It wasn't there enough IMO.

Let's take the scene that's at the very emotional heart of the film. His separation from his children.

This is his motivation for the ENTIRE action of the film...to get back to them.

We actually saw the moment it happened. Do you remember what he did?

He gets given a flight ticket. Looks up to see his kids for a last time, realises they've gone, then leaves after three seconds.

That was it. That was his entire emotional attachment to his kids as presented in the film. He laments that he wished he had called out so he could have seen their faces one last time, but that was as far as it went.

What would a guy who really loved his kids have done?
Refused to leave? Break down in tears? Ran after them to hold them one last time in spite of the danger? Called out to them? Have to be dragged away by his associate for his own protection? Take them with him?

All he does is look up, think "Oh, that's a shame" and leaves.

If you look at that scene in the cold light of day and consider just how important it was to the whole film...it looks very weak indeed. Truthfully about as weak as you could possibly write.

One thing that I would like to hear:

For those that did connect emotionally with the film, do you think you could describe some of the ways in which it did make that connection?

I'm interested from a filmmaking point of view how it did manage to affect so many people on that level.

Obviously for me there were fundamental flaws in the story-telling that prevented me getting involved in the film. For you what WAS there that overcame these.

Was it purely a performance thing...or was there some technique used in the film that made you empathise with the characters.

I don't think any film techniques were used to convey the emotion. I think it was a mix of the performance and the writing. What really sold me was the fact that DiCaprio's character was so open with Paige's character about clinging to his dreams. Despite the fact that these memories were so precious to him, they were definitely painful ones. I basically felt like the character was only trying to cope with a shitty situation that was basically his doing and the fact that his out was basically just a matter of the right place at the right time drew me in.

In regards to the separation, I've met many a person who've been of the opinion that a long goodbye to a loved one can be even more painful than the separation itself. Personally, I'm not one of those people but I basically felt that was the case here. The character just didn't want to put himself through that.

Regardless, I probably wasn't as engaged emotionally as I probably should've been but I didn't watch the film for the emotional content. I wanted to see a cool action movie. I think action is the absolute dumbest genre there is. It's almost inherently dumb. I basically expect a ton of cool set pieces and nothing more. There's the debate here that Inception isn't as intelligent as people say it is but it definitely wasn't the A Team and I was satisfied with the little flourishes of thought that did go into it.

I'll agree with what another poster here said; a film doesn't have to contain emotion for you to be engaged as long as something else is going on.  The Usual Suspects, say, isn't exactly loaded with emotion, yet it still has the power to engage, even on an emotional level, through the power of the narrative.

Just because a film doesn't have you balling your eyes out by the end like maybe what Avatar or Titanic is designed to do, doesn't mean a film's devoid of emotion - there are many different types of emotions that a film can work on.  Guilt for example, was a pretty big one in Inception.

I'll also add that there are emotions that you experience with the character, and then they're those you experience as the viewer.  With Inception, I can say I experienced emotions from both categories.

Just saw this film this morning and couldn't see the 'wow' factor that others saw in it.

I can see that it was a well crafted film but I didn't feel I was involved in it.  I wasn't on anyones side.  I felt more like a spectator seeing how this film was going to end.

SPOILER

When it came to the end with everyone about to snap out of their dream state, and wanting to ride the wave, so to speak.

How the hell could they time it from the 2nd & 3rd dream state without any verbal communication?  It sounded like a huge gamble that paid off.

Also, how can the gravity in the 2nd dream be so effected from the 1st dream but the 3rd dream not suffer any effects?  Apart from the avalanche that Fisher guy had a smooth walk to chat with his old man.

Also, this limbo state, which appears to be a 4th dream state, that's awfully convenient.  Seems like Leonardo just had to go to the 4th state to skip snapping out of the 3rd, 2nd and 1st dreams.

I felt the ending was going to end up being reality as that thing was going to fall over.  I was wondering why the children haven't aged, I guess he may still be dreaming?

That's pretty cool MC.

The discussion beneath is surprisingly interesting as well...some knowledgeable fans on there.

It just shows that inspiration is all around.


EDIT: Here's a direct comparison of Inception vs Scrooge.

http://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/blinkuldhc/news/?a=21055

Pretty funny.

Fantastic link, Mike.

I just read the 26 page comic, its brilliant. I recommend it to all who have seen Nolan's film.

Brainstorm - 1983

Dreamscape - 1984

Nightmare on Elm Street - 1984

Dream of a Lifetime - 2004

Inception - 2010

There is nothing new under the sun - 250 BCE

From WIKIPEDIA:

Perception of time

The rate at which time passes while lucid dreaming has been shown to be about the same as while waking. However, a 1995 study in Germany indicated that lucid dreaming can also have varied time spans, in which the dreamer can control the length. The study took place during sleep and upon awakening, and required the participants to record their dreams in a log and how long the dreams lasted. In 1985, LaBerge performed a pilot study where lucid dreamers counted out ten seconds while dreaming, signaling the end of counting with a pre-arranged eye signal measured with electrooculogram recording.[14] LaBerge's results were confirmed by German researchers in 2004. The German study, by D. Erlacher and M. Schredl, also studied motor activity and found that deep knee bends took 44% longer to perform while lucid dreaming.[15]

Awareness and reasoning

D�hyenpa was a master-level practitioner of Tibetan lucid dream yoga.[16]While dream control and dream awareness are correlated, neither requires the other�LaBerge has found dreams which exhibit one clearly without the capacity for the other; also, in some dreams where the dreamer is lucid and aware they could exercise control, they choose simply to observe.[17] In 1992, a study by Deirdre Barrett examined whether lucid dreams contained four "corollaries" of lucidity: knowing that dreamt people are indeed dreamt, that objects won't persist beyond waking, that physical laws need not apply, and having clear memory of the waking world, and found less than a quarter of lucidity accounts exhibited all four. A related and reciprocal category of dreams that are lucid in terms of some of these four corollaries, but miss the realization that "I'm dreaming" were also reported. Scores on these corollaries and correctly identifying the experience as a dream increased with lucidity experience.[18]

Stephen LaBerge (b. 1947) is a psychophysiologist and a leader in the scientific study of lucid dreaming. In 1967 he received his Bachelor's Degree in mathematics. He began researching lucid dreaming for his Ph.D. in Psychophysiology at Stanford University, which he received in 1980.[1] He developed techniques to enable himself and other researchers to enter a lucid dream state at will, most notably the MILD technique (mnemonic induction of lucid dreams), which was necessary for many forms of dream experimentation.[2] In 1987, he founded The Lucidity Institute, an organization that promotes research into lucid dreaming, as well as running courses for the general public on how to achieve a lucid dream.[3]

His technique of signalling to a collaborator monitoring his EEG with agreed-upon eye movements during REM became the first published, scientifically-verified signal from a dreamer's mind to the outside world. The first confirmed signal came from Alan Worsley under study in England; however his group did not publish their results until later. [4] Though the technique is simple, it opens broad new avenues of dream research and pushed the field of dream research, or oneirology, beyond its protoscientific and largely discredited psychoanalytic roots, establishing it as a fruitful and respectable discipline.


I guess the whole point here is don't get on the conspiracy band wagon about original ideas, because there aren't any. I remember watching a black and white picture from the early days of film and saw some very specific elements that I just know were borrowed for use in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK; and I remember thinking THAT'S where Spielberg got that idea!

That was quite a trip. Saw this earlier today and still have a headache.

Reminded me most of one of those Star Trek: Next Generation episodes with the holodeck within a holodeck within a holodeck...

The beginning confused me. I suppose it was the best way to introduce the physics and the rules of the universe...

The Dream machine was little more than a Babel Fish; it enabled the multi-leveled dreams to occur, but nothing else.

The special effects were well worth the price of admission.

I don't know about the top at the end...Kind of Soprano-esque. Did Tony get whacked? (He did) Was Leonardo still in a dream? Let the audience decide, a good coffee shop conversation...

My opinion? No, he was in reality at that point, as the top was beginning to wobble. Micheal Caine would have had plenty of time to pop across the pond from the time he introduced Ellen (who's slightly overexposed as a result of the Cisco commercials)
Cobb also could not reproduce thier little faces because he had not seen them, as deeply as he wanted to. The image wasn't in his subconcious to build upon....
We also don't know, or perhaps I missed it, how much time had passed from Mol dying to the time the lawyers brought him the plane ticket. Could have been a few days or more when he went to sell his services to the Japanese business man. Regardless, the children, although they do grow like weeds, would not have changed all that much.

But, that, along with Tony Soprano, is just my opinion.

Did I emotionally connect with the film? No, not really. The only character names I remember are Cobb and Mol...and the others, not so much-just as the actors names.

Definitly well worth seeing, although suggest taking some Ibuprofin before hand.

Finally saw it today.  I was underwhelmed and left not really liking it.

It was visually stunning in many scenes, but I was bored and actually sleepy throughout much of it.  Many of the big set piece action scenes felt like I've seen them before, and the snow battle came out of left field completely.

I didn't connect or care about any of the flat, 2 dimensional characters, and that's a big problem for me.

I didn't buy into the premise, nor do I feel it made sense when you think about it.

It was convoluted, and intentionally ambiguous throughout.

I have to agree with most of Rick's assessments.

Was it all a dream?  I think so, and that's one of the biggest issues.  Nothing really mattered when you get right down to it.  We spent 2 1/2 hours watching a dream that had no affect on anyone's life, and to make it even worse, we're left not really sure what we just watched.

The plot itself was so weak, although the concept was so big.

But, at the end of the day, it worked for what it was and will be another huge success for Nolan.  I guess I'm just not a Nolan guy, as I really disliked Dark Knight, and although I like Memento overall, it was also dull and purposely hard to follow.

Interesting how many people feel so strongly about it, though, one way or the other.  Glad I saw it at the theater, as it's definitely one of those films that works much better on the big screen.

I stole this from Martin, an SS buddy of ours who still lurks about from time to time...

HaHa!  Now that's funny!

Well done.

Quoted from bert I stole this from Martin, an SS buddy of ours who still lurks about from time to time...

Dang those plot devices.