.

 

[ChemicalBeauty]

 

[verso]

Even though I didn't like the film, you're missing the point.

The beauty of fiction is that ideas that cannot be explained/rationalized can be explored.

Things like "the flux capacitor" are not absolutely central to the story. But how would you like to watch the movie if characters were time traveling in the Delorean like it's no big thing without the Delorean ever being explained? Even if one character at one point in the movie says, "This thing allows time travel!" Would that really be enough? Wouldn't you need just a little more than that? We may not know how it works or how "the flux capacitor" works, but we do know that the Delorean is something that allows time travel and something that the characters have created. In fact, we even see the characters working on it. They give us enough information for us to say, "OK, I get it... let's move on..." It could be my OCD, but I would hate to watch a film all about the zany time-traveling adventures the characters get into without a good enough understanding of what's going on, that bit of back-story.

Inception, in my opinion, lacks that back-story. It's not a scientific explanation by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, "explanation" may be the wrong word. In fiction writing, we like to say, "show and don't tell." Well, Inception, in my opinion, does neither one, and that's really discouraging. It drops you into the middle of the action and sort of leaves the audience to make heads or tails from it...

EDIT: And please just take my word for it that "the beauty of fiction" is not something I need explained to me.

 

[grimble crumble]

^^^ how is the flux capacitor not central to the story when it is what makes time travel possible?

I can understand not liking inception becuase of the "too much action" opinions, I can understand not liking inception because of the "not enough psychology in the dreams" opinion

but not liking it because they didnt explain how the brief case works??? really...

for me just saying that this takes place in a world wear this is possible and that only this secretive corperation that has the technology is all the explanation I need. if they would have givin me some fumbled up "errr it hacks into the genes of the sleeping brain through nana robotic injections errr" I would have just laughed

 

[verso]

^^^ how is the flux capacitor not central to the story when it is what makes time travel possible?

I can understand not liking inception becuase of the "too much action" opinions, I can understand not liking inception because of the "not enough psychology in the dreams" opinion

but not liking it because they didnt explain how the brief case works??? really...

for me just saying that this takes place in a world wear this is possible and that only this secretive corperation that has the technology is all the explanation I need. if they would have givin me some fumbled up "errr it hacks into the genes of the sleeping brain through nana robotic injections errr" I would have just laughed

I don't know how to make it any clearer than to say (as I already have), "I'm not looking for a scientific explanation."

I plan on watching the movie again, so please explain to me at the very least how the dream thing works. It's not too much to ask, and there's a scene that almost explains it when Leonardo Di Caprio and Ellen Page are sitting at a Parisian café and then begin to walk around the city. Something about the person's subconscious filling the dream with people but the actual dreamer being able to build the actual space, buildings and cars and shops and whatever...

Just please, explain this to me more clearly. Are both Leonardo Di Caprio and Ellen Page dreaming at the same time? Because I only remember seeing Page wake up after she's stabbed.

 

[L2R]

^you only see her wake up when she is stabbed because that scene is treating her like the audience. she is being introduced to the idea from which the story is driven. this does not mean that leo was not dreaming (he was there, and later you see people all asleep together as they navigate the same dream).

the technological plot element of films works much alike a macguffin, in that you only really need enough info for the suspension of disbelief. anything more is distracting and unnatural exposition. the characters know what they are talking about, to insist on them going over shit just for the audience's sake is actually LESS REALISTIC than just saying "the flux capacitor is what makes time travel possible" and leaving it at that as time is warped back and forth in fantastic ways.

realism in film is more to do with following the laws created by the universe in the film. it's about context.

not to mention the stimulating value of ambiguity and interpretation.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

I've tried to watch this movie twice now and both times we got tired and started falling asleep.
We made it to somewhere a little before the middle. The weird/cool dream stuff was interesting visually but at this point the movie hasn't really drawn me in. I just didn't really connect with the characters from what I've seen so far. But I probably just need to watch it all the way through while fully awake, lol.

 

[TheDeceased]

verso, the flux capacitor is absolutely integral to the Back to the Future films.

The flux capacitor is the briefcase. There really is no difference.

Doc says: this enables time travel.

Cobb says: this enables you to enter dreams.

You are arguing against the basic principles of conceptual fiction, which is why I made that somewhat patronizing statement (the beauty of fiction). No offense, but you really don't seem to get it.

you only really need enough info for the suspension of disbelief. anything more is distracting and unnatural exposition. the characters know what they are talking about, to insist on them going over shit just for the audience's sake is actually LESS REALISTIC than just saying "the flux capacitor is what makes time travel possible" and leaving it at that as time is warped back and forth in fantastic ways.

See this^. L2R said it better than me.

...

Deja,

It's an action film. If you're looking for a point or for character development, it's probably not going to interest you no matter how many times you sit through it.

To me, Inception was like a poor man's Matrix.