# Inception



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

I'm not a movie person, but the trailers for this movie have caught my attention. Obviously it is all CGI, but still the effects look amazing. 

Anyone planning on seeing this? Heard any reviews?


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

davemayo said:


> I'm not a movie person, but the trailers for this movie have caught my attention. Obviously it is all CGI, but still the effects look amazing.
> 
> Anyone planning on seeing this? Heard any reviews?


The reviews have been exceptional.....this is the must see movie of the summer.
I'm looking forward to seeing it, the bad thing for me if it has Dicraprio in it, I just don't like him. Still going though.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

BubblePuppy said:


> The reviews have been exceptional.....this is the must see movie of the summer.
> I'm looking forward to seeing it, the bad thing for me if it has Dicraprio in it, I just don't like him. Still going though.


I really like Ellen Page, but I doubt her role in Inception will be much like Juno.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Looks like a great film, and with the exception of _The Dark Knight_ I am a big fan of the director, Christopher Nolan. And I understand that most people liked _The Dark Knight_ but I thought it was an hour too long.


----------



## pappy97 (Nov 14, 2009)

PLEASE don't see this movie if all you care about is special effects:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15517429



> Not since James Cameron's "Avatar" have I been in a theater where an audience has so thoroughly surrendered to what is transpiring on-screen. Not one person rudely became a blabbermouth. You could barely even hear an intake of air.
> 
> But "Inception" is a better film than "Avatar." While it's stunning visually, "Inception" dazzles us not with technology, but with smarts, immersing us deeply into the dreamscapes craftily manufactured by Nolan and a cast of rich characters.* Fans of his "Memento" - one of the best film noir films ever made - should expect to find their brain cells revved to overdrive*.


For that Nolan fan above who doesn't like The Dark Knight, looks this movie harkens back to The Following/Memento, only with a big-budget.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

I loved Memento. Excellent movie that few people know about.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

davemayo said:


> I loved Memento. Excellent movie that few people know about.


One of my top 5 best all-time.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

_Memento_, _The Prestige_, and _Insomnia_ were all excellent and far superior to _The Dark Knight_ simply by not having a superhero in them.


----------



## pappy97 (Nov 14, 2009)

If you haven't seen Nolan's first film, _Following_, you are missing out on a rare treat. If you think nobody has ever heard of Memento, nobody x 10 has heard of Following, but it's really good. You can really see then Nolan was going to be very good.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

davemayo said:


> I'm not a movie person, but the trailers for this movie have caught my attention. Obviously it is all CGI, but still the effects look amazing.
> 
> Anyone planning on seeing this? Heard any reviews?


I saw Joseph Gordon-Levitt one of the stars of this movie on the View this morning. According to him it was not CGI, but a special set that was use for the the effects seen in this film. I also am looking forward to this film.


----------



## Dario33 (Dec 15, 2008)

I definitely plan on checking this out.

Nolan: check
DiCaprio: check
Gordon-Levitt: check
Berenger  : check


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

I watched over the weekend.

The music was great. My friend saw it at the IMAX and she said it was a great immersive experience.

IMHO, the reviews are over inflating it but it was very good and entertaining. 4 out of 5 stars.



Spoiler



My only complaint was the ending. I thought it was contrived. It was there just to mess with the audience. I didn't mind the message of the ending, I just didn't like how it was done.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

pappy97 said:


> PLEASE don't see this movie if all you care about is special effects:


Why?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Because there aren't that many of them and you see all the good ones in the trailer.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Because there aren't that many of them and you see all the good ones in the trailer.


Thanks for the heads up.

I've been telling the Mrs that was the case based on similar reviews...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I don't have the time for a full review BTW, but I'll say this: This was a thoughtful movie full of great actors and far more symbolism than it's possible to get with one viewing. Even the characters' names mean something. I was a little disappointed with the lack of CGI as I was expecting something more "dreamlike" and that was explained away with "you should make dreams as realistic as possible or the subconscious will reject them." Poppycock, say I. But whatever. 

The ending will get you talking, and that's saying a lot since it's possible to guess it about halfway through the film.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Funny how different people take a film. My wife and I walked out after 25 minutes and got our $22 ticket fee back. To me, I wish they had developed the characters even a little before the action started - I'm a smart guy (magna cum laude), but had no idea what was going on.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Funny how different people take a film. My wife and I walked out after 25 minutes and got our $22 ticket fee back. To me, I wish they had developed the characters even a little before the action started - I'm a smart guy (magna cum laude), but had no idea what was going on.


I saw "Inception" last week, and it's a shame you didn't stay on. It takes quite a while for the story to develop. To be sure, it was difficult to follow, not really knowing at any given time if you were immersed in DiCaprio's dream or someone else's, or if it was a dream within a dream. I think it would actually be worth seeing again, knowing how it all fit together. It's a tense drama definitely worth seeing.


----------



## kss123456 (Jul 28, 2010)

It's phenomenal and it's not difficult to understand like many people say it is. It's ranked as the third best movie of all time by imdb for a reason.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Sounds like a perfect BluRay purchase. I'll definitely give it another shot.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

kss123456 said:


> It's phenomenal and it's not difficult to understand like many people say it is. It's ranked as the third best movie of all time by imdb for a reason.


I assume that reason is the people who vote on IMDB haven't seen many films and the films they have seen are blockbusters from the past 20 years.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> I assume that reason is the people who vote on IMDB haven't seen many films and the films they have seen are blockbusters from the past 20 years.


I have a problem with a movie currently in theaters being called one of the best of all time. But looking at the list, fortunately not all of them are blockbusters of the past 20 years. Shawshank is #1, definately wasn't a blockbuster. Godfather was #2. The one surprising to me was that 12 Angry Men (1957) is #8.

Inception certainly is a great film (though Armond White disagrees of course) but this ranks it a bit too highly. It's all subjective though.


----------



## greatwhitenorth (Jul 18, 2005)

Cholly said:


> I saw "Inception" last week, and it's a shame you didn't stay on. It takes quite a while for the story to develop. To be sure, it was difficult to follow, not really knowing at any given time if you were immersed in DiCaprio's dream or someone else's, or if it was a dream within a dream. I think it would actually be worth seeing again, knowing how it all fit together. It's a tense drama definitely worth seeing.


Yes, my problem with the movie was that it took so long to get any traction. About 1 1/2 hours in, it became one of the best movies I've seen. With some smarter writing and editing, I think it could have been brought down to 2 hours even, without destroying the integrity of the plot. While I enjoyed the movie, the lack of flow of the movie in the beginning takes it out of the Top 10 of all time for me. I recommend viewing this one from home.


----------



## pappy97 (Nov 14, 2009)

spartanstew said:


> Why?


Because the movie is too smart to simply be enjoyed for special effects only. I know that sounds very elitist, but maybe it is. This isn't "Transformers 2" where the only thing going for it (if that) is the visual effects. It's a smart Memento-like Christopher Nolan movie and IMHO, should be viewed/enjoyed/critiqued as much.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

pappy97 said:


> Because the movie is too smart to simply be enjoyed for special effects only. I know that sounds very elitist, but maybe it is. This isn't "Transformers 2" where the only thing going for it (if that) is the visual effects. It's a smart Memento-like Christopher Nolan movie and IMHO, should be viewed/enjoyed/critiqued as much.


In terms of "smartness," how would you compare it to a film like Resnais's "Last Year at Marienbad"? A film Nolan says he didn't see until after he made "Inception", but admits he was indirectly influenced by because he was imitating films that were imitating "Marienbad". Resnais's "Je t'aime, je t'aime" is another film that is certainly an indirect influence. Both, it could be argued, makes "Inception" look like "Transformers 2". Okay, "Transformers 1"; I should give Nolan some credit.

I hope this post doesn't sound elitist or anything.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

No it doesn't, and I had the same discussion with someone else recently. But I think, there are films that no one sees that are great, and films that everyone sees that are crud. Then there are films that have just enough mainstream appeal to make money while making people think at the end. _Inception_ deserves credit for walking that line.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

pappy97 said:


> Because the movie is too smart to simply be enjoyed for special effects only. I know that sounds very elitist, but maybe it is. This isn't "Transformers 2" where the only thing going for it (if that) is the visual effects. It's a smart Memento-like Christopher Nolan movie and IMHO, should be viewed/enjoyed/critiqued as much.


So what? If someone wants to see it just for some special effects, or if they think the special effects are the best part, why would you care how they view/enjoy it?


----------

