the problem with his wife was not that they couldnt go back whenever they want, the problem was his wife thought the limbo is reality, so if he killed himself she would stay there cause she dont want to die.
cause of that he manipulatet her mind with the thought "this is not reality".
then she was willing to kill herself, and they went back to reality. unfortunately the thought "this is not reality" stayed in her mind...
the dangerous thing about limbo was not that you cant go back from there, the dangerous thing is you dont want to go back from there.. cause you think its reality..
love love loved it, my brother was kinda 'meh it was allright' about it tho, seems like opinions vary alot, I do think the movie will have alot less of an impact during a second/third watching
On August 17 2010 03:23 phil.ipp wrote: saito killed him .. with the gun ..
the problem with his wife was not that they couldnt go back whenever they want, the problem was his wife thought the limbo is reality, so if he killed himself she would stay there cause she dont want to die.
cause of that he manipulatet her mind with the thought "this is not reality".
then she was willing to kill herself, and they went back to reality. unfortunately the thought "this is not reality" stayed in her mind...
the dangerous thing about limbo was not that you cant go back from there, the dangerous thing is you dont want to go back from there.. cause you think its reality..
wasn't that the second time he was in limbo? i was wondering how he got out of limbo the first time
I think the ending isn't black and white...my theory is that he did escape limbo by killing himself and Saiko. But being in limbo has affectted his mind so he can't comprehend reality as it is. In other words he is processing the world like it's the dream world...he technicly escaped but in the end he is half way between the real world and the dream(hence the totem will be shaky since it can't really fall down or stay straight up).
On August 17 2010 03:19 zizou21 wrote: Finally got around to seeing this.
One question:
How did Leo get out of Limbo? (when him and his wife got stuck there for delving too deep)
^ yeah what he said.
They both killed themselves on the train tracks.
Also, as to the discussion on whether this is 'artsy' enough. It probably isn't. But it was definitely better than everything else I've seen this year. When I go to the cinema to see a movie, I go there to be entertained. Really. There's no other reason. Sure, it also makes me think and socialize, bla bla, but that's not the reason. The REASON is entertainment. And in that aspect, inception rocked.
I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a movie this much at the cinema. Must've been Lucky Number Slevin. And if I wanted a movie that makes me think about dreaming, lucid dreaming and what would it all mean, I'd watch Waking Life again.
The director is being blamed for giving the audience what they wanted. How is that a bad thing? Really. If all movies would be Pi and Primer, then it wouldn't be considered entertainment anymore.
On August 15 2010 11:11 toadstool wrote: The thing that made me angry was that you generalise EVERYONE who likes the movie was 'easily fooled', as if we got conned just because we like the movie.
I defintely think I have a good taste in films, to say that we're 'easily fooled' into liking a movie just because they think that it's genuinely good?
It's like a Counter Strike player going into a Starcraft forum and saying "Man you guys are easily fooled by Starcraft 2's awesome graphics, it's all just 1a2a3a protoss LOL, btw I like Atrox and DDR, not any of this sht Blizzard puts out for the masses WOW LOL."
See what I'm getting at here?
The reason why they are easily fooled is because they believe it's genuinely good. But it's impossible for me to convince you otherwise, it's something you have to experience yourself while exploring the medium of cinema. I do not think movies are just entertainment, and I don't think anyone with a taste in movies can say he watches them for entertainment solely. While you were admiring the world turning and the numerous gunfights and explosions I was busy looking for a single hint of substance in the movie. I couldn't find much, and it makes it look like Nolan took the easy directing route and gave the audience what they wanted. There is no passion, there is no enthusiasm, no vision or goal. There's just this bland directing that doesn't dare thread outside the normative areas.
And to clarify, I didn't like Paprika in particular either, I just think it's interesting to compare how the big anime studios of Japan execute the same concept to how Hollywood does it.
'I like artsy movies too, 500 days of summer is great!!1 Fuck yeah Zooey!' Should I even take you seriously?
Seriously? A hollywood movie is made to be entertaining and nothing more. No matter what methods they use to get there that is what it is meant to be. A movie doesn't have to have a goal or some secret moral lesson in it in order to be good. All it has to do is be entertaining for its viewers.
BTW, "I couldn't find much, and it makes it look like Nolan took the easy directing route and gave the audience what they wanted." is like the dumbest thing I've heard from an 'elitest' in a long time.
I might be a movie "elitest", but you don't realize the potential of the audio visual medium. You believe a movie can't be more than just entertaining? You think the entertainment factor will suffer if it contains some trace of personality, creativity or thought-provoking elements? You're wrong. Teach a moral lesson? I don't think there is anything worse than a movie that tries to teach its audience a 'moral lesson'. That's the worst mistake a director can make (Avatar lol) and I can't believe that's how you interpreted the words 'substance', 'vision' and 'goal'. It displays very well how damaged you indeed are by modern mainstream cinema.
On August 15 2010 11:11 toadstool wrote: The thing that made me angry was that you generalise EVERYONE who likes the movie was 'easily fooled', as if we got conned just because we like the movie.
I defintely think I have a good taste in films, to say that we're 'easily fooled' into liking a movie just because they think that it's genuinely good?
It's like a Counter Strike player going into a Starcraft forum and saying "Man you guys are easily fooled by Starcraft 2's awesome graphics, it's all just 1a2a3a protoss LOL, btw I like Atrox and DDR, not any of this sht Blizzard puts out for the masses WOW LOL."
See what I'm getting at here?
The reason why they are easily fooled is because they believe it's genuinely good. But it's impossible for me to convince you otherwise, it's something you have to experience yourself while exploring the medium of cinema. I do not think movies are just entertainment, and I don't think anyone with a taste in movies can say he watches them for entertainment solely. While you were admiring the world turning and the numerous gunfights and explosions I was busy looking for a single hint of substance in the movie. I couldn't find much, and it makes it look like Nolan took the easy directing route and gave the audience what they wanted. There is no passion, there is no enthusiasm, no vision or goal. There's just this bland directing that doesn't dare thread outside the normative areas.
And to clarify, I didn't like Paprika in particular either, I just think it's interesting to compare how the big anime studios of Japan execute the same concept to how Hollywood does it.
'I like artsy movies too, 500 days of summer is great!!1 Fuck yeah Zooey!' Should I even take you seriously?
Seriously? A hollywood movie is made to be entertaining and nothing more. No matter what methods they use to get there that is what it is meant to be. A movie doesn't have to have a goal or some secret moral lesson in it in order to be good. All it has to do is be entertaining for its viewers.
BTW, "I couldn't find much, and it makes it look like Nolan took the easy directing route and gave the audience what they wanted." is like the dumbest thing I've heard from an 'elitest' in a long time.
I might be a movie "elitest", but you don't realize the potential of the audio visual medium. You believe a movie can't be more than just entertaining? You think the entertainment factor will suffer if it contains some trace of personality, creativity or thought-provoking elements? You're wrong. Teach a moral lesson? I don't think there is anything worse than a movie that tries to teach its audience a 'moral lesson'. That's the worst mistake a director can make (Avatar lol) and I can't believe that's how you interpreted the words 'substance', 'vision' and 'goal'. It displays very well how damaged you indeed are by modern mainstream cinema.
he didn't say that movies can be nothing more than entertainment, he said hollywood movies are geared to entertain, which brings me back to my first post in this thread wondering why you went to see a hollywood movie not knowing what to expect. if anything i'd think the overwhelming positive response to this hollywood production would be enough to steer you away from it, but for some reason it made you want to see it which i don't really understand, since you seem to be jaded towards this kind of entertainment.
everyone is different when it comes to their taste in art of any kind, and i don't think anyone has a problem with you voicing your criticisms of the film, only with your persistent inability to understand how someone could derive pleasure from sitting through something you can't. if someone can look at something and appreciate it for what it is, how does that in any way call for judging them to be inferior to you? i ask this because every one of your posts is either saying that outright or insinuating it. your taste in cinema does not make you a better person than anyone else, and it certainly does not make you right.
in short, is it so hard to agree to disagree without taking petty jabs at those with opposing opinion? imo that speaks way more towards a narrow minded view than someone's preferred movies
Very well. I agree to disagree. I become a narrow-minded person when dealing with people who glorify movies made for simple entertainment. Narrow-minded as in, I fail to comprehend on an emotional basis (but not a logical) your liking of this and similar movies. I don't want to barge on to the subjective vs objective judging of art-topic, because it isn't relevant. I just believe you contribute to killing cinema as an art-form if you praise movies like these and it frustrates me.
On August 17 2010 06:28 Shauni wrote: Very well. I agree to disagree. I become a narrow-minded person when dealing with people who glorify movies made for simple entertainment. Narrow-minded as in, I fail to comprehend on an emotional basis (but not a logical) your liking of this and similar movies. I don't want to barge on to the subjective vs objective judging of art-topic, because it isn't relevant. I just believe you contribute to killing cinema as an art-form if you praise movies like these and it frustrates me.
Why shouldn't movies be made for simple entertainment? Some people work lonnnggg, hard hours and just want to watch a movie to unwind. I generally like movies that make you work, that contain something thought provoking, something visionary but I also like movies like 40 Year Old Virgin, and Avatar.
And honestly if I really wanted to think hard and deeply about something (Which I often don't) I'd pick up a philosophy book.
On August 17 2010 12:33 ironchefflay wrote: Maybe while he chokes he can gasp out why he thinks he gets to define what art is, in movies or anywhere.
I've already defined it several times. I don't really want to repeat myself. The question isn't whether or not Inception is an artistic movie (I don't think many people would agree with that), the question is why so many people enjoy mindless entertainment and glorify it as something it isn't.
On August 17 2010 12:33 ironchefflay wrote: Maybe while he chokes he can gasp out why he thinks he gets to define what art is, in movies or anywhere.
I've already defined it several times. I don't really want to repeat myself. The question isn't whether or not Inception is an artistic movie (I don't think many people would agree with that), the question is why so many people enjoy mindless entertainment and glorify it as something it isn't.
- May contain spoilers -
I'll tell you why I enjoyed it, and thought it was the best movie of this year: - I liked the actors, all of them - I liked the special effects - I liked that the story was somewhat non-linear, and complicated enough to keep me paying attention - I liked that I didn't get bored one bit, and it kept me entertained for the whole time - I liked that it didn't define the ending like I thought it would (I realized that he may be dreaming everything since they showed his wife jumping off)
Maybe you don't get that there have been VERY VERY FEW decent movies released lately. So when something even half-decent pops up, people will be thrilled. I mean, please, with all it's special effects, Avatar doesn't even come close to being as entertaining as this was (not even on the huge IMAX screen).
On August 17 2010 12:33 ironchefflay wrote: Maybe while he chokes he can gasp out why he thinks he gets to define what art is, in movies or anywhere.
I've already defined it several times. I don't really want to repeat myself. The question isn't whether or not Inception is an artistic movie (I don't think many people would agree with that), the question is why so many people enjoy mindless entertainment and glorify it as something it isn't.
It's amazing how much arrogance you've managed to cram into your posts in this thread. People who act like you have in this thread are the absolute worst type of film fans.
On July 09 2010 05:26 Stane wrote: Music by Hans Zimmer. That's all I gotta hear.
Hell yeah. I love Hans Zimmer, but its sad that some of the movies he makes are so bad even with the great musical score (see: pirates of the carribean)
EPT
