Quoted from RunningFox "They were invincible"? - Were you even paying attention?  And because of this there was zero tension?  What a ridiculous argument.

Yes. At worst they could go into limbo. Which we knew Leonardo had already got out of once, so there was zero jeopardy.

They were all completely unkillable at all points in the film.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Yes. At worst they could go into limbo. Which we knew Leonardo had already got out of once, so there was zero jeopardy. They were all completely unkillable at all points in the film.

"At worst"?  Limbo is quite often percieved as a fate worse than death.  Aren't those stakes enough for you?

... You just can't please some people!

Quoted from RunningFox "At worst"?  Limbo is quite often percieved as a fate worse than death.  Aren't those stakes enough for you? ... You just can't please some people!

I have to ask if you watched the film...

Did you see what limbo was like in the actual film? You could make what you want and it was easily escapable.

Not my fault mate, just the way they made the film.

Clearly your own idea of limbo is a lot more terrifying than the easy life you got in Inception where you could live another life-time and get out of it seemingly at will.

Fate worse than death.

I'm not saying anything's your fault (lol!), I'm just trying to understand your point of view.  What you're saying is that because the story takes place in a dream, there are no stakes.  This is simply not true.  Cobb's mission can only be accomplished in the dreamworld/subconscious, and while dying in the dream may not outright kill them in reality, it jeapardises the mission, and so, THOSE are the stakes.  Yours is  a pretty baseless argument.

Yes, I did see what limbo was like in the film - I wouldn't want to end up there.  And when you say they can "get out of it seemingly at will", I think you may have missread the film - I don't think it's an accident that Cobb appears to simply awake from limbo without having rode the "kick" back up...

And there-in lies the subtle genius of this film because the movie's full of these kinds of moments.

Inception's exactly the same as Avatar. Forget who made them or what they're about. They're both films with shortcomings that will either be lost on the people who love them or completely ruin them for the people who don't, even if those people enjoyed them. The "magic" of Avatar was completely lost on me. Inception's wasn't. But having had the reaction to Avatar that I did, I can certainly see where Inception's detractors are coming from.

It all comes down to taste as far as I'm concerned. For me, Avatar has become a film that says tons about someone's tastes. Not whether it's good or bad. More along the lines of what they react to.

That said, I'm one to shit on just about any film I don't like. So the whole notion that films are subjective and criticism is for the birds, to me, is, well... for the birds. What I will say is that Avatar and Inception are both so polarizing that no one's ever gonna find any middle ground as far as agreements and disagreements are concerned.

Quoted from James McClung so polarizing that no one's ever gonna find any middle ground as far as agreements and disagreements are concerned.

I agree!

I'm not saying that it's because it's set in a dreamworld, merely that the film never gave us any hint of any danger that could befall them. Even if you accept that they didn't really escape limbo, then that undermines the argument even further because he was happy at the end. Limbo was the only "danger" and it was a complete bed of roses.

As for the mission: Who cares who owns the local gas company? I certainly didn't. The whole story was pointless and boring. They didn't even have the decency to try and show how it might be a bad thing. (OOh it would be terrible, says Saito, a thief and direct rival who has already shown a wanton disregard for human life....very convincing) He actually strongly made me feel the worlds energy would be better off in the hands of the hyper-sensitive Daddy's boy.

There were no stakes to care about in the whole film.

Did I care about his kids? No. I never even got to see them till the film thankfully ended.

Did I care about his wfie? No, again, why would I? She was presented as an annoying antagonistic figure throughout, so I couldn't have cared what happened to her.

It was a film without stakes and without consequence.

As for the "reading" of the film. You are free to interpret it as you want. It's just a meaningless puzzle, like an unsolveable maze. Very much like the endless staircases in the film itself. Kind of interesting to think about, but essentially pointless.
I agree with you that the most interesting interpretation is that he is stuck in a dream, indeed that the whole film is a dream...but to be quite honest all the ideas that anyone may have about it are testament to their own creativity and invention. It's well demonstrated that if you put up a blank canvas on a wall of a gallery and then ask people what they think about it, they will come up with all sorts of wonderful ideas. They fill up the hole with their own thoughts.

Only interpretation no actual Truth.

The actual film has no real depth at all IMHO and for me it didn't even work as the standard action flick that it really was underneath the interesting maguffin. It just didn't work on anything other than a technical level to me, it was devoid of emotion and interest.

I've said rather more than I intended. I really wanted to like it, the dream thing is right up my street. It just didn't work for me at all.

I was hoping to watch a film about dreams, instead what I got was a story about a CEO who wants his Daddy to love him. They should just have got a forger to write a letter from his Dad and stick it in a drawer somewhere. Would have saved me 2 hours of my life.

Anyway, this review spells the problems with the film out better than I could.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2010/07/26/100726crci_cinema_denby

This bit particularly:


"But who cares if Cobb gets back to two kids we don’t know? And why would we root for one energy company over another? There’s no spiritual meaning or social resonance to any of this, no critique of power in the dream-world struggle between C.E.O.s. It can’t be a coincidence that Tony Gilroy’s “Duplicity” (2009), which was also about industrial espionage, played time games, too. The over-elaboration of narrative devices in both movies suggests that the directors sensed that there was nothing at the heart of their stories to stir the audience. In any case, I would like to plant in Christopher Nolan’s head the thought that he might consider working more simply next time. His way of dodging powerful emotion is beginning to look like a grand-scale version of a puzzle-maker’s obsession with mazes and tropes."

I didn't care about his kids either, or his wife for that matter.  But then, then the film wasn't about Cobb's kids, it was about his journey to get back to them.  And if Cobb's wife and kids were actually only ever depicted in a dream, "caring" for them is a somewhat moot point, don't you think?

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I'm not saying that it's because it's set in a dreamworld, merely that the film never gave us any hint of any danger that could befall them. Even if you accept that they didn't really escape limbo, then that undermines the argument even further because he was happy at the end. Limbo was the only "danger" and it was a complete bed of roses.

Just thought this was funny given the amount of comparisons to The Matrix. That is to say the malevolent realms in both films really weren't all that malevolent. I think The Matrix fucked up worse though. Inception seemed to suggest that there is something to be lost in dwelling in memories even if some sort of comfort comes from it. I thought it was an interesting concept given that so many people have those problems in real life.

In The Matrix, the stance they took was humans should live in cold, dark deserted caverns full of robot invertebrates as opposed to... doing whatever the fuck they want.

Bottom line... no one in their right mind would choose the "real world" over The Matrix!!!

Can't say it completely ruined The Matrix for me. The sequels did that. I will say it's kinda irked me though.

Quoted from RunningFox I didn't care about his kids either, or his wife for that matter.  But then, then the film wasn't about Cobb's kids, it was about his journey to get back to them.  And if Cobb's wife and kids were actually only ever depicted in a dream, "caring" for them is a somewhat moot point, don't you think?

That was the entire emotional centre of the film...and as you say it was completely lacking. Hardly a moot point.

If you didn't care about the kids, why would you care if Cobb gets back to them or not? You could only empathise with Cobb in a very abstract way, not in any real way, which is surely the very essence of drama.

That was the key problem with almost everything in the film. None of it mattered. It was all plot with no emotional substance.

I think I'm articulating myself quite clearly here.  As characters, no, I didn't care about the kids since we never got to know them.  Sure, we got to know his wife, but only as a projection of his subconscious.  So, as characters, I didn't care for them.  But I cared that Cobb did.  And I cared for his desire to get back to them.

Sure, this is the emotional centre of the film, and it's all carried by Cobb.

Let's end this.

The film was extremely boring for me. I didn't care about their mission, I didn't care about a single character in the film. I thought it had good visuals in places, unfortunately the majority were very dull and devoid of imagination.

Even a lot of the positive commentators on the film have mentioned how lacking in soul and emotion it is, so I'm hardly alone....not that it matters if I was anyway.

It was a very ambitious piece, but it failed to move me in any way and it bored me to the point that I started checking my watch. It was a huge relief when it was over.

We'll never agree, so there's no point discussing it further.

Cool man.

If you listen to Nolan in some of his interviews, one of his main goals was to inspire debate - can't argue that Inception doesn't work on that level!

Good talking with you.

ScarTissue and RunningFox, you guys are gentlemen and scholars both.  A well-held discussion

Quoted from JCShadow For those who are saying the film was straight forward, with no possible chance of opposing interpretations, proves Christopher Nolans ability as a director to satisfy those who don't think during a movie and those who do. And before anyone starts crying, I don't refer to intelligence. There are just those who are deep cerebral thinkers and those who are not.

Hey JC!  This part is me so I will respond if I may --

Of course the film will create opposing interpretations.  It has sequences set in varying realities, and this combined with the end will of course lead to what seems to be the hot debate topic: did he make it into reality at the end?

Here's where I'm coming from:what real-life statement, consciousness-raising, theme, what real-life message can be attributed to either interpretation that applies to our real world?  Why is it important?  What real-life (like, our real lives, as an audience) relevance does this have?  

None.  If the top falls over, he's in the real world, he's got his kids back, he's let go of the idea of eternity with his wife.  Great.  But what if it keeps spinning?  What does that mean for our world?  That we might be in a dream state?  The mind-blowing idea of dualism, which was explored in, for example...The Matrix?  What else?  What actual relevance do the "bigger" ideas in this film (that is, bigger than the plot and character arcs) have to us as humans or as a society?

I say none.  And that is why I couldn't enjoy Inception as anything more than a much-above-average action movie -- not that there's ANYthing wrong with it being that.




Off the top of my head, here's an example of what Inception lacks -- and other films have -- from what I believe is (subtly) intelligent entertainment, and also happens to have been, at its time, the most expensive film ever made:

In the end of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, the T-101, as it prepares for its own (essentially-) self-destruction, says to John Connor, "I know now why you cry".

Interpretation 1:  The T-101's sophisticated learning computer has deconstructed the causes for human sadness, and while it is unable to replicate a like response, it does understand.

Relevance to real life:  Human emotion is a sacred and un-replicable thing that we should cherish as a unique and wonderful aspect of our beings.  Even if we are able to build robots as advanced as the T-101, they will never be able to experience fully "human" life...at best, they may enjoy a polarizing stint as a surprisingly non-partisan governor.  Still, as Sarah mentions earlier in the story, does this lack of emotion mean that they are any less capable as fathers, partners, et al?  Perhaps, on the flip side, emotion is not vital to functioning in human society today...

Interpretation 2:  The T-101, having been "taught" the error of its violent ways and having found a family, has discovered real emotion in the form of sadness at the loss of its loved ones.  It is genuinely experiencing emotion.

Relevance to real life:  It's possible that in the future, further than just being able to "understand" human emotion, advanced machines will be able to replicate the thinking patterns associated with emotions and actually "experience" them to a degree that we will be unable to tell the difference between a human feeling a "real" emotion and an android feeling a "fake" one.  At this point, will it be possible to prove that a machine is not experiencing emotion?  If so, how?

These are interesting, relevant (more so by the day, in fact), vast topics that allow for hours of informed and uninformed argument.  The philosophy of dualism is a fascinating topic in its own right but Inception added nothing original to the discussion, and certainly didn't cover any ground that The Matrix didn't.

ALL THAT SAID, I don't think Inception should be compared to the Matrix in particular.  They're completely different films, and both very entertaining in their own right.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films We'll never agree, so there's no point discussing it further.

Rick, I remember you mentioned in the F13 Remake thread how amazed you were with the fact that two people can see the same movie and still come down with the exact opposite reaction. And you're right, that's what movies do. If you can't buy into the characters then the movie will simply not do it for you. That's a completely fair and valid point with any movie.

What amazes me though, are the things you felt destroyed Inception for you since they are basically the same things that made Avatar such a hit for you.

I don't understand that. But it doesn't matter cos, like you said, we'll never agree and that's what makes movies so wonderful.

One thing, you say the worst thing that can happen is that they end up in limbo - and that Leo already got out of it once...

Oh, did he now?