WOW!
I'll let someone more articulate than myself elaborate, but....
WOW!





WOW!
I'll let someone more articulate than myself elaborate, but....
WOW!
Sigh, another one. Let me explain.
There was no movie with the name "Inception". That was just something you dreamed. A lot of others had the same dream as you. It was not real. No movie like that was made. We have been explaining this to those of you who had this dream for the last couple of days, but you are having a hard time accepting the fact.
I don't know why you all had that dream. The experts are saying something about chemicals from the Gulf Coast, or cobaltic rays from space, nobody is sure. Some people think it was a Deux ex Machina from the real Deux. But you have to snap out of it. There was no movie named Inception.
Just saw it today. Very well done. Works on at least three levels.
Of course, we'd seen it at the grandview theater. Walked outside just before the rain hit. When it came, we all looked at each other and wondered aloud who had too much of the free champagne on the flight.
OK, now I'm intrigued, pretty much everyone who's posted anything about it has been really positive.
It's an 84% on RT, which is pretty good:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inception/
We might try and go see it sometime in the next week or so. ;)
Are we keeping this thread spoiler free?
Good point, I'm not coming back until I see it, ha!
Saw it on Friday night, had been looking forward to it for a long time. Had purposely kept myself from watching or looking at almost anything about it.
Didn't disappoint. Complex story and you really have to pay attention to it, but it's pretty tight and makes sense for the most part. Great performances as expected, Nolan's "regulars" are some of my favorites (Murphy, Cain, Wantanabe) and DeCaprio and Gordon-Levitt are both pretty awesome. I would call it a thinking mans action movie. I liked it as much as one of Nolan's other movies, The Prestige (which I liked a lot).
This plus Toy Story 3 have saved the summer for me in regards to movies. Pretty barren otherwise.
Thanks for another great movie Chris, now get to work on Batman 3!
I'd give it a rating of "pretty darned good". It's nothing I'd ever want to see again, but it was a solid effort.
I will say that movies that try to "fuck with your head" seem kind of played to me.
BUT-- I usually really don't care for action, and in this case, even though the action was over-the-top and paced like a heart attack (and the sound at the Arena Grand was WAAAAY too loud), the action and quick pace were integral and elegantly done.
One thing that was difficult-- I had way too much coffee yesterday and this movie was so intense it made me tweak a little ;) Consider yourself warned!
Fantastic film! Go see it.
Sure it's a great heist flick, but it's also the best cyberpunk film of the past ten years.
Brief argument is this: cyberpunk was never really about realistic computer systems. Gibson had never touched a computer when he wrote Neuromancer. It's all about interacting in human-created worlds, where information is more powerful than bullets, more expensive than gold. Despotic megacorporations, freelance loner geniuses, and cold dehumanist fashion contrasted with gritty urban settlements. The fact that the "shared dreaming" is enabled by an analog device doesn't make the dreaming itself any less of a true cyberspace. All it's missing is mirrored sunglasses and neon-light katakana signs, which I guess they had to loan out to Gaspar Noe to make Into the Void.
I don't know if this has been dealt with in reviews, I just wanted to mention it because it gives me an excuse to talk about how much great stuff I know. I AM SO SMART; THE SMARTEST.
Oh plus this movie has Michael Caine in it for no discernable reason, so it's instantly better than Sneakers.
JimL2 wrote >>
Sure it's a great heist flick, but it's also the best cyberpunk film of the past ten years.
Brief argument is this: cyberpunk was never really about realistic computer systems. Gibson had never touched a computer when he wrote Neuromancer. It's all about interacting in human-created worlds, where information is more powerful than bullets, more expensive than gold. Despotic megacorporations, freelance loner geniuses, and cold dehumanist fashion contrasted with gritty urban settlements. The fact that the "shared dreaming" is enabled by an analog device doesn't make the dreaming itself any less of a true cyberspace. All it's missing is mirrored sunglasses and neon-light katakana signs, which I guess they had to loan out to Gaspar Noe to make Into the Void.
I don't know if this has been dealt with in reviews, I just wanted to mention it because it gives me an excuse to talk about how much great stuff I know. I AM SO SMART; THE SMARTEST.
Oh plus this movie has Michael Caine in it for no discernable reason, so it's instantly better than Sneakers.
I ate a few special cookies before checking the film out, so I have an opinion.
What's your opinion Snarf
if you want to argue with me but are having trouble because you also liked the movie, let me give you a toehold by saying I enjoyed Johnny Mnemonic and I own a copy of Johnny Mnemonic and I think Keanu Reeves would have been fine as the lead in Inception.
Also they should have replaced that hotel room with the hotel room from 1408, that would have been pretty spooky.
I thought it was really good...good enough to pay to see twice, in fact. However, I could have done without the cute twist at the very end with the top. I thought it was completely unecessary.
JimL2 wrote >>
What's your opinion Snarf
if you want to argue with me but are having trouble because you also liked the movie, let me give you a toehold by saying I enjoyed Johnny Mnemonic and I own a copy of Johnny Mnemonic and I think Keanu Reeves would have been fine as the lead in Inception.
Also they should have replaced that hotel room with the hotel room from 1408, that would have been pretty spooky.
My opinion is the movie was bonkers awesome wicked.
JedThorp wrote >>
I thought it was really good...good enough to pay to see twice, in fact. However, I could have done without the cute twist at the very end with the top. I thought it was completely unecessary.
Twist?
I think it validated a question I had in my mind through the entire movie; Did any of this really happen?
Michael Caine's character asks Leo in paris to "come back to reality" I instantly began to think: "damn maybe this whole movie is just in this dude's head"
I hate ambiguous endings in films. Haaaate them. If you're going to go to the trouble of telling me a story, tell me the whole story. But I didn't really mind the ending of Inception for some reason, maybe because I knew it was coming (mainly because of what details the writer-director chose to leave out and what he chose to emphasize). Or maybe because eXistenZ's similarly ambiguous ending is so over-the-top that it makes Inception look honest in its dealings with the audience.
Anyway, I came out of the theater with the feeling that the movie was saying it didn't really matter whether the movie's base frame of reference was reality or not. What mattered was the main character was able to himself happy in whatever level of reality he was in.
You must log in to post.