EPTStill a 10/10 for me -- I got teary at the end.
[Movie] Inception - Page 42
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
holdthephone
United States523 Posts
Still a 10/10 for me -- I got teary at the end. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
I really felt that, towards the end, the movie tried to make itself feel more complicated than it actually is. It's basically a bunch of guys who've got to plant an idea in some other guy's mind, but things go haywire because of some personal drama from the lead role interferes at exactly the wrong moments. Did I feel for any of the characters? No, not really, they were way too clichéd for that. Did I find the ending ambiguous? Not really, that top was going to topple, and was already toppling the time they showed it before that. The concept was interesting (as dreamworlds tend to be), but the execution was lacking. As someone said before me, the different levels of dreams were like excuses for different action scenes (Nolan apparently got a lot of inspiration from Modern Warfare 2 for the level where they assault the arctic base). I've seen three of Nolan's movies (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Inception) and all three have one thing in common: lots of special effects, action and oneliners, and absolutely no character development or depth. They're good movies if you want to relax for an hour or two, but please, people, stop looking for a deeper meaning in what are essentially action movies. There seem to be a lot of people heralding Inception as the best movie of 2010. If "Inception" really is the best movie of 2010, than 2010 has been a downright horrible year for movies. I've got one word of advice for those people: watch "There Will Be Blood" (with Daniel Day Lewis) and "No Country For Old Men)", then watch Inception again. You'll notice that inception doesn't even come close to the level of those two other movies (that flopped at the box office because they weren't accessable enough). | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On December 13 2010 07:36 maartendq wrote: There seem to be a lot of people heralding Inception as the best movie of 2010. If "Inception" really is the best movie of 2010, than 2010 has been a downright horrible year for movies. I've got one word of advice for those people: watch "There Will Be Blood" (with Daniel Day Lewis) and "No Country For Old Men)", then watch Inception again. You'll notice that inception doesn't even come close to the level of those two other movies (that flopped at the box office because they weren't accessable enough). what? not accessible? they both aired worldwide on cinemas. Or do you mean that their themes weren't accessible enough? Even so, all of them are gigantic blockbuster hollywood movies, no? | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On December 13 2010 07:36 maartendq wrote: Bought it on DVD today, because of all the praise it got. It's an OK movie, but, as was the case with The Dark Knight, hugely overrated. I really felt that, towards the end, the movie tried to make itself feel more complicated than it actually is. It's basically a bunch of guys who've got to plant an idea in some other guy's mind, but things go haywire because of some personal drama from the lead role interferes at exactly the wrong moments. Did I feel for any of the characters? No, not really, they were way too clichéd for that. Did I find the ending ambiguous? Not really, that top was going to topple, and was already toppling the time they showed it before that. The concept was interesting (as dreamworlds tend to be), but the execution was lacking. As someone said before me, the different levels of dreams were like excuses for different action scenes (Nolan apparently got a lot of inspiration from Modern Warfare 2 for the level where they assault the arctic base). I've seen three of Nolan's movies (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Inception) and all three have one thing in common: lots of special effects, action and oneliners, and absolutely no character development or depth. They're good movies if you want to relax for an hour or two, but please, people, stop looking for a deeper meaning in what are essentially action movies. There seem to be a lot of people heralding Inception as the best movie of 2010. If "Inception" really is the best movie of 2010, than 2010 has been a downright horrible year for movies. I've got one word of advice for those people: watch "There Will Be Blood" (with Daniel Day Lewis) and "No Country For Old Men)", then watch Inception again. You'll notice that inception doesn't even come close to the level of those two other movies (that flopped at the box office because they weren't accessable enough). It sounds like you're just trying to resist the movie. I didn't find that it made itself "feel" more complicated than it actually was. It's all quite simple on one level, and more complex on another. But anyways, how can a move make itself feel something? Perhaps you're reading into the reviews far too much and are basing the movie off of their opinions. And how are the characters cliched? Your entire pseudo-movie-critique is all too cliched. | ||
|
DumEN
Sweden123 Posts
One thing I wonder is what would happen to their plan if the plane they were sitting in suffered any turbulence? I guess they dont wake up if they are in a deeper layer of dreams, but atleast the driver should have woken up? Would rate 3/5 | ||
|
dibban
Sweden1279 Posts
It starts out very interesting, and up until about the hour mark it feels like the ideas are running out. The movie is thin. It lacks content and envelops itself in an false labyrinth of complexity to make up for it, adding cliché moments that people see as brilliant but actually has no real meaning or purpose. While the general concept and idea is very interesting at first, as it progresses with the combination of the thinness in addition to its 148 min runtime filled out with nonsense such as watching a car fall into water in hyper slow-motion or trying to force questions upon the viewer by insinuating an eventuality of them being in yet another layer of dream (oh, the relevance is mind-blowing) as the movie itself was a dream, made me more sleepy than intrigued. Adding to that, unfortunately, Leonardo DiCaprio does his acting the way he does his laundry, same way everytime. He has his 5 sets of different facial expressions. Mad, confused, mysterious, relaxed, hurt which he follows to the letter. It becomes boring. Ken Watanabe did a much better job playing Saito, though comparing actors in different roles is counterproductive itself. I get a slight sensation of the movie seeming way too focused on winning an oscar and too little about making the best movie possible. I would rate it 7.5-8/10 by imdb standard (which as we all know is a bandwagon effect ranking site), for easier comparison. Try harder on trying less. | ||
|
Deadlyhazard
United States1177 Posts
 . | ||
|
tyCe
Australia2542 Posts
On December 13 2010 08:14 dibbaN wrote: First I'd like to point out that I thought the movie was not bad, but ranked as one of the best movies of all time? Give me a break. It starts out very interesting, and up until about the hour mark it feels like the ideas are running out. The movie is thin. It lacks content and envelops itself in an false labyrinth of complexity to make up for it, adding cliché moments that people see as brilliant but actually has no real meaning or purpose. While the general concept and idea is very interesting at first, as it progresses with the combination of the thinness in addition to its 148 min runtime filled out with nonsense such as watching a car fall into water in hyper slow-motion or trying to force questions upon the viewer by insinuating an eventuality of them being in yet another layer of dream (oh, the relevance is mind-blowing) as the movie itself was a dream, made me more sleepy than intrigued. Adding to that, unfortunately, Leonardo DiCaprio does his acting the way he does his laundry, same way everytime. He has his 5 sets of different facial expressions. Mad, confused, mysterious, relaxed, hurt which he follows to the letter. It becomes boring. Ken Watanabe did a much better job playing Saito, though comparing actors in different roles is counterproductive itself. I get a slight sensation of the movie seeming way too focused on winning an oscar and too little about making the best movie possible. I would rate it 7.5-8/10 by imdb standard (which as we all know is a bandwagon effect ranking site), for easier comparison. Try harder on trying less. +1111111111111 What an amazing critique. I felt EXACTLY the same way. | ||
|
HeadhunteR
Argentina1258 Posts
Its a personal preference if it was the best movie of 2010 but no other movie this year and of 2010 had a bigger impact on me. In comparison, Avatar a real overblown in terms of quality/popularity movie, is quite linear and simple and at the same time too comfortable. Yeah avatar is 2009 but i remember that a lot of people went bonkers for it. I do watch a lot of movies foreign and old school movies. Inception was one of best movies in 2010 whether you like it or not. all this is mesured in hollywood terms cause there are always good international movies that are much more artistic and much better shot than this one. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
Ok, so he is typecast, but what the fuck is wrong with that? DeNiro / Pacino / Pesci as gangsters, Freeman as benevolent, sagacious father figures, Day Lewis as power individuals, Nicholson as crazy, Phoenix as intense, emotional people, Reeves as hollow, cardboard characters, Bridges as sarcastic, sardonic cool people, Pitt for roguish characters, Depp for silly/ whacky...ANY English guy as evil/ cockney thug? The list could literally go on for days. He is excellent at playing intense, dramatic characters- so he gets the call time and again to play lead roles in some of the finest films this side of 2000. DiCaprios performance was VINTAGE DiCaprio. That he can dial up the same quality as he has displayed in Shutter Island, Blood Diamond, Body of Lies, The Departed, Gangs of New York...shows he is a true titan of the silver screen and destined to go down in history as one of the absolute TOP. And then you have the audacity to contrast this with WATANABE, of all people...who is extremely typecast in Hollywood(as a stern but thoughtful leader)?? | ||
|
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
A lot of them reminded me of those lame James Bond movies (especially the snow-level one). "Matrix", for example, combined action with a pretty deep philosophical commentary really well. Inception just lacked something in the end.Though it's still one of the best movies this year | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
Batman Begins ... absolutely no character development I guess people get different things from the same movie. Did you really buy a movie you'd never seen, based solely on what other people said about it, then complain about that being an unwise decision?? P.S. The ending isn't about whether the top fell or not, its that Cobb didn't care. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On December 13 2010 07:46 Roe wrote: It sounds like you're just trying to resist the movie. I didn't find that it made itself "feel" more complicated than it actually was. It's all quite simple on one level, and more complex on another. But anyways, how can a move make itself feel something? Perhaps you're reading into the reviews far too much and are basing the movie off of their opinions. And how are the characters cliched? Your entire pseudo-movie-critique is all too cliched. Let me put it more simply: the dream sequences weren't nearly as good as the ones in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (a movie that I DID have to watch a couple of times before I understood everything) and the action sequences aren't nearly as good as the ones you find in Die Hard 4. The CGI was cool but didn't really feel relevant. As someone above me pointed out: this movie tries way too hard to be complicated while it's in fact pretty straightforward. It's not complex on any level at all. It's not a bad movie, but not great either. It's one of those "heavy on bombast, low on depth" movies that seem to be quite popular nowadays (I'm looking at you, "Ferngully 2', oh sorry, I mean "Avatar"). | ||
|
MrShank
Canada144 Posts
but still good stuff | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
Kacas
Brazil3143 Posts
Is there an official answer/position about the movie ending? i wanna know if it was a dream or not. ps: i loved the movie. | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
On December 17 2010 10:40 Kacas wrote: just now i saw this topic and if someone can help me so i dont need to read 42 pages i appreciate. Is there an official answer/position about the movie ending? i wanna know if it was a dream or not. ps: i loved the movie. No, as far as I know there were many people still on both sides of the fence. It isn't shown that the top stops spinning at the end, but some people were still arguing that it isn't clear whether or not it was going to fall over. | ||
|
Zooper31
United States5711 Posts
On December 17 2010 10:40 Kacas wrote: just now i saw this topic and if someone can help me so i dont need to read 42 pages i appreciate. Is there an official answer/position about the movie ending? i wanna know if it was a dream or not. ps: i loved the movie. + Show Spoiler + It ends on a cliffhanger if you watched the movie. The movie never shows us the top falling down or spinning forever. I'd say it was a dream imo. | ||
|
Sky
Jordan812 Posts
On December 17 2010 10:40 Kacas wrote: just now i saw this topic and if someone can help me so i dont need to read 42 pages i appreciate. Is there an official answer/position about the movie ending? i wanna know if it was a dream or not. ps: i loved the movie. + Show Spoiler + There's an idea that Cobb's totem wasn't the top (a sort of con for anyone who might want to get a hold of it). Something about his wedding ring only appearing in dream sequences. | ||
| ||
