The film we've all been waiting for has finally arrived. And it's awesome.

I've just got back from seeing Inception at the cinema. Trying to review a film of this scope, ambition and complexity is a pretty impossible task - it's hard enough to describe, so how Nolan conceived the whole thing I've no idea - but I'll try and give some reaction. To try and do a plot summary would be foolish, and you all know the concept anyway, so I'll just say it's a quasi-sci-fi-heist-thriller, a blockbuster with brains as well as brawn.

Acting? Top notch. Di Caprio as Cobb is a haunted man trying to pull 'one last job', battling guilt and fighting to control memories which are very much a threat to him. Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page are all up to the task as his team. Ken Watanabe is his usual engrossing self, and Nolan's go-to creepy guy Cillian Murphy doesn't disappoint either. The best performance, however, probably comes from Marion Cotillard, who is fast becoming one of my favourite actresses. Wherever she turns up - Public Enemies, Nine - she is completely gripping to watch. Here she's the splinter in Cobb's mind who puts everything in jeopardy, the skeleton in his mental closet that he must confront or give in to.

Visually, it's all amazing to watch. The physics-bending fight sequences (particularly the one in the hotel corridors) are incredible to watch, and I already can't wait for the behind-the-scenes footage on the Blu-Ray. The debt to The Matrix is clear, but it doesn't feel like a Wachowski rip-off; it's too well done for that. There's more action than you could possibly want in a summer blockbuster - explosions, fist fights, snowmobiles, shoot-outs...you're as bombarded by sound as you are by ideas.

Some reviews have said this just feels like a very expensive college lecture, Nolan droning on about dreams and the subconscious for two-and-a-half hours with occasional pauses for things to blow up. It's true that you have to keep listening, and the film has to keep explaining itself because things really aren't straightforward (by the end we have four simultaneous action sequences all featuring the same characters, happening at different locations and in different time-frames), but I don't agree that it's cold and emotionally dry. The story of Cobb's guilt is genuinely affecting, and the scene towards the end with Watanabe and di Caprio is a treat. Yes everyone - apart from Hardy - takes things very seriously indeed, but given what's at stake that's not surprising.

I agree that as far as capturing dreams onscreen goes, this isn't the definitive work. No-one dreams about sex here, ever - there's no romance here at all, except the screwed-up kind between di Caprio and Cotillard. And despite the clever visual tricks, everything still feels very logical. In fact, there are probably more flaws that I'll start to pick out as the days go by, but right now I'm too bowled over to care. In terms of boldness, ambition, narrative cleverness, breathtaking visuals...this is first-rate stuff. Two and a half hours flew by,and the stakes just kept going up and up and up; none of the lagging third act that TDK suffered from slightly here. The final image is perfect, too.

Imagine The Matrix meets old Bond movies meets Mission Impossible meets Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and you'll be vaguely close to understanding what this film is. It's a thumping action pic that explores fundamental, rich themes like love, guilt, death, memory, time...it's not just about dreams and reality, it's about the whole human condition. In Avatar, Cameron put story and ideas on the back-burner and focused on the visuals. Nolan delivers in both departments.

My Oscar predictions last year turned out to be pretty wrong (NO nominations for Public Enemies), but I'll stick my neck out and say we have a guarenteed Best Picture nomination right here. Kudos to Warner Bros. for giving Nolan the money to make his vision a reality. If this is what he can come up with, and I have no doubt it'll do the business at the box office (the 4:10 screening I was in, in a pretty small town, was almost full), then I say keep the money coming.

Hey Jonny,

I just got back from watching this today, and I have to say that it pretty much blew me away.  I usually like to let movies simmer in my noggin for afew days before deciding whether or not I really liked it, but in this case it's not really necessary.  

I think you've done a wonderful job of reviewing this flick, because it's really no easy task.  Anyone who sees it will no what I mean.

If I'm being totally honest, the first 20 minutes or so were a little jarring for me, in part because we are thrown right into the fire.  I just told myself to go with it, and while I'm still not sure that I totally understood everything that was going on, it more than came around for me in the end.  We got out of the theatre and had no idea it was a 2 plus hour movie.  

I agree that the acting was superb all around.  With each passing film, I can't help but like Leo more and more as an actor.  He's been on quite a roll.  For me though, I thought Tom Hardy was terrific.  His character was not only a wwiseacre, but he kicked plenty of ass.

I left the theatre thinking of people who said that "Avatar" was the best movie they've ever seen.  I'm not saying that this is the best movie I've ever seen, but it blows "Avatar" (different beasts, I know) out of the water IMO.  It worked on at least three levels for me: the "love" story b/w Leo and the beautiful Cotillard, the father/son relationship (which def worked for me), and the great action scenes which I think built off of the "Matrix" and took it to a cool new level.

Anyway, terrific movie, IMO, and I couldn't help but wonder what this screenplay must look like.  I'll be thinking about this one for a while.

Craig

WOW! I thought I'd catch a 10am Sunday morning screening so I didn't have to put up with many people talking through it, but it was a few seats off a sellout. I've never seen the cinema so busy on a Sunday at that time. Luckily, everyone was quiet throughout, probably blown away just as much as I was.

What a movie! Very impressed with all the actors involved. I used to hat Di Caprio so much that I thought the best part of Titanic was when he died, but his recent movies have been great and my opinion of him is rapidly changing. I wasn't sure about the casting of Ellen Page, but I'm glad to admit I was wrong.  I do agree that the standout was Marion Cotillard. She was amazing in every single scene she was in.

The visuals...wow...I don't think I'll see anything like it for a while. I wasn't as confused as I thought I'd be, even after the dream within a dream within a dream etc. Amazing film, I'll definitely be taking advantage of my unlimited card to see it a few more times in the coming weeks.

Avatar doesn't even come close.

"Ooh, does the top keep spinning or doesn't it?!"  

That's about the most conversation you'll get out of Inception.

Highly enjoyable but far from intelligent, Nolan's heist flick is a fun, slick amalgam of pulpy sci-novels from the last 50 years that somehow seems to have given the impression of being thoughtful, original entertainment.  Obvious and stunted in its expression of science fiction ideas, it is nonetheless a rip-roaring action flick with just enough sci-fi to keep itself going, and certainly one of the most involving action plots in years.

Inception's real strength is its adherence to the strict rules of storytelling; despite being way too long, the film hits every mark exactly when it's supposed to, and more importantly, centers itself and its conflict around the internal struggle of its protagonist manifested (very literally, in this case) into external forces -- something which scriptwriters seem to be forgetting about lately.  This is the story of a man learning to accept a loved one's death, through and through, and it never forgets that.  

As one must expect of Christopher Nolan, we are also treated to several very fun and well-designed action sequences, some gorgeous cinematography, and a well-handled, complex story.  The cast is very strong, albeit no stronger or weaker than they normally are.  Michael Caine, wasted in a useless and obligatory bit part, is the sole exception, but given his spirited performance in Harry Brown one can forgive his apparent lack of inspiration here.  Nolan certainly owes a lot to DiCaprio and Page, whose relationship -- imperative to the story but totally undeveloped in the script -- was saved to a reasonable degree by strong performances (who the heck WAS Ellen Page's character, anyway?)

As a science fiction film, however, Inception is pathetic.  Not a single opportunity is taken to explore original aspects of the ideas; not a single idea is developed past what is necessary to drive the action.  Worse yet, every bit of the premise is explained to us in such excruciating detail that we are robbed of even the fun of figuring it out for ourselves.  After the enjoyable opening, where we jump around and gradually figure out what's going on, we have everything we just figured out spoonfed to us for fourty-five minutes.  And that is the beginning and end of our problems; science fiction is about posing questions, and this film is only interested in answering them.  Nolan eagerly skirts anything interesting in favour of developing the obvious ideas to serve the action, and we are given a great action film and a terrible sci-fi one.

There is nothing original or daring in this film; nothing thought-provoking that is not incidental; nothing that reflects on the state or the thoughts of, or ideas about, humanity.  This film's contribution to science fiction is remarkably small.

There is nothing un-enjoyable about this film; no time that is not either exciting or quick-paced; no sequence that is not tense and technically impressive.  This is one of the most fun blockbusters of the year, and it easily has the best score.

I strongly recommend seeing Inception, but if you're looking for fresh ideas, grab the first sci-fi book you see from a garage sale; it will be much more thought-provoking.

On an end note, it's amusing that Inception would be accused of essay-style filmmaking when Dark Knight was a much more developed and intelligent lecture on good and evil than anything Nolan bothers with in this film.  I assume Nolan made Inception to relax after putting so much care into meticulously constructing Dark Knight.  

Saw this a couple days ago. Figured I'd wait a couple days to digest it. At this point, I have to say I'm simultaneously shocked, delighted and embarrassed at how much I liked this movie. I left the theater with my friend who asked me what my letter grade was. I said A+; he literally laughed in my face and asked if I was crazy. Apparently, he didn't care for the more James Bond-esque moments and thought the plot was morally reprehensible (forcing a person to change their mind about a decision that is rightfully theirs to make).

Anyway, I imagine my reaction to Inception was similar to that which so many people had to Avatar as well as my own reaction to first Matrix film. Hopefully, there won't be an Inception 2 and 3 which completely ruin the mythology of the original. Along with The Matrix and The Dark Knight, I think Inception is one of the only Hollywood blockbusters that wasn't completely stupid or pandering to the audience. If anything, Inception engages the audience and forces them to pay attention.

Between the story, the action, the superb cast/performances and filmmaking prowess, I actually found myself completely lost in and entranced by the film. As far as Hollywood blockbusters go, this hasn't happened to me since The Matrix and I was completely able to forgive the film's plot holes and shortcomings rather than just overlook them. I can't imagine I'll feel this way forever but just the fact that the film made me feel that way at any point is a testament to how good it is, at least in my book.

The most surprising thing about the film was despite the absolute dynamite supporting cast, the standout was actually Di Caprio. I just watched Shutter Island and found his performance in that film to be absolutely stiff. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the film made me realize that Di Caprio is stiff in all of Scorsese's films. Not sure why. But he is. Not the case in Inception. He felt very free and loose here and was able to hit those dramatic notes with much more grace than usual. Not sure if it was the script or Nolan's direction but he was really top notch in this one.

The most remarkable thing about the film, at least to me, was the fact that it nearly made me change my mind about something I've felt very strong about for a long time:

It is impossible for film to effectively portray dreams. The dream world is so far removed from reality that we can't possibly use tools of the real world to reproduce it. Call me defeatist. The two worlds are just too different.

Inception is no exception. The film itself explains why dreams can't be portrayed onscreen: you don't realize the strangeness of a dream until you're awake. Watching a movie, you're awake and aware of the strangeness. Thus at no point did I actually get the feeling I was in a dream.

But I came close. If the film weren't eight years in the making, I wonder if it would've been as effective.

This is more of a theory of what the film means than a review.

I want to talk about the ending of new film Inception and it's meaning...

MAJOR SPOILERS TO FOLLOW... !!!

I think DiCaprio's character, Cobb, is still dreaming at the end of the film. Now, I know what you're think; "well, duh, of course - that's exactly what the implication is with the spinning top". But I don't mean it in this way. By the end of the film, Cobb has to go deeper into his (or whoever's subconcious it is) to retrieve Watanabe's character. Watanabe arrived there in this deep layer of subconcious due to, what appears to be, an accident that came about earlier in which he was shot. So, the story goes, that Cobb goes to retrieve Watanabe so that he can uphold his end of the bargain in the real world and allow Cobb to return home to be with his children. It would appear Cobb is succesful. That is until the very last shot with the spinning top, which would suggest otherwise, and that he is indeed, still trapped in a dream. That's a pretty clever ending. However, is it possible that Inception is much more cleverer than we are giving it credit for?

I've since watched Inception another time and I'm starting to suspect there's something else going on entirely. Even though, say, 90 percent of the film takes place in the dream world, there are still a few scenes that, supposedly, take place in the real world. This theory, which I suppose you could call it that, possits that the entire film takes place in a dream. Not only do I believe the whole film is a dream, but I also believe that it was Cobb's main goal to wind up in the dream along with his children at the end of the film. There are a small, subtle number of instances throughout the film, where Cobb's motives appear questionable. I suspect that Cobb staged every event in the film. The whole thing about Watanabe's competeting with Cillian Murphy's character, this was either partially or comepletely staged in Cobb's subconcious. Cobb's goal in the film is to return to his kids. At some point, he realized that he was screwed, and that was never gonna happen. And so he staged in his subconcious, a scenario in which this could be achievable if he does X,Y and Z for Watanabe. He creates a phony mission, or, a maze, in which the reward for completing it, is his children. He stages a scenario where he must carry out a certain task -- certain things go wrong - Watanabe being shot - and Cobb ends up still trapped in a dream by the end of the film, even though he believes he is in the real world. You see, Cobb's plan was such that, if he couldn't be with his children in real life, he could create a world which he himself could believe it was real (when in fact it isn't) and he could be with his children. Do you see? He purposely planted himself in a false reality that he could accept as being real, and thus he would be rid of the guilt he speaks of throughout the film, since he had already cleansed himself of his ties to his wife.

Anyhoo, those are my thoughts. I kinda feel like there's a lot more to talk about after a second viewing. I just wonder, are any of you guys having any of the same thoughts?

I don't know Fox, think I tend to agree with Clorox here.  

"Not only do I believe the whole film is a dream, but I also believe that it was Cobb's main goal to wind up in the dream along with his children at the end of the film. There are a small, subtle number of instances throughout the film, where Cobb's motives appear questionable. I suspect that Cobb staged every event in the film."

If he staged every moment, and his only goal was to be happy (i.e. with his kids), why not go the extra mile and also bring his hot French wife (or Juno for that matter)  along for the ride.  Haha.  I mean if he contrived the whole thing, why not make it completely perfect?

You got me there, Craiger -- I was just going for shits and giggles!

I don't know, you know.  Maybe he didn't stage everything... maybe he had help from his friends -- maybe the big goof is he was the one the people were doing the Inception thing on.  Maybe his friends implanted an idea in his mind to help him get over his baggage, I don't know - what do you want from me, ask Nolan!!

I actually thought the final shot was pretty epic but had the same reaction to it the rest of the audience had... I laughed. It's cute and gets people talking. I'm pretty sure that's all the filmmakers were after. You can analyze it all you want. That's part of the fun, I suppose. Personally, I try not to overanalyze the films I watch but some people enjoy it. Probably don't consider it overanalyzing either. But the fact remains that the cut was a deliberate choice and I don't think Nolan took the story far enough to support any fabricated explanations for it the fans might concoct.

Quoted from James McClung I actually thought the final shot was pretty epic but had the same reaction to it the rest of the audience had... I laughed. It's cute and gets people talking. I'm pretty sure that's all the filmmakers were after. You can analyze it all you want. That's part of the fun, I suppose. Personally, I try not to overanalyze the films I watch but some people enjoy it. Probably don't consider it overanalyzing either. But the fact remains that the cut was a deliberate choice and I don't think Nolan took the story far enough to support any fabricated explanations for it the fans might concoct.

Well said.  I did the same exact thing. Laughed, which at the time, I remember thinking was an odd reaction.  It is what it is.  I choose to think he got back and all was well, but I agree that they set it up perfectly.

Quoted from cloroxmartini The film is not that complicated.

Allow me to rebuttal, or contrast as you say...

Then you must not have watched it with an open mind. It's very cereberal. With a great deal of open questions.

Quoted from cloroxmartini It's fun stuff to throw you off at the end. It's entertainment.

No. Completely disagree. Cobb was the greatest architect. He couldn't build anymore because his sub conscious wife would know every path, every alley. When he finally let's go of her, he could have constructed this great outcome. That he saved Wantanabe. That he saw his kids. Got to spend the rest of his living life with them being characters of the best he could imagine. Remember, he never road the Kick back.

That's why the spinning top is so interesting. It wobbles. Doesn't fall. cut to black.

Quoted from cloroxmartini The story is a comedy in the respect that it's a happy ending, it's not a tragedy.

Comedy?? You're kidding right? I hope you are.

I'm not here to practice being a movie critic because I despise them. But, inception is great.

James

SPOILERS, PROBABLY...

I don't understand it...

There's nothing cerebral about the film!  It's not dumb but it's certainly not intelligent, and the spinning top is nothing but a -- fun, yes -- thought-provoking, no -- cheeky little moment that people can argue about while they walk home from the theatre -- are we in a dream now?  

Envision this ending -- Leo walks out with his kids, the top spins, keeps spinning, and he wakes up.  It was all a dream.  Stupid, right?  Nothing to do with the story, right?  Right!  The film is over; Cobb has dealt with his fatal flaw, allowed himself to get over his wife's death, and come back to the kids.  There can be no ending with the top except that this world, where Cobb has found his kids, is a reality; otherwise, the film has invalidated itself, and the story is stupid.  I guess I'm just repeating what Clorox said.

Can someone explain to me the brilliant science fiction that they saw in this film that I missed?

Oh and Clorox meant comedy, as the ancient Greeks would say it.  I believe.

The fact that most internet boards are filled with theories on this film tells me it's a lot smarter than people are giving it credit for. For example, this guy believes the whole movie is a dream and he goes to great lengths to back this up...

http://chud.com/articles/artic.....INCEPTION/Page1.html

Other people are saying that it can't all be a dream as Leo has a wedding ring on in the dream sequences but doesn't in the reality sequences. I recommend heading over to http://www.gointothestory.com/ as they have had some extensive discussions on this film and they are pretty interesting to read.

I'm going to see it again on Tuesday. It's the best movie this year by a country mile. 10/10

Quoted from Heretic Can someone explain to me the brilliant science fiction that they saw in this film that I missed?

There was no real science fiction to speak of. The whole time, I was wondering by what means they actually drew anyone into a dream or even create a dream in the first place and how it was stored or instituted. Is there a FinalCutPro for dreams? I saw the characters connected up to tubes and little electronic boxes and a huge gadget thing in the center of the truck but none of the technology or means to bring us to this world was explained or even mentioned really, as opposed to, say, Jurassic Park. People were thinking could that actually work? Could you actually make dinosaurs by doing that? None of that's present in Inception. I suppose I enjoyed it because that's not the kind of movie I went in to see.

Quoted from Heretic There's nothing cerebral about the film!  It's not dumb but it's certainly not intelligent,..

Couldn't disagree with you more. That's your opinion, not gonna get into it. Last I checked, this was a site for practicing screenwriters, not practicing film critics. Until you write and post a script, your opinion means shit to me here.

We can all criticize. Let me see what you've got. Woops, can't find nothing...

It's easy to bash a movie. Maybe try taking part in one. Even if it's in your own mind. If this wasn't intelligent, please grace us with your fucken masterpiece so we can all learn. Inception was BRILLIANT.

James

I agree clorox. You know I've come at you before. I just hold reviews from those who've posted work to a higher, or lower standard. depending on how they write.

The world is full of movie critics who are so proud of themselves when they sum up years worth of work in their three word caption. I fucken loathe critics. Make a living watching film??? Wish I could. Just jealous I guess

James

Hey James (McClung),

I guess that makes sense!  I really enjoyed the film as well...I'm just continually confused by the words "thought-provoking", "intelligent", and "mind-blowing" (in the context of the ideas) being thrown around so liberally by reviewers.  Which, I might add, are words that you didn't use.  To a certain extent I did go in expecting a science fiction picture so that may have been part of my problem.  I mostly avoided trailers for this as I wanted to go in blind; on the other hand, this was billed as a sci-fi movie.

I did think this was the best blockbuster we've had in a long time, I just didn't think it was anything more than a...well, an action blockbuster.

When you say "one of the few blockbusters that wasn't completely stupid or pandering..." I assume you're talking about recent years, right?  Alien, Close Encounters, Shawshank, Cape Fear '91, Se7en, Blade Runner...all highly entertaining and, while certainly big obvious movies, not ones I suspect one would accuse of being stupid or pandering!  Even more recently we've had The Sixth Sense, Minority Report, Solaris, The Fountain, and (though I hesitate to mention it) Knowing...I suppose, to be fair, none of those were releases quite of Inception's size though.  Except, ooh ooh!  Lord of the Rings!

Haha anyway, I guess I just missed something with Inception.  Perhaps I will go see it again before its theatrical run is finished.  Frankly, just hearing that Zimmer score in a theatre is worth the price of admission!

OH come on. It's not that great. Almost run of the mill, I'd say. Here's a more objective assessment: http://www.clickok.co.uk/Screenwriting%20Inception.pdf

Yes.  Odd to offer a list of a film's similarities to one of the greatest blockbusters of recent years as evidence that it's not good...

Now I've got three ritards to argue with. Good fun.

Cobb and Neo comparison? Terrible. On one hand a guy finds that he's the second coming of Jesus and must come to terms with it. On the other, A guy is tortured by the guilt of incepting an idea on his own wife who kills herself because of it. Umm, not close. Not close at all.

States of imperfection? Neo did not choose his world. Was born into it. Cobb chose his. A gifted architect of dreams. Make money digging answers of the subconscious.

Sorry Pipp. But I disagree with every point in that blog. Also, the matrix was a world that could be bent. Neo could fly. They could jump off walls. Not in Inception. They had to adhere to the dream's owners rules. They could die at any minute. But just wake up.

The fact that we're all talking about it proves my point. It's thought provoking. People think about it for days after its over. That, in my mind, makes it intelligent.

Be looking forward to a more intelligent script from any of ya's. Not gonna hold my breath though. I know that's not gonna happen.

I love MOVIE CRITICS!!!!

I'll be here all week. And the next.

James

Saw this yesterday.

First the good:

Interesting concept, good cast, good cinematography and visuals...particularly the zero grav scenes.

The bad:

Ultimately, regardless of what genre or type of film the thing that kills a film for me is if it's boring and this was a snoozefest.

It suffers from two fundamental problems, the Quantum of Solace effect and the Matrix 2 conundrum.

The former is that the story itself is deeply dull and uninteresting. It's about planting an idea in someone's head to prevent a monoploy of an energy company.

No doubt a serious concern in real life but deeply dull on film as the last James Bond showed...oh no...Not British Gas!!! So the whole narrative drive of the film was limp and pointless and no amount of James Bond rip off action could disguise that.

The second problem was the Neo/superman problem. It was a dream, they were invincible. Result? Zero tension throughout the entire film. It doesn't matter what you throw at them, they are all superheroes and so all the money spent on huge action scenes was entirely pointless as the basics weren't there.

Other problems were the clunking pace of the exposition. Every time something had to happen Di Caprio had to explain what was going on to the "character" whose only dramatic function was to be there as a soundboard.

The characters were all two dimensional card board cut outs. The actors did their best to inject a bit of life into them, but they were non-descript and instantly forgettable.

Another huge problem was just how dull everything was. This is a dream world right? In the universe that Cobb and his wife creates from scratch all they could come up with was skyscrapers? Dull, dull, dull.

Only the first introduction to the world when he shows the young girl the ropes and the zero g scene had any kind of flair, the rest was just a standard James Bond style action.


All in all a hugely underwhelming film. Very disappointing. It was the first film of the year I was really looking forward to but the implemetation of the idea was as flat as a pancake.

A four out of ten film bumped up to 6 out of ten...one for the concept and one for the technical skill.

While I respect peoples opinion, I have to say that there seems to be a bizarre need to sweep this picture under the rug as a simplistic hack of The Matrix. It is anything BUT.

For those saying that there is nothing intelligent and thought provoking in this film, I would like to know what you think IS or has been. I won't go so far as to say the movie was brilliant, but it came pretty damn close. I am a huge fan of The Matrix and I feel that as good as Inception was it never quite reaches the mark or caliber of the Wachowski brothers film.

To respond to a few of the posts, here is something to think about. (on a side note, I only viewed the film once and need to do so again for obvious reasons)

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. Anyways...

1. I think the science and the "how it works" of the movie was intentionally left out. Why? BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT THE STORY IS ABOUT. A board with a bunch of writers on it should know this.

2. Was the ending still in the dream? I very much think it could have been and for anyone to give a definitive "no it wasn't" is simply ridiculous. There are far more indicators that he WAS still in a dream than not. That most logical is the very presence of his father in law who picked him up at the airport. How, or to what logical purpose, would he go from or completely drop his job as a teacher, grading papers in his classroom in France, to trying to beat his son in law back to the United States just to pick him up at the airport, all while never thinking to change his clothes.

There is also the fact that he was never seen to experience "the fall" that was supposed to wake them from the deeper levels of the dream world.

There is also the matter of how important his kids where to him or at least his memory of them. Did anyone notice how they didn't look like they ever aged, yet when he talked to his daughter on the phone she sounded MUCH older than the daughter we are presented with in the end (which happens to match perfectly with his memory).

3. Also there is the whole "totem" thing. Is it not conceivable that the inconclusive ending might MEAN something. I find it completely absurd, that on a board of screenwriters, anyone would even think that the writer or director would add that JUST for a cheap gimmick and for absolutely no reason at all. I think the ambiguity of that final scene is anything but. Otherwise the whole spiel about NOT having a totem to let you know where you are becomes superfluous. I think it quite possible that he let go of that totem, which was really his wifes anyway, and gave that role to his children. Hence the wobble as he turns his back on it and goes to reunite with his children, who again haven't aged a day OR EVER CHANGED THEIR CLOTHES as they were wearing the same thing they were in his memories.

4. Why wouldn't he bring his hot french wife into the dream too? Because she was freaking crazy, even his memory of her was so crazy he had to try and keep her locked up in the basement of his subconscious. Even though the memory of her tortured him, actually he was torturing himself through quilt, I think he desperately wanted to let it go and get past it. Who wants someone in their dream that just the very sight of them constantly reminds you of what you did and how it caused their death.

Again, I don't care if you liked it or not, everyone has their opinion, but to pass this movie up as a WYSIWYG movie is simply and completely ridiculous.

I look forward to a second viewing soon and perhaps a little deeper thought into the matter.

I agree that he's still in a dream, the two reasons you mention are pretty much incontrovertible as far as I can see. Michael Caine lived in Paris and yet met him in the US...the time frame from the Asian guy making the phone-call to him being there is impossible.

The scene is the exact same one as his memories as well. Do people think he was only banned from the US for a hour or so? Plus we were shown them simply appearing at the house which was in keeping with what they kept insisting throughout the film..that you don't remember how you got somewhere, you just are there.

PS: What's a wysiwyg movie?

What You See Is What You Get

which this film is definitely not.

Quoted from JCShadow What You See Is What You Get which this film is definitely not.

Fair enough. I haven't read what other people have to say about it, but it was as predictable as it gets for me. I knew what was going to happen from about twenty minutes in. The film didn't even make a single attempt at a twist. Once you'd seen the wife you and Di Caprio said he'd done the Inception before the whole film was revealed. The default of a dream film is always "Is it a dream?" as well, so, for me it was what you see is what you get to some degree.

It was a very rigid film. A very tight story-line about a very small matter with one subplot and it was handled very rigidly. Despite it being set in a dreamscape the logic of the world was even more rigid than real-life.

It was an intelligent concept though, I just don't think that they followed interesting avenues of discussion within the film itslef. It was just a standard corporate espionage flick dressed up in a brilliant concept.

The idea of implanting an idea in someone's head has such strong legs that for me it was a shame that it was wasted on a storyline about an energy company lead by what seemed to be a very gentle young man with issues about his father. It was just an incredibly weak throughline for such a potentially interesting concept.

But as ever, films are nothing if not subjective.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The idea of implanting an idea in someone's head has such strong legs that for me it was a shame that it was wasted on a storyline about an energy company lead by what seemed to be a very gentle young man with issues about his father. It was just an incredibly weak throughline for such a potentially interesting concept. But as ever, films are nothing if not subjective.

I agree... There are definitely some things I did not like about the movie and that right there has to be my #1 complaint. What a boring use of the films concept.

Like mentioned earlier, I too felt some of the characters were a tad shallow and 2 dimensional. This is especially directed towards Ellen Page's character. She seemed thrown into the film for sake of explaining the concept behind the film. I was a little surprised by it but what can you do. I still thoroughly enjoyed the film.

It killed it for me, unfortunately. Not only was it incredibly weak, even the implemtation of it was poor. Cobb was hired by a vicious mobster type to stop a guy who just wanted his father to love him. Even reversing their two roles would have brought slightly more of a point to it all, but as it was it just fell completely flat. I hoped that there would be some twist and that intial setup would evolve into a far bigger story, but it never did.

The biggest problem for me though was what I mentioned before: The Neo effect. The completely unstoppable hero. If you're going down that route you at least need him to have companions who are vulnerable. In this they were all invincible. That destroyed it completely. Even getting shot in the heart is irrelevant. Made it a complete snoozefest for me.

I wish I could be more complimentary about it to be honest. I'm pleased that Nolan got the money to make a film like this and technically it was very adept indeed. Unfortunatley on every other level it was a complete turkey....and the major disappointment for me was just how bland the dreamworld was. The trailer sent shivers down my spine when the world folded in half. Unfortunately that was the lot in terms of inventiveness.

A real shame.

Still, at least a lot of other people seem to have enjoyed it.

Quoted Text Like mentioned earlier, I too felt some of the characters were a tad shallow and 2 dimensional. This is especially directed towards Ellen Page's character. She seemed thrown into the film for sake of explaining the concept behind the film. I was a little surprised by it but what can you do.

I think this is one of the true challenges a screenwriter faces and perhaps where directors drop the ball; to invent non-primary characters that BOTH present as being poly-dimensional WHILE not detracting from the primary characters.
We have X number of descriptions, actions and dialog to invent someone "flavorful" enough to not be just a tool.
Every line we spend expanding them is subtracted from the story and primaries.

From original screenplay or adaptation to shooting script to editing room a perfectly good Ellen Page/Ariadne can get totally goobered-up.

On the flip side, the character of Captain Jack Sparrow, I understand, was originally written as pretty much a straight forward rogue that only Johnny Depp transmuted into the wildly popular character loved by many to Eisner's horror.

The challenge eternally draws me in.

Oh. My. God.

Absolutely loved it. What a ride. What a scene (the one with the truck falling). What an ending. What a mind on Christopher Nolan. This is the sort of film that makes me wanna give up writing. A homerun.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The second problem was the Neo/superman problem. It was a dream, they were invincible. Result? Zero tension throughout the entire film. It doesn't matter what you throw at them, they are all superheroes and so all the money spent on huge action scenes was entirely pointless as the basics weren't there.

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

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?

Quoted from sniper Oh, did he now?

-Exactly!  See, this is the funny thing - many arguments are rendered obsolite since there are so many uncertanties in the film, what with all the dreams within a dream and such.

Goooood morning,

Quoted from RunningFox -Exactly!  See, this is the funny thing - many arguments are rendered obsolite since there are so many uncertanties in the film, what with all the dreams within a dream and such.

So would you fellas consider a story, as written by the screenwriter,* deliberately leaving a few questions unanswered at the end of the film:
A. clever for inciting debate & stimulating conversation.
B. sloppy for not buttoning up loose ends.
C. depends upon the audience. Kids won't get it, semi-adults will twitter about it, mature adults won't like it.
D. depends up on the individual viewer. Some will. Some won't. Can't make everyone happy.
E. dances along a razor's edge, so you better know WTH your doing.
F. other.

Thank you

*The studio, producer, director, actors & editor are going to Franken-script it anyway.

It really depends on the questions that are left unanswered and - more importantly - how they are left unanswered.

But if done right, I would go with an almagamate of A and E.

Quoted from RayW Goooood morning, So would you fellas consider a story, as written by the screenwriter,* deliberately leaving a few questions unanswered at the end of the film: A. clever for inciting debate & stimulating conversation. B. sloppy for not buttoning up loose ends. C. depends upon the audience. Kids won't get it, semi-adults will twitter about it, mature adults won't like it. D. depends up on the individual viewer. Some will. Some won't. Can't make everyone happy. E. dances along a razor's edge, so you better know WTH your doing. F. other. Thank you *The studio, producer, director, actors & editor are going to Franken-script it anyway.

To be honest, I'm not really a fan of the term clever - it's a little snobbish.  Of course Inception is a clever film, but not just because of its ambiguity.  Die Hard, for example, has practically zero ambiguity, but that's not to say it isn't a clever film.  It's a very straight forward film done very cleverly.  Inception just happens to be an ambiguous film that's also done very cleverly.  I can tell you I definately wouldn't call it sloppy.  I would consider the story as written by the screenwriter a deliberately artistic choice - and by default, such a choice isn't going to please the mass audience, and it will split opinions, that much is inevitable.

I guess it comes down to what it always comes down to; taste.  I just feel that sometimes, the folks who are ripping on the film often fail to realize that it's not actually for them.

I'm a HUGE fan of the TV show Lost, which is a deliberately ambiguous show - incidentally, a show which shares a lot of similarities to Inception.  And one thing I've come to understand is that audiences either love it or they hate it.  But generally, what they don't do is waste time nitpicking, instead they realize the show is just not to their taste and they move onto another one.  That mentality in movies, however, is different quite.  People automatically assume that because a film is being released world wide, then it's supposed to be for everyone - that it's supposed to be for them, and that it's supposed to entertain them, and if it doesn't, then there's something wrong with the film, which of course simply isn't true - in fact, that very notion is just ludicrous.  

I guess some folks just need to realize that maybe the film wasn't actually meant for them and just move on to something else.  And I'm not just talking about Inception, a similar thing happened with Inglorious Bastards, which I loved, but a lot of people didn't.  And it's the same thing, people came out of that film feeling cheated because they assumed they were supposed to like it when they didn't.  Often, many of the copmplaints of a Tarantino film is that they don't like the artistic flourishes and that they should just be dropped in favour of something that's more widely acceptable.  But if those flourishes were dropped, then it would no longer be a Tarantino film.  QT doesn't set out to please everyopne, he recognizes that he's gonna turn a lot of people off, but all too often the people fail to recognize and understand that fact.

I didn't think Inception was all that ambiguous at all. The questions I had were in regards to the technology and no one seems to be discussing that at all. They're discussing the characters. I wonder if anyone would be doing that if it weren't for the last shot. That seems to be the only thing that's made anyone question what happened.

In regards to the question, I really can't sum it up better than this.

Quoted from sniper It really depends on the questions that are left unanswered and - more importantly - how they are left unanswered.

I'd say all outcomes are possible though.

Quoted from James McClung The questions I had were in regards to the technology and no one seems to be discussing that at all.

It would obviously have been interesting to hear more about the device/technology used in the movie but depending on how you think the movie ends...you have to wonder whether or not the technology even exists.

I didn't find it an ambiguous story either, I mean, I have my interpretation of the end (and the movie as a whole) but I can totally see if someone saw it differently. Regardless of what happens after the screen goes black, Cobb didn't care anymore. In his mind, he had reached his goal. Otherwise he would have kept his eyes on the top.

If any of you want to read a bit more about the PASIV-device and procedures, the please see below links (rar files).

PASIV Device Instruction Manual

Dream-Share Employment Procedures

Fun, if nothing else.

Quoted from sniper 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?

That's not strictly true. The number one thing that Avatar did that no other in movie history has done for me was that it made me feel like I was walking on an alien planet. That was the reason I loved it so much, it went beyond anything I've experienced in a cinema before. It was an experience...it went beyond entertainment...and why I kept on at people to watch it in 3D.

The criticisms of the film were all valid, predictable, bad dialogue, but for me all of that was irrelevant because for the first time cinema superceded such trivial matters.

A bit like someone asking "What do you think of the Beatles?" and someone else replying "I'm not sure about John Lennon's hair-do". Avatar as a film was good, with some elements of mediocrity, bu it was the greatest experience I've ever had in a cinema. "It was just Pocahontas". "Who cares, I just walked on Pandora!".

It was also the opposite to Inception in that it was all about emotion; Love, spirituality, nature, acceptance etc. Inception was a very cold, sterile film with no soul. All images and no heart. I cared about the Na'avi, and about the characters in the story. I was emotionally invested in the film at every turn. The "characters" in Inception were perhaps not the worst I've ever seen, but they were arguably the most forgettable (Obviously I'll have forgotten any more forgettable ). Until I read the thread I couldn't have honestly told you a single one of their names.

As for the second point. I agree that he probably never made it out of limbo in "reality". However on the first level (the story narrative) he did. The worst case scenario on a plot level was that they would go to a place that we already knew they could escape from. It meant that each and every character in the group was invincible and so nothing that happened had any tension.

Each and every scene in the film was equivalent to the Matrix 2 fight when Neo faces a million agent Smiths....you knew he was the One and so it was completely boring because he was unkillable.

The fix for it would have been to have their actual bodies coming under physical threat. Eg perhaps the real life security guys of Fischer know what is going on and launch an assault to get him back..whatever, there are a million things they could have done to make it more interesting, the fact is that they didn't.

Ultimately the story told us that the only danger was getting stuck in limbo, but it also told us that Cobb had been there and escaped, thus refuting that there was any danger at any point and making everybody on the team completely invincible from harm. Which, in turn, also highlighted the paucity of imagination on display. We're in a dream world yet the best they could come up with was humans with guns, how incredibly dull (but that's a whole other point).

Basically, regardless of what we interpret to have happened at the end, during the film it was established that there were no consequences to any of the actions that the antagonistic forces took. The result was a complete snoozefest because there was nowhere for the story to go (on the narrative level) other than the inevitable and complete victory for the team of Neo's.

This situation was compounded by the fact that the mission itself was pointless and weak. I didn't care if they succeeded because it was a rubbish plot-line (and even further undone by having the seeming bad guy on the home team!) and it made no difference if they failed either. So I had zero interest in the story and zero interest in the outcome.

I saw a great line from a reviewer that said something like "Chris Nolan may have directed the dreams in Inception, but it's pretty clear that Nolan's dreams are directed by Michael Bay".   I thought that was pretty good.

To be fair, at least Nolan had the decency to use the ending to suggest that what you've just seen is a load of bollocks. I can admire honesty at least.

^?!

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films We're in a dream world yet the best they could come up with was humans with guns, how incredibly dull (but that's a whole other point).

As I understand it, isn’t the purpose of the dream to convince the mark that they’re not dreaming? That they’re awake and in the real world?

I haven’t seen the movie yet but I thought that was the basic premise.


Breanne

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

You can make the case that the film is about happiness and reality...what's more important, being in reality or being happy?

That's as far as it goes...and like you say, it's nothing that the Matrix didn't deal with in more depth.

That being said, I thought the best thing about the whole thing was the level of interpretation that the film allows for. That part of it is quite fun. I've seen 8 or so different interpretations:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/2522824,CST-NWS-roep22.article


Although it's inherently pointless, it's a bit like considering a paradox. There's no real solution, but there's some interest to be found in trying to seek one.

In opposition to you, where I found the film collapsed was on the rudimentary level...as an action thriller . On that level it was amongst the most boring films I've ever seen.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson As I understand it, isn’t the purpose of the dream to convince the mark that they’re not dreaming? That they’re awake and in the real world? I haven’t seen the movie yet but I thought that was the basic premise. Breanne

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. Just that it was incredibly dull.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. Just that it was incredibly dull.

It does seem like a waste. With dreams, the visual possibilities are limitless, yet here they’re used to create… (drum roll)… reality.

Haha sounds silly when it’s put that way.


Breanne

Quoted from Breanne Mattson It does seem like a waste. With dreams, the visual possibilities are limitless, yet here they’re used to create… (drum roll)… reality. Haha sounds silly when it’s put that way. Breanne

Precisely.  

Especially when it comes from someone who hasn't seen the movie.

Quoted from sniper Especially when it comes from someone who hasn't seen the movie.

Is it not true that they create reality for the marks?


Breanne

A version of reality, sure. We wouldn't they? Does your dreams not take place in a "real world" setting? Places that seem normal on the surface? Even familiar?

Your dreams - not your nightmares.

Quoted from sniper A version of reality, sure. We wouldn't they? Does your dreams not take place in a "real world" setting? Places that seem normal on the surface? Even familiar? Your dreams - not your nightmares.

Yes, my dreams are modeled off real experiences. The differences between my dream world and reality, however, would be obvious to anyone who is fully conscious.

The failure to tell the difference between dream and reality is due to the level of consciousness, not the accuracy of a dream when compared to reality. A dream experience may be indistinguishable from reality to a person who’s dreaming but a person who is fully conscious should quickly notice numerous differences.

Viewers of the film are (presumably) conscious. What do viewers see on screen that distinguishes the dream world in the film from reality? From what I understand about the film, the “dream world” is essentially the same “reality” you would see in a conventional espionage flick.

Doesn’t mean the movie isn’t good. I just don’t see how the dream premise is fully exploited. Does Leo find himself walking around in public in his underwear? I’d pay to see that for sure.


Breanne

A "thought-provoking" or "intelligent" film should provoke thought, or "intelligent" conversation, about real-life ideas beyond the film...not debate or discussion of the film itself.  Inception, so far, seems only to inspire discussion about itself...not even, in fact, its ideas, but about its plot.

That's what I think I've been trying to say this whole time.

Rick, I find it amusing that I agree with every one of your points, but we have such a fundamentally different view of the nature and quality of the film.

Quoted from Heretic A "thought-provoking" or "intelligent" film should provoke thought, or "intelligent" conversation, about real-life ideas beyond the film...not debate or discussion of the film itself.  Inception, so far, seems only to inspire discussion about itself...not even, in fact, its ideas, but about its plot. That's what I think I've been trying to say this whole time. Rick, I find it amusing that I agree with every one of your points, but we have such a fundamentally different view of the nature and quality of the film.

Always the way.

I feel bad about not liking the film to be honest. It was a very ambitious attempt and technically it was a superb achievement. The effects were very good and the folding Paris scene was genuinely amazing (shame it was "wasted" on the trailer...but that's the name of the game). The zero grav scene was also a great achievement.

The cinematography was outstanding, particularly the slow motion stuff. Really very excellent work.

Nolan should certainly be commended for the level of ambition that he tried for and I think it's also refreshing for a studio to go for something a bit different to the usual summer blockbuster.

The film at least proves that mass audiences are open to be stretched a bit more than they have been in the recent past.

So, it's certainly a very impressive and admirable film in lots of regards. I just didn't enjoy it.

The biggest shame is that it was the only film of the year I was particularly looking forward to. Harry Potter is about the most exciting thing on the horizon, which isn't saying a lot....

Quoted from Heretic A "thought-provoking" or "intelligent" film should provoke thought, or "intelligent" conversation, about real-life ideas beyond the film...not debate or discussion of the film itself.  Inception, so far, seems only to inspire discussion about itself...not even, in fact, its ideas, but about its plot. That's what I think I've been trying to say this whole time.

That pretty much sums it up. 'Vanilla Sky' explores this territory in a way 'Inception' failed to, which is to give you a platform to explore your own life.

'Inception' is a good film, maybe very good, but it just missed out on giving me any true emotion. That said, I don't think Nolan intended for this to be highly emotional. He's broken a lot of the screenwriting rules with this film and yet many seem intent on crushing him for that whilst in other places calling for Hollywood to be 'fresh'. That's the funniest thing.

The score to this movie was incredible, particularly the last 30 minutes or so - it was the music that brought any sense of feeling in me, as opposed to the performances, I think. When Leo said goodbye to Marion, I wanted more from that scene, ditto the very end.

As ever a lot of this comes down to expectations and what you want from a film. Personally, I don't need to relate to a character to enjoy the film as long as there is something else going on. To me, 'Inception' achieved that.

Wow, 65 posts, and other than the "oh come on" idiot, all very valid and interesting points, but the fact that, to my knowledge, no other review has had this many posts and that must mean something! To have so many people discussing a film im sure is what nolan wanted, in fact, im surprised so many people liked it, when i saw it on its opening day i thought it was great, but thought after the opening weekend it would die like A.I from bad word of mouth, but that is my own fault for underestimating the audience, seems like most people get it with such a strong second week, and it looks like it will have a strong third week as well.   I  thought this movie was amazing, i agree for the most part with johnny boy other than i thought avatar and the dark night were stronger, but thats just opinion, this movie is truly epic, and like blade runner, it will last a very long time

Avatar is the current daddy with 122.

Hostel is the second most talked about with 83.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Always the way. I feel bad about not liking the film to be honest. It was a very ambitious attempt and technically it was a superb achievement. The effects were very good and the folding Paris scene was genuinely amazing (shame it was "wasted" on the trailer...but that's the name of the game). The zero grav scene was also a great achievement.

This sums up my opinion of the film...a remarkable feat of screenplay architecture, but not very enjoyable.  Nolan's audacity is impressive in itself.  The idea of having three different simultaneous stories, with the same characters, all bonded together by this nebulous idea of inception.  This must have driven Nolan batshite crazy assembling all the pieces together so intricately.  But, I found myself bored as the late second and third acts dragged on and on.  I didn't care about Leo's character in the slightest, or his wife and kids.  Really all of the characters seemed fairly cardboard to me.  Which was disappointing, because I liked Memento and both Batman films, especially the first.  

Thinking about it now, the structure almost reminds me of that 3-dimensional chess set that Spock used to play on Star Trek.  Three different levels being played simultaneously.  Every single move by every piece has to be carefully considered, because it affects all three levels and the ultimate outcome.  

I also agree with Scartissue when he said that he almost feels bad for not liking this movie.  So much thought and effort went into this, I really wanted to like it.  But, I was just bored as the novelty of the story began to wear off and the James Bond elements took over.

Just back from vacation, and I had the opportunity to view Inception and Toy Story 3 back-to-back.  The whole family agreed -- even the 17-year-old -- that Toy Story was the superior film by far.

There is some great eye-candy to be found in Inception, sure, and buzzing through all the posts I missed, I think Andrew captures the biggest flaw:

Quoted from Andrew 'Inception' is a good film, maybe very good, but it just missed out on giving me any true emotion.

And that is key.  The motivations and goals of the characters were morally bankrupt in Inception, and the stakes were simply not compelling or worthy of any emotional investment.

Inception never gave me anything in my gut -- they way good storytelling does -- that says, "please, please let these characters succeed!"

In Toy Story, those characters were making choices that affected everything they had ever stood for -- and everything they would ever stand for in the future.  The stakes could not have been higher.

Call me silly, but I was 10 times more invested in that stupid Woody doll than I ever was in the character played by Leo -- and truth be told, I cannot even remember the guy's name!

I can see why people might love Inception and why others might hate it -- but how many haters are there for Toy Story 3?  So far, I count zero.

Inception told a very clever story, but it did not tell it right.

Everyone praising Inception should also see Toy Story 3 -- then re-evaluate the components that they think actually makes a good movie work.

"Call me silly, but I was 10 times more invested in that stupid Woody doll than I ever was in the character played by Leo -- and truth be told, I cannot even remember the guy's name!"

The name's Cobb, something Cobb.

I'm still high on this movie two weeks later.  Think it is one of the more original movie ideas to come down the pike in some time.  Anyway, just wanted to point out that there was a good article in the last issue of EW regarding "Inception".  Might be worth a read.

P.S.  Not the one with Julia Roberts (oy, am I the only one who can't stand that woman) and that incredibly crappy looking movie on the cover.

Craig

Completely agreed Bert. Like you I had no emotional connection with anyone in the film and couldn't care less about their attempts to fix the world for a callous mobster. I didn't remember a single character's name from the film either.

It got all the difficult stuff right, but unfortunately, the basics just weren't there.

It was a great idea, but I agree, it just wasn't told well enough.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare Inception to Toy Story 3. I haven't seen it yet (don't worry, I will) but everyone I know who's seen it has loved it, regardless of their movie tastes, not to mention it has a 99% tomato reading at over 200 reviews. It seems like one of those rare movies that's been able to unite all moviegoers everywhere. The Dark Knight didn't do that. Avatar couldn't even do that and it's the biggest movie of all time. It's not a matter of apples and oranges. It seems like any other movie this year that gets put next to it is gonna pale in comparison, no matter what. I hate to use numbers to validate a movie's quality, especially if I haven't seen it, but as Bert said, I've yet to hear from a single detractor. I, myself, can't say anything bad about the first two.

Is this a fair assessment or what?

Quoted from James McClung I'm not sure it's fair to compare Inception to Toy Story 3.  It seems like any other movie this year that gets put next to it is gonna pale in comparison, no matter what.

I was kind of worried about that when I drew the comparison, but then I thought, "Two summer blockbusters...that is apples to apples, or close enough."

The point I was trying to make was not really a direct comparison, though...it was just about the power of good storytelling...and where that comes from on an emotional level.

I was simply encouraging those who thought Inception to be flawless to take a look at Toy Story 3 -- then examine what their gut told them about a movie with "flair" versus a movie with "substance".

Quoted from bert I was kind of worried about that when I drew the comparison, but then I thought, "Two summer blockbusters...that is apples to apples, or close enough." The point I was trying to make was not really a direct comparison, though...it was just about the power of good storytelling...and where that comes from on an emotional level. I was simply encouraging those who thought Inception to be flawless to take a look at Toy Story 3 -- then examine what their gut told them about a movie with "flair" versus a movie with "substance".

I certainly didn't think Inception was flawless. But I did think it had some substance. I thought the theme of living in the past was a very human one as well as the theme of guilt. I think the film made the classic mistake in assuming that just because a guy has a wife and kids, he's worthy enough of the audience's sympathies. It's the same mistake that's made some of the Saw movies so awful. But I did think there was some emotion there. I'm not sure if it's that there wasn't enough or that it just wasn't all warm and fuzzy. Maybe both.

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.