# Inception - Thumbs Up or Down?



## Mark CMG (Jul 18, 2010)

Great cast, stunning visuals, layered story.  Like or dislike?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 18, 2010)

Two thumbs up, way up.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 19, 2010)

Terrific flick.

Easily the best movie I've seen in the theater this year.  So many layers.  Gotta see it again soon.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 19, 2010)

That sounds promising. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 19, 2010)

Thumbs up.  A good movie, but not perfect.  Great mise en scene, great acting.  Cliched at a couple of points.  Nolan proves (just as he did with The Dark Knight) that he is amazing with drama, but struggles with complex action sequences.


----------



## Krug (Jul 19, 2010)

Thumbs up. Original, a heist movie with mix of neurohacking and mythology, particularly 



Spoiler



Orpheus and Theseus


. 

[sblock]
Some parts were rather conventional, such as the winter fortress and the car chase segment, but they were bearable. There was also lots of exposition and it was like having some complex sport being described to me. 

The characters also lacked much depth. I would have liked to know a little bit more about them. Still, at least it's an original movie and not a sequel. 
[/sblock]


----------



## Crothian (Jul 19, 2010)

It was enjoyavble.  Not the best film of the year but solid.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jul 23, 2010)

The best mind-blowing film, IMHO!!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jul 24, 2010)

4.5/5 for me. Really good film but just lacking the epic awesomeness I demand from a 5* film.


----------



## jonesy (Jul 25, 2010)

I actually liked Dark City, 13th Floor, and Cell more. But not much more. And those are some of my very favourite films.

Superbly polished, and didn't notice a single unnecessary scene. And that's amazing for a two hour movie.


----------



## Siberys (Jul 25, 2010)

Loved it. A couple specific comments spoilered, in case they give anything away;

[sblock]The rolling car/hotel scene? Great. Totally want to make an encounter like that.

It was funny how long it took the van to fall. Fifteen minutes pass, and we see a shot of it... six inches from where we last saw it. 

At first I thought the end scene was an intentionally ambiguous mindscrew, 'cause the top seemed to wobble. Then a friend pointed out that the kids were in the same position and apparently hadn't aged a day, comparatively to how they were last seen - meaning Cobb and Saito are still in limbo, and we have no idea how the mission turned out. Now when I think of that top wobbling, it's all schadenfreud, all the time. 

Seriously, though - if Cobb and Saito are in limbo, aren't they functionally braindead? Or do they wake up after the normal amount of IRL time, but (very) possibly insane due to what seems like a near-eternity in limbo? And what becomes of Fischer if the epilogue is another dream?[/sblock]

Also, found this on TVTropes; thought it was funny;



			
				That Meme said:
			
		

> Yo dawg I heard you needed to perform inception so we put a dream in your dream in your dream so you can dream while you dream while you dream


----------



## the Jester (Jul 25, 2010)

It's rare to see a movie that treats you like your Int score is above 6. 

Loved it, loved it, loved it!


----------



## Joker (Jul 25, 2010)

Good movie.  Very enjoyable.

That one fight scene in the hallway was the best.  Can't wait to see the making of of that.

As an aside:  Do they still feed actors?  Because some of them looked awfully skinny and I'm not just talking about Ellen Page.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 25, 2010)

Siberys said:


> [sblock]
> 
> At first I thought the end scene was an intentionally ambiguous mindscrew, 'cause the top seemed to wobble. Then a friend pointed out that the kids were in the same position and apparently hadn't aged a day, comparatively to how they were last seen - meaning Cobb and Saito are still in limbo, and we have no idea how the mission turned out. Now when I think of that top wobbling, it's all schadenfreud, all the time. [/sblock]



That's certainly one way to view it.


----------



## Siberys (Jul 25, 2010)

I suppose you're right; 

[sblock]I mean, now he doesn't even CARE about the top, but rather about his kids. Still, Mindscrews abound. Which is the point, I guess. [/sblock]


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 26, 2010)

Siberys said:


> I suppose you're right;
> 
> [sblock]I mean, now he doesn't even CARE about the top, but rather about his kids. Still, Mindscrews abound. Which is the point, I guess. [/sblock]



I didn't see it as a mindscrew.  Just different layers and many different ways one can and probably should interpret the film.  There's the love story and then there's the caper.  Whatever else one would like to attach to the film is what they brought with them or, more likely, read between the lines.  And no one would be fair in saying they are wrong.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 26, 2010)

There are several elements one could key an interpretation of the end from - I am pretty sure they are purposely ambiguous, so that no single interpretation will be clearly correct.  

All in all, a cool movie


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jul 26, 2010)

The fight scene was all natural from I heard. Chris was told he could go CGI, but opted for  a natural look.

And it came out great nonetheless.



Joker said:


> Good movie. Very enjoyable.
> 
> That one fight scene in the hallway was the best. Can't wait to see the making of of that.
> 
> As an aside: Do they still feed actors? Because some of them looked awfully skinny and I'm not just talking about Ellen Page.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jul 26, 2010)

I totally agree...was it or wasn't it.

A great hook to get folks talking about it, and thus the word spreads and more folks see it.

A great genuis marketing ploy...



Umbran said:


> There are several elements one could key an interpretation of the end from - I am pretty sure they are purposely ambiguous, so that no single interpretation will be clearly correct.
> 
> All in all, a cool movie


----------



## mattcolville (Jul 26, 2010)

I reviewed this over on my site, but rather than artlessly link there, I'll share what thoughts I've had since I reviewed it. And since I've seen it twice more.

One of the things I love about the film is the parallels between filmmaking and dreams. Cobb asks Ariadne if she remembers how she got to the cafe. Of course she doesn't, because you can't remember what happened before you started dreaming.

But I could just as easily ask Cobb what happened before he woke up on the Bullet Train. He would not be able to answer. But is that because you can't remember what happened before you started dreaming, or because Cobb is a character in a movie and therefore didn't exist before the movie started? Each is an allegory for the other. 

Some people are brushing up against the core issue of the film, but I think maybe we're all missing the point. Yes, the obvious question is "what is real?" We were all asking that before the lights even went down because we knew we were in for a film about invading dreams.

And yes, Cobb's journey, his catharsis, is as real as anything and far more the point of the film than anything else.

But the _reason_ we believe that, the reason we believe Cobb is ok at the end, has worked through his issues, is because there *is* one thing in dreams that's real; emotions.

The emotions we feel in dreams are as real, sometimes more real, than the ones we feel when waking. We can feel terror, even love, more powerfully (arguably because we can be more certain) in a dream than in real life. 

So while we can question Cobb's actual experiences, we cannot question the emotional journey he makes. That is, has to be, 100% authentic, dream or no dream.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 26, 2010)

One small fact, there were two actors for each of the kids, at different ages. I noticed it in the credits the second time I watched the movie. I suppose if we had screenshots we could see that the kids look different. 

Though I'm not sure if that means "kids at age in his memory when he ran away," and "kids when he got back at the end." Or if it's "kids on the beach, which was an older memory," and "kids in his memory."


----------



## Siberys (Jul 26, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> I didn't see it as a mindscrew.  Just different layers and many different ways one can and probably should interpret the film.  There's the love story and then there's the caper.  Whatever else one would like to attach to the film is what they brought with them or, more likely, read between the lines.  And no one would be fair in saying they are wrong.




Eh, maybe our definitions of 'mindscrew' differ? All I know is that, during the movie, I felt like I was keeping up with the plot. I understood what was going on. The only thing I really missed was the references to Greek mythology, but that's not my strong point, so hopefully it's forgivable.

Then the damn 



Spoiler



top wobbled


, and I left the theater confused as all hell. That one simple detail made the movie - which FELT as if it were going to end unambiguously - into a total mindscrew. The different interpretations don't even enter here - those come afterwards. The movie was a masterful bait-and-switch there at the end.

IMV, of course.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 26, 2010)

Siberys said:


> Eh, maybe our definitions of 'mindscrew' differ?



Very likely.  

 Fight Club was a massive mindscrew as was Dark City to me.  Those flicks  left nothing to interpret.  It was clearly spelled out that what came before had all changed and needed to be viewed with a different perspective.  Now, the same thing happened with Inception but the whole movie was leaning that way as deception lead the way to more of the same which lessened the effect for me.  I don't expect everyone to agree.

Again, I think the true genius of the movie is that there really are different ways to look at what went down.  Many interpretations are possible and they are all legit.



Siberys said:


> Then the damn
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And that's the beauty of it.  It doesn't *have *to be a bait and switch. 

Just one way to look at it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 26, 2010)

Am I the only person that thought 



Spoiler



it would have been much more effective if the film ended one shot earlier?  That is, still have Leo spin the top and then walk away to visit his kids, but never show the top again.  The film would have ended with the shot of Leo reuniting with his children.  It would have been a lot more emotional and just as ambiguous, but much less in-your-face.


----------



## wolff96 (Jul 26, 2010)

My theory, which I really enjoy is 



Spoiler



that it was all just a dream until Cobb left the plane. The mind-suitcase technology, Extraction/Inception, Cobb's murder charges -- all just a dream.

Cobb was a man depressed after his wife's suicide, and so lived abroad for a while, but then was persuaded to come home and be with his kids. On the flight, he fell asleep, and the whole film is his dream- all of characters who were the "partners in the scheme" were just other passengers on the plane. 

There were no murder charges. Mal hung a big fat lampshade on "A bunch of people chasing you around the world" when he was in "limbo" -- that feeling of massive persecution by faceless individuals and mega-corporations. She might not even be dead, just on the other side of a messy divorce or something like that. All we saw was a long, long dream from a guy who inserted the people around him into it, including an Asian man who had a propensity for making phone calls during the flight, a friendly man who bumped into the guy in front of Cobb's seat, an attractive young woman across from him...

Yeah, it's kind of out there compared to the simpler "all a dream" or "not a dream and he woke up at the end", but I really like it and it's pretty elegant.  Looked at from this perspective, it's not even really a Sci-Fi film...


----------



## jonesy (Jul 26, 2010)

Deset Gled said:


> Am I the only person that thought
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not really. I think that would have been more in your face, not less. Now, I said that I liked 13th Floor more, but the Inception ending, at least for me, worked a lot better. Ambiguity is king. 



Spoiler



Wobble wobble wobble =)


----------



## Krug (Jul 27, 2010)

Yeap I don't really see how else he could have ended it. Too simple if he just ended it with the kids.


----------



## FoxWander (Jul 27, 2010)

I loved it. Great film, masterfully shot, fully consistent with its own ideas, and then the one bit at the end to instill doubt. And that reveals the true point of the film. 

The "inception" wasn't what you saw in the movie- it's what happened to the audience. 

Everyone left the film with their OWN IDEA of what was really happening and what that ending meant. In just this 2-page thread there are at least 3 different interpretations. A film that can take its own idea and go meta with it- that's a masterpiece!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 27, 2010)

FoxWander said:


> Everyone left the film with their OWN IDEA of what was really happening and what that ending meant.



Indeed, my own was 



Spoiler



that the entire movie Cobb was in Limbo. Everything we saw was entirely in Cobb's dreams. Everyone we saw on his team were part of a team outside Cobb's own dream participating in an elaborate mission to embed the idea in Cobb's mind of doubt, belief that Cobb was in Limbo himself, in order to get Cobb out.


----------



## Joker (Jul 28, 2010)

Find out when a showing of Inception ends.

Follow someone or a small group of people around who have seen the movie.

Play [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Kvu6Kgp88&feature=related]YouTube - Edith Piaf - Non, Je ne regrette rien[/ame] without letting them know it's coming from you.

It's somewhat less funny if they end up killing themselves though.  I'm still working out the kinks.


----------



## jonesy (Jul 28, 2010)

The train on the streets was real. I don't know if it was a real train, that's a different issue, but:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwOOhT6BNFk]YouTube - inception filming - train in downtown los angeles[/ame]

The 'introduction to the dream' sequence explosion was at least partially real:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJn5UzHMtaw&feature=related]YouTube - Explosions on Inception's Paris Filming Set[/ame]

And this featurette has clips of the hotel set:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=685R2P6j26E&feature=channel]YouTube - INCEPTION B-Roll (Behind the Scenes Footage)[/ame]

Not really spoilers, since they all appear in the trailers.


----------



## Joker (Jul 29, 2010)

I like that Nolan uses the bare minimum amount of CGI.  It's a great deal less jarring than a Michael Bay flick for instance.

Hell, if MB had done it not only would the train have been CGI, but all the cars would have exploded, the buildings would have blown up and marines would have entered the dream world and blown up everything left standing.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 30, 2010)

Joker said:


> It's a great deal less jarring than a Michael Bay flick for instance.



If Nolan had Bay's flair and eye for action he'd be the perfect director!  

As it stands now Nolan's only shortcoming are his action scenes which have always been a weakness by comparison to his other skills.


----------



## Krug (Jul 30, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> If Nolan had Bay's flair and eye for action he'd be the perfect director!
> 
> As it stands now Nolan's only shortcoming are his action scenes which have always been a weakness by comparison to his other skills.




Michael Bay action scenes? You might as well sit in a blender. 

Maybe because the characters are so utterly boring, I can't get into them.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 30, 2010)

Krug said:


> Michael Bay action scenes? You might as well sit in a blender.
> 
> Maybe because the characters are so utterly boring, I can't get into them.



Don't think just Transformers.  Like his flicks or not, the man knows how to do action and make it entertaining.

EDIT:  It's also worth noting that Nolan's fight scenes are always littered with the terrible shaky cam effect.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 30, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> EDIT:  It's also worth noting that Nolan's fight scenes are always littered with the terrible shaky cam effect.





Yeah. After Dark Knight, it really surprised me how smoothly-shot the gravity hallway battle was. Actually, all the action scenes in Inception were excellent in my opinion.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 31, 2010)

RangerWickett said:


> Yeah. After Dark Knight, it really surprised me how smoothly-shot the gravity hallway battle was. Actually, all the action scenes in Inception were excellent in my opinion.




I found the action sequences in the snow fortress to be very jumpy.  Too many quick cuts between too many poorly established locations made it kind of disorienting.  In general, though, you are correct that the action scenes were a step up from Dark Knight.

For an unrelated topic, I couldn't help but notice that Ariadne's totem seemed like a Chekhov's gun that never went off.  I understand that explaining the totem to her was a necessary exposition, but after they included the scene of her milling the chess piece I really expected it to come back on screen at some point.


----------



## jonesy (Jul 31, 2010)

Deset Gled said:


> For an unrelated topic, I couldn't help but notice that Ariadne's totem seemed like a Chekhov's gun that never went off.  I understand that explaining the totem to her was a necessary exposition, but after they included the scene of her milling the chess piece I really expected it to come back on screen at some point.



On tvtropes they call that Fauxshadow. The act of creating a scene which is an in-your-face foreshadowing, which never leads to anything.

I figure the explanation was the point, 



Spoiler



and that it was actually pointing at Cobb's totem, not Ariadne's, and we only find that at the end.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 31, 2010)

RangerWickett said:


> Yeah. After Dark Knight, it really surprised me how smoothly-shot the gravity hallway battle was. Actually, all the action scenes in Inception were excellent in my opinion.



It had to be steady with the confined environment.  Hardy to mess up just panning the camera while too guys are wrasslin'.  



Deset Gled said:


> For an unrelated topic, I couldn't help but notice that Ariadne's totem seemed like a Chekhov's gun that never went off.  I understand that explaining the totem to her was a necessary exposition, but after they included the scene of her milling the chess piece I really expected it to come back on screen at some point.



I took it more as an establishing scene that we were in the real world.  She tips it over at the end and gravity works properly.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

Here's an interesting article including some stuff of the totems -

Playfully Deconstructing Inception


----------



## Merkuri (Aug 1, 2010)

Since there have been a bunch of other things I consider spoilers upthread I won't sblock this.

I'm on the fence about whether the ending means he's still dreaming or not.  The children not aging really does it for me (when he spoke with them on the phone they sounded older than that, IMO), but I actually wanted the ending to be ambiguous - I didn't want to be able to come to a conclusion about it.  I like it when a film keeps me guessing at the end.

I think, though, that if he really did get stuck in limbo that, in effect, the plane would never land for him.  When he was in limbo the first time he spent 50 years there, yet he and his wife woke up on the floor, presumably where they started.  I would imagine that if they had actually been locked in limbo in any significant real-world time (like days) that somebody would've come looking for them and they would've woken up in a hospital or something.  

The threat of limbo is not so much that it could take away your life, but that it psychologically screws you up so bad that you can't live the rest of your life the same way.  I mean, imagine if you live your life, get married, have kids, have grandkids, do your job for years, get old, and then one day you wake up and you find out the last 50 years were just a dream and only a few hours have passed.  That's really going to screw you up.

When Cobb was talking about Saito going into limbo, he wasn't worried about Saito not waking up, he was worried about Saito forgetting that they had a deal when he did wake up.

Let's do some math here... Assuming limbo is a fourth-level dream and that the 5 real minutes = 1 dream hour (1:12) ratio applies to each level down, that means that 1 minute of real time equals 12 minutes at the first level, 144 minutes at second level, 1,728 minutes at third level, and 20,736 minutes in limbo.  20,736 minutes is 345.6 hours, or 14.4 days.  So a ten hour (600 minutes) real-world flight would be 8,640 days, or 23.7 years.  In theory, if Cobb and Saito spent the entire flight in limbo they would have experienced almost 24 years.  I got the impression that was longer, though, so maybe that ratio's not quite true in limbo.

If we do that backwards, 50 years (or 18,250 days, or 438,000 hours), in limbo would have been 21.1 hours in real time spent lying on a floor, dreaming.  That seems somewhat reasonable.  Being missing for less than 24 hours probably wouldn't get the police knocking down your door, but I wonder where their kids were during this time.

The other alternative is that limbo doesn't follow the ratio of a fourth-level dream, but rather that real time just sorta stops for you.  You perceive things going on so fast that limbo years go by in a real-world blink, and there's no ratio for it.  In essence, you're in limbo for infinity, and the real world just stops ticking by until you find a way to wake up.


----------



## malcolypse (Aug 9, 2010)

great movie. i loved the hotel level.


----------



## Merkuri (Aug 9, 2010)

Did they do the changing-gravity hotel hallway with an actual rotating set?  I can't think of any other way they could've gotten that effect.  It looked too real to be CGI.  I didn't see any transition effects like I did during the "training dream" when the road went up 90 degrees.


----------



## stonegod (Aug 9, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> Did they do the changing-gravity hotel hallway with an actual rotating set?  I can't think of any other way they could've gotten that effect.  It looked too real to be CGI.  I didn't see any transition effects like I did during the "training dream" when the road went up 90 degrees.



Yes, it was a 100' long or something rotating set (I think there's a video on youtube somewhere). Actors spent 4 days in it.

There is limited CG in the film; mostly to enhance real-world effects (the cafe explosion, the crumbling cities in Limbo, etc.).


----------



## jonesy (Aug 10, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> Did they do the changing-gravity hotel hallway with an actual rotating set?





stonegod said:


> Yes, it was a 100' long or something rotating set (I think there's a video on youtube somewhere).



In this thread, even. Third YouTube link I posted.


----------



## stonegod (Aug 10, 2010)

jonesy said:


> In this thread, even. Third YouTube link I posted.



I'm lazy.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 10, 2010)

Just adding my two cents. Awesome movie, best I've seen in a long while. Not the typical dumbed down Hollywood slop typically thrown to the masses during the summer (i.e. Michael Bay/Brockheimer stuff). I will likely go see it at least once more, hopefully a third time. Still have to convince the wife to go.

There were some minor plot "holes" 



Spoiler



i.e. the lack of gravity in the hotel as the van was falling, but there was still gravity in the snow-land


 but overall very well done.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 10, 2010)

stonegod said:


> I'm lazy.



That's okay. 



renau1g said:


> There were some minor plot "holes"
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



I thought the effects only transferred to the lower level of that one dream? I mean, if you go one level up from the van they were on the airplane and in fairly normal gravity?


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 14, 2010)

RangerWickett said:


> One small fact, there were two actors for each of the kids, at different ages. I noticed it in the credits the second time I watched the movie. I suppose if we had screenshots we could see that the kids look different.
> 
> Though I'm not sure if that means "kids at age in his memory when he ran away," and "kids when he got back at the end." Or if it's "kids on the beach, which was an older memory," and "kids in his memory."



I think the voice actors on the phone call were older than the visual actors (children).

* * *

Someone mentioned ending the movie before showing the top wobble. I agree. 

Bullgrit


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 15, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Someone mentioned ending the movie before showing the top wobble. I agree.



That'd make it too easy.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Aug 15, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> Since there have been a bunch of other things I consider spoilers upthread I won't sblock this.
> 
> I'm on the fence about whether the ending means he's still dreaming or not.  The children not aging really does it for me (when he spoke with them on the phone they sounded older than that, IMO), but I actually wanted the ending to be ambiguous - I didn't want to be able to come to a conclusion about it.  I like it when a film keeps me guessing at the end.
> .




I did not notice this the first time around in the movie, but if you know what to look for within *Inception*, it is very clear whether the ending is a dream or reality.  I had to have it explained to me, and then see it again.  Then, you say, "Oh yeah, now I know."

It is NOT related to the children and their clothing, either.


----------



## Joker (Aug 15, 2010)

NewJeffCT said:


> I did not notice this the first time around in the movie, but if you know what to look for within *Inception*, it is very clear whether the ending is a dream or reality.  I had to have it explained to me, and then see it again.  Then, you say, "Oh yeah, now I know."
> 
> It is NOT related to the children and their clothing, either.




Is it because he wears a ring in the dream world and not in the real world?


----------



## mandarific (Aug 16, 2010)

Thumbs up for me, I really enjoyed it. It also didn't feel as long as it actually was, which was a plus. I haven't seen it a second time though yet, so I'm not really sure about the ending, but I could see where it could go either way.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 16, 2010)

NewJeffCT said:


> I had to have it explained to me



Bummer.  I still think that narrowing it down to one answer strips the movie of it's true genius.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 16, 2010)

NewJeffCT said:


> I had to have it explained to me, and then see it again.  Then, you say, "Oh yeah, now I know."



Dude, don't tease like that. What is it?


----------



## NewJeffCT (Aug 16, 2010)

Joker said:


> Is it because he wears a ring in the dream world and not in the real world?




Yes, it is related to the ring.  If I knew how to do spoilet text, I would put the answer to the final scene within spoiler text.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 16, 2010)

NewJeffCT said:


> Yes, it is related to the ring.  If I knew how to do spoilet text, I would put the answer to the final scene within spoiler text.



{spoiler}text{/spoiler} just replace the { with [


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 16, 2010)

How to use BB code.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Aug 16, 2010)

OK, a few things about Inception.  Nolan made it intentionally confusing.

First 



Spoiler



the children are a bit older at the end of the movie, but not significantly.  They are also dressed very similarly, but not exactly the same.



Secondly, the ring and the top 



Spoiler



Cobb was very clear that you should never use another person's totem as your own, and the little top was Mal's totem.  So, it was not his.  The ring was Cobb's own totem.



And, the ending... 



Spoiler



Cobb was NOT wearing his wedding band when he went home and saw his children again, so it seems to be a happy ending.



Again, I did not figure it out until somebody told me.


----------



## Seonaid (Aug 16, 2010)

Siberys said:


> [sblock]Seriously, though - if Cobb and Saito are in limbo, aren't they functionally braindead? Or do they wake up after the normal amount of IRL time, but (very) possibly insane due to what seems like a near-eternity in limbo?[/sblock]



No, not functionally brain dead. If the rest of the discussion doesn't answer this for you, and you'd like to know more, just ask. 


NewJeffCT said:


> First
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This isn't necessarily a real clue--it could just be his memory/dream not being 100% accurate.







> Secondly, the ring and the top
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Actually, he was very clear that you should use something completely unique to yourself as your totem . . . in which case the wedding band doesn't work, because multiple people have touched it.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Aug 16, 2010)

Seonaid said:


> No, not functionally brain dead. If the rest of the discussion doesn't answer this for you, and you'd like to know more, just ask. This isn't necessarily a real clue--it could just be his memory/dream not being 100% accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My thoughts.


Spoiler



Actually, the wedding band would be completely unique to Cobb and fits with his obsessive personality.  It's unique because it was associated with his marriage to Mal and once he took his wedding vow, it became unique to him.



For what it's worth.


----------



## Seonaid (Aug 16, 2010)

NewJeffCT said:


> My thoughts.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



Nope. Ariadne wouldn't let him *touch* hers, and he approved of that. Theoretically, his wife and the craftsman both had touched his wedding band (not to mention any ring bearer or officiant at the wedding). If touching it is all it takes, then I don't buy it. However, I'm not sure I buy that merely *touching *is all it takes.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 16, 2010)

See that's what I like about the movie, even this has a lot of debate. I like movies that have a bit more thinking involved than say The Expendables (which I will also go see, but it's a different experience)


----------



## Merkuri (Aug 17, 2010)

NewJeffCT said:


> Secondly, the ring and the top
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Spoiler



But the reason you should never use another person's totem is because that person knows how it works and can simulate it in a dream, making the token useless at showing whether you're dreaming.  It's okay for him to use Mal's totem because Mal's dead, therefore no one living knows how his totem works.

I accept that the ring could be a dreamsign, but I doubt it's a conscious one.  Cobb can't check to see the presence of the ring to tell whether he's dreaming or not because it would be easy for someone to just remove the ring in their sculptured dream.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 20, 2010)

So far, one person has voted against seeing this movie, and he/she hasn't posted in here. 

Coincidence?


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 24, 2010)

I'm a bit surprised I'm only the third person who didn't think the film was all that great.

After reading in this thread about it, I was quite hyped, because it's exactly the kind of story I tend to enjoy: Mixing reality and illusion/dream/hallucinations. I'm also a big fan of Philip K. Dick for that reason.

However, imho, the movie fell flat. I felt it was a missed opportunity, given how the premise seemed so intriguing.

The story at it's core is actually quite simple. It's artifically complicated by stuff that doesn't really add much to it.

I was also disappointed about the lack of 'proper' dream logic in the movie. To me the dream sequences weren't dream-like at all, it was just a bunch of different sets. Take the inception mission: What are the dream layers really about?
We get city blocks, a factory hall, a hotel, a fortress, and the 'dream-world' city. But the only thing that is different is the locations. They could be replaced with anything else without affecting the plot/story in the least.

The special effects were okay, but the action scenes mostly seemed kind of pointless. I also felt that I didn't really care about the protagonists. The explanations why it was supposed to be dangerous to be wounded/killed in the dreams also seemed wobbly and unconvincing to me.

It was too obviously intended to just serve as a device to convince the viewer that there's actual danger involved in getting into other people's dreams.

Imho, Matrix and 13th Floor did a way better job at telling a very similar story. Inception didn't really add anything exciting or new to this particular sub-(sub)genre.

There, now go ahead and rip me apart for not seeing the brilliancy of this movie


----------



## jonesy (Aug 24, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I was also disappointed about the lack of 'proper' dream logic in the movie. To me the dream sequences weren't dream-like at all, it was just a bunch of different sets..



That was the whole point of why they needed an architect. So it wouldn't be a dream logic mess.


----------



## Joker (Aug 24, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> The story at it's core is actually quite simple. It's artifically complicated by stuff that doesn't really add much to it.




While I don't consider it a brilliant movie, I thought it was more thoughtful than a great deal of movies coming out of Hollywood.

Your criticism that it's a simple story seems unfounded though.  Every story is simple at its core.  It's the way it's told and all the stuff that's added to it that makes it interesting.

It wasn't good for you and that's perfectly fine.  Differing tastes and all that.  A lot of people like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies while I think they're about as entertaining as having your genitals waxed with super glue while listening to a Jonas Brothers' rendition of the best Nickleback hits just as some old hobo farts in your face.

Toodles,

-Tymon


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 24, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Imho, Matrix and 13th Floor did a way better job at telling a very similar story. Inception didn't really add anything exciting or new to this particular sub-(sub)genre.



Something tells me that you came into the flick with expectations that weren't met and that weren't the fault of the movie.  

As for The Matrix comparison?  They haven next to nothing in common except for both being in the fantasy/science fiction genre.  Inception is a love story disguised a caper film and The Matrix was about one big twist coupled with lots of eye candy actions scenes that in the end meant nothing.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 24, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> Something tells me that you came into the flick with expectations that weren't met and that weren't the fault of the movie.
> 
> As for The Matrix comparison?  They haven next to nothing in common except for both being in the fantasy/science fiction genre.  Inception is a love story disguised a caper film and The Matrix was about one big twist coupled with lots of eye candy actions scenes that in the end meant nothing.




But you gotta admit, The Matrix had some pretty good action. They really ought to make some sequels.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 24, 2010)

RangerWickett said:


> But you gotta admit, The Matrix had some pretty good action. They really ought to make some sequels.



How could they make any sequels? Neo became the One. He no longer needs to dodge bullets. And he can see and alter the Matrix source code with his mind.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 25, 2010)

jonesy said:


> How could they make any sequels? Neo became the One. He no longer needs to dodge bullets. And he can see and alter the Matrix source code with his mind.





What?  He needs to be stopped!


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 25, 2010)

John Crichton said:


> Something tells me that you came into the flick with expectations that weren't met and that weren't the fault of the movie.



I agree. It was YOUR fault! Because this very thread was the reason for my expectations 


John Crichton said:


> As for The Matrix comparison?  They haven next to nothing in common except for both being in the fantasy/science fiction genre.  Inception is a love story disguised a caper film and The Matrix was about one big twist coupled with lots of eye candy actions scenes that in the end meant nothing.



This almost sounds like you came into the flick (Matrix in your case) with expectations that weren't met and that weren't the fault of the (first) movie 

You really don't see the common theme of Matrix, 13th Floor, and Inception?
Imho, all of them tackle the problem of telling reality from illusion. Neo finds out that what he thought was reality is just a simulation. 13th Floor expands on that, implying that reality is just a simulation running in a simulation, etc. In Inception you're left wondering what is real, what is dream, and what is just a dream within a dream (, etc.).

All of these movies have the potential to make the viewer think about the nature of reality. Is MY world actually real? How can I be sure? Can I really trust my senses or my feelings?

Matrix and 13th Floor had that effect on me and Inception, unfortunately, didn't. Of course it wasn't exactly advertised as having that effect, but hey, it's what I hoped for!

Edit: Actually, after checking the Wikipedia entry for the movie, apparently Christopher Nolan himself seems to think Inception shares a theme with Matrix and 13th Floor:


> When he first started thinking about making the film, Nolan was influenced by "that era of movies where you had The Matrix, you had Dark City, you had The Thirteenth Floor and, to a certain extent, you had Memento, too. They were based in the principles that the world around you might not be real."[23]


----------



## jonesy (Aug 25, 2010)

Hey Jhaelen, have you seen Dark City? If you haven't, do it. And don't read about it or go into it with any expectations. It's the best movie to go to totally blind about what it is.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 25, 2010)

Finally saw the movie this weekend.  I really enjoyed it.  Of course now I have some issues and would be interested in hearing what others think:

[sblock] 
Why didn't the team experience the gravity issues on the third layer?  I assume the idea is that they are too deep to be affected by something two layers up.
Does a "kick" only penetrate one layer deep?  Is that why they needed simultaneous kicks on each level above?
Why didn't Arthur get "kicked" from the second layer when the van on the first layer made the leap?  A further question is why the van rolling over didn't act as a kick.
Regarding totems, jumping into the earlier discussion, the issue isn't touching the totem, but holding it enough to understand how it feels and would act.  Arthur didn't want Ariadne holding his loaded die because she might learn the balance.  Cobb easily could have used his ring as his totem, all he needed to do was alter the balance or create a rough spot after his wedding day.  
Continuing with totems; I propose that the unique nature of a totem prevents somebody else from adding it into the dream and behaving correctly, but it does nothing to prevent the dreamers' own subconscious from inserting a proper totem into a deam, therefore the totem cannot protect the dreamer from their own desire for a dream to be real.  
 [/sblock]


----------



## jonesy (Aug 25, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> 1.





Spoiler



That's what I assumed too. And it's not a straight line. It wasn't same person dreaming.





> 2.





Spoiler



That's a definitive yes.





> 3.





Spoiler



I'm guessing it wasn't strong enough?


----------



## Seonaid (Aug 25, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> [sblock]
> Regarding totems, jumping into the earlier discussion, the issue isn't touching the totem, but holding it enough to understand how it feels and would act.  Arthur didn't want Ariadne holding his loaded die because she might learn the balance.  Cobb easily could have used his ring as his totem, all he needed to do was alter the balance or create a rough spot after his wedding day.
> [/sblock]



[sblock]Cobb specifically praised Ariadne for not letting him touch her totem. :shrug:  As for the ring, definitely. I didn't think of that. [/sblock]


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 25, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I assumed too. And it's not a straight line. It wasn't same person dreaming.







Spoiler



OK, then I missed something (not that surprising).  I thought it was the same person dreaming (Robert).  That was how they penetrated deep enough to plant the inception.  My undertanding was that, in order to be able to penetrate that deeply Robert had a dream within a dream, within a dream; they were all his dreams, but the team convinced him that they were in fact entering other dreams so that he would allow them the deeper penetration.  Who were the dreamers on each level?


----------



## jonesy (Aug 25, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the dreamers on each level?



[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]


----------



## jonesy (Aug 25, 2010)

Spoiler



Do note that Limbo has a hard time fitting on that diagram, and I'm not really sure whether they should even have placed it there. But the dreamers and their dreams were mentioned in the movie like that.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 25, 2010)

Spoiler



Wow, I really missed how this is supposed to work.  Somehow I came away with the impression that they penetrated the target's dreams, not brought the target into their own dreams.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 25, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I really missed how this is supposed to work.  Somehow I came away with the impression that they penetrated the target's dreams, not brought the target into their own dreams.



That's pretty key.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 25, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I really missed how this is supposed to work.  Somehow I came away with the impression that they penetrated the target's dreams, not brought the target into their own dreams.





Spoiler



That was mentioned in the beginning. Saito says something to the effect of "we are in my dream now, you can't do anything" and then Cobb's partner (the one who is later taken away in the helicopter scene) says something like "nope, this is my dream".


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 26, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> That was mentioned in the beginning. Saito says something to the effect of "we are in my dream now, you can't do anything" and then Cobb's partner (the one who is later taken away in the helicopter scene) says something like "nope, this is my dream".



That explains how I missed it.  There were some sound issues at the start of the movie and Saito especially was diffcult to understand.


----------

