Inception (2010)

[Dovecam.W]

The first time i saw this film. I was arguing that dream lvl 4 was not limbo. But after a 2nd viewing they made it clear that it was limbo, because Cobb said we have to go and get fischer. He also told the guy not to revive him bc it was too late that he was already in limbo. When cobb and the girl is in limbo Cobb even specifically says i have to stay down here and get saito meaning that it is limbo. The reason you see him wash up onshore at the end is because he dies from drowning in lvl 1 which resends him into limbo even though he was already there but since he died and was sent there he doesnt really know that he was dreaming until saito made him realize he was.

At the end the sedative wore off and cobb and saito woke up on the plane. Not from killing each other. If cobb was not there to remind saito that it was a dream then when the sedative did wear off saitos mind would be scrambled and he would think the plane was a dream and want to go back to "reality" this is why it was good for leo and saito to remind each other that they were in limbo so when they woke up they wouldnt have messed up minds and then saito could finish his aggreement.

Got it! good!

 

[Dave]

Thanks, Dovecam. That actually makes total sense. Incredibly complicated if that was how it was meant to be.

 

[Daezarkian]

I loved it. In fact, this was the first movie of 2010 I was truly excited to see. DiCaprio gets better and better with each film, and I found the pacing, the supporting cast and the execution of a very complicated process all top notch.

That being said, like Nolan's "Batman" movies, I a) found it a bit overlong, but b) wasn't really sure what could have been cut out. Nolan has gotten into the habit of compressing about 1 1/2 movies down into a single film...though I'll be the first to admit he's getting better at it.

 

[Jon Sprunk]

Just saw this last week. All I can say is... wow. I'd say it was my favorite film of the year so far.

My fav part? The ending. It was pitch-perfect.

 

[Culhwch]

The wife and I saw this today, and really enjoyed it. Definitely the best movie I've seen this year. Great performances all round, brilliant imagined script and beautifully executed end product. I think your analysis is spot on, Dovecam. Makes perfect sense, as Dave said.

This is definitely one I want to see again to pick up on every thing I missed.

Just seen it. Brilliant. Brilliant. Horribly brilliant (for a budding scriptwriter).

Too, too true, Hoops.

 

[Culhwch]

True, in a dream, you could dream that you could do anything, but it wasn't Yusuf's dream, so does that make any difference?

Actually, that was Yusuf's dream. That's why he remained behind.

EDIT: A few interesting links:

http://roflrazzi.com/2010/08/03/inception-chart-file-under-things-i-wish-id-had-two-weeks-ago/

http://thedailywh.at/post/903208943/infographic-of-the-day-yet-another-awesome

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/08/inception-costume-designer-explains-ending

Oh, and...

http://roflrazzi.com/2010/08/02/calvin-and-hobbes-inception/

 

[ScottSF]

Brilliant. I can't decide if Nolan is the next Spielberg, Hitchcock or Kubric. Maybe he's just the first Nolan. Better than any of the sci-fi that came out last year and that's saying a lot with movies like Moon and District 9. I'm hoping this opens the floodgates to more smart movies. It's ok to have a story go over some peoples heads as long as you make lots of pretty to look at for the slower ones while the rest of us enjoy all the film has to offer.

 

[sankofa]

Only thing that could have been better was that he should have explained the ability of controling dreams better early in the film. Where did it came from ? How ? When ?

I discussed this after seeing the film and was of the opinion that to do so Nolan might actually weaken the plot. I feel that, as much as I would have liked an explanation, it would perhaps be hard to give one that would not easily be picked apart. Better to just present it as something that is just accepted in the world of the film, leaving the audience to enjoy it as it is rather than maybe focus on 'well THAT wouldn't work' and be turned off.

 

[CyBeR]

ScottSF > I really wouldn't say 'Inception' beats out 'Moon' or 'District 9'...it sets itself apart, true, by a formidable story and a great idea, but as a movie it is just as unique and well made as those two.

Sankofa > I completely agree with that. I find no real use in the story or the character development in explaining how that works...like in 'Avatar', with their 'unobtainium', it was a simple plot device that was needed to just work.

I saw the film last week with my girlfriend and we both walked out of the movie theater very satisfied with what we watched. Like with 'Shutter island' earlier this year, we were both impressed with DiCaprio's performance...and like with 'The dark knight', we were in awe at Nolan's directing skills. To pack so much into a film and still keep it sane, coherent and interesting to watch...that takes some real talent. I will definitely keep my eyes on this director for future films...we may expect even greater things from now on.

 

[biodroid]

Daezarkian You seem to have a similar avatar to mine

 

[Connavar]

ScottSF > I really wouldn't say 'Inception' beats out 'Moon' or 'District 9'...it sets itself apart, true, by a formidable story and a great idea, but as a movie it is just as unique and well made as those two.

Sankofa > I completely agree with that. I find no real use in the story or the character development in explaining how that works...like in 'Avatar', with their 'unobtainium', it was a simple plot device that was needed to just work.

I saw the film last week with my girlfriend and we both walked out of the movie theater very satisfied with what we watched. Like with 'Shutter island' earlier this year, we were both impressed with DiCaprio's performance...and like with 'The dark knight', we were in awe at Nolan's directing skills. To pack so much into a film and still keep it sane, coherent and interesting to watch...that takes some real talent. I will definitely keep my eyes on this director for future films...we may expect even greater things from now on.

If you dont explain the ability its just fun action,fantasy film. The world should have SF sense like quality films of this kind Matrix and co.

Its like watching Matrix but without ever writing about the fake world,what the machines was doing,why they needed the humans etc

People are making excuse for this kind of film because they are used stupid SF films in Hollywood. The one that isnt brain dead must be amazing....

 

[CyBeR]

What would it have changed for you if there was some hooky-dooky explanation as to how people were connecting to each other in the dream world? Was that plot device the main driving force of the film?
I don't believe so. You want to explain stuff like this but it won't work. If you give people explanations as to how it works, people will just break it apart in the long run and the film will become a subject to ridicule and parody.

Do we need to know how Batman keeps possibly volatile substances in a belt around his waist and doesn't blow up each time he's thrown to the ground? Hell no, that'd make for the weirdest comic book in history with the character dead in the first 2 issues. All that we know is that Bats has all kinds of weird stuff in that belt and that he'll always pull a miracle save because of them.
That's the case here. You're not interested in the technology, you should concentrate on the story of the film, and what it tries to do.

And pardon my saying, but in a film called 'The Matrix', it'd be rather hard to get by without explaining those very central pieces.
The fake world, the machines, the One (and consequently, the Architect), all vital parts of the story, without which there is no story basically.
The intricacies of how exactly are you copying kung-fu into a human brain...much less important.

 

[bobbo19]

good film. gave it 8/10, prob gonna get it when it comes out on DVD

 

[Culhwch]

What would it have changed for you if there was some hooky-dooky explanation as to how people were connecting to each other in the dream world? Was that plot device the main driving force of the film?

I don't believe so. You want to explain stuff like this but it won't work. If you give people explanations as to how it works, people will just break it apart in the long run and the film will become a subject to ridicule and parody.

I agree totally. And it's been a long time since I've seen The Matrix, but do they ever really explain how they create the virtual world in the minds of all the people? I thought it was more or less presented that it existed, and moved on from there...

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I agree, too. In The Matrix, I gladly accepted that they get hooked up to the device that lets them programme a world as they need. In Inception, they use a device that allows them to go inside someone's dreams. I accept that they can do that, and then see what the plot is about.

The precise mechanics of how said devices work is not really important.

 

[Connavar]

What would it have changed for you if there was some hooky-dooky explanation as to how people were connecting to each other in the dream world? Was that plot device the main driving force of the film?
I don't believe so. You want to explain stuff like this but it won't work. If you give people explanations as to how it works, people will just break it apart in the long run and the film will become a subject to ridicule and parody.

Do we need to know how Batman keeps possibly volatile substances in a belt around his waist and doesn't blow up each time he's thrown to the ground? Hell no, that'd make for the weirdest comic book in history with the character dead in the first 2 issues. All that we know is that Bats has all kinds of weird stuff in that belt and that he'll always pull a miracle save because of them.
That's the case here. You're not interested in the technology, you should concentrate on the story of the film, and what it tries to do.

And pardon my saying, but in a film called 'The Matrix', it'd be rather hard to get by without explaining those very central pieces.
The fake world, the machines, the One (and consequently, the Architect), all vital parts of the story, without which there is no story basically.
The intricacies of how exactly are you copying kung-fu into a human brain...much less important.

No no i meant where the ability come from, some backround info. Not how they were connecting, you have to suspense belief for that.

The science real or unreal behind it. Matrix there were explaination for the fake world with the machines,Architect,what they did.

Good film but there were flaws in the script,history of that world. Since they never explained too well the ability it never hit me too well. Far from the power of the Matrix story for example. Now there were mostly good characters like Cobb,some flashy moves in different dream worlds. Entertaining but i expect better story,writing from the guy behind Memento,Prestige.

 

[clovis-man]

And the ending. It fell. It fell, I tells ya. It was wobbling, thus, it fell. But much better that it ended like that because it keeps people talking after they leave (and my, were they). You could feel the tension of the entire audience in those final moments (and it was pretty packed tonight) and half of them groaned out loud when it ended without a final conclusion. A very well done ending, if absolutely infuriating.

Imagine if the ending had included a visual of the top actually falling over. I think that would have spoiled it.

Plot holes, Shmot holes. Willing suspension of disbelief is an important factor in films. And how much additional exposition would you want in a 2 hour and 20 minute movie?

Kind of an Impossible Mission Force for dreamland. I loved it.

 

[Mouse]

Just come home from seeing this. Waaaaay too long, and a tad dull in places.

Just skimmed this thread so sorry if this has been answered, but, when Cobb and his missus kill themselves with the train, they're young. Yet we see them as old people holding hands and what have you saying that they've lived their lives there... so, I don't get that. Could someone explain for me, please? Ta muchly.

 

[biodroid]

Mouse - they lived in the dream world for about 50 years so their projections of themselves aged in the dream but in reality they were down for a few hours so they lived a lifetime in the dream world and came back changed people. As to your question I think that because you are back in reality your subconcious resets your projection to what you currently look like thats why they seemed young again.

 

[Mouse]

Mouse - they lived in the dream world for about 50 years so their projections of themselves aged in the dream but in reality they were down for a few hours so they lived a lifetime in the dream world and came back changed people.

Yeah, I got that.

As to your question I think that because you are back in reality your subconcious resets your projection to what you currently look like thats why they seemed young again.

Ah right. But wasn't it an actual flashback? So they should've looked old?