Inception *Spoilers*
I just got back from watching it and when I walked out I totally had the thought of them using inception on cobbs and I went as far as saying that it was Mol who was trying to save him from his dream world.
oh and the dream within the dream when it comes to planting the idea in fisher's head:
1st dream sequence is fisher's subconcious
2nd is arthur's dream
3rd they go into fisher's subconcious again through the browning guy
4th they are in cobb's "basement" in where mol(cobb's subconcious) took fisher hostage
the whole time cobb's memories are infiltrating each dream sequence sabotaging their inception this is what lead me to believe that they were really trying to help cobb out and personally the ending i think left it open to the question if cobb himself was in limbo the whole time.
question did you guys think the little spinning thing was about to topple over? don't you think the director would have let it topple over completely if he wanted a definite ending?
personally i feel that cobb was dreaming the whole time or caught in limbo.
[***spoilers***] In the end, all of the characters were either bad guys (to a degree) or not developed enough to care about. [*** End Spoilers***]
But other than that, it was fantastic.
-or- In the end the characters never really existed.
It was all a creation of the subconscious attacking upon the subconscious.
It looked like it was going to keep spinning, but cut to black just as it began to falter the tiniest bit, leaving that question to the audience.
question did you guys think the little spinning thing was about to topple over? don't you think the director would have let it topple over completely if he wanted a definite ending?
That's exactly why I thought the ending was perfect! There's no way in the world Nolan wanted a "definite" ending to this.
When they cut to the top spinning all I could think was "Aww man! Come on! You're not gonna M. Night us like that are you?"
The whole audience started to groan and then it gave that little wobble and just cut perfectly to black and everyone cheered!
That's funny that you say the audience cheered. I've never been to the movies where the audience cheered or clapped at the end. Right at the screen cut at the end there was a gasp and the place exploded in clapping! It was awesome.
The top level is not a dream. I feel very strongly about this. I also feel very strongly that we're meant to ask ourselves that question, anyway, so I can understand why some people's thoughts are drifting this way.
To me, the only real point in this favor of any weight is that the kids look about the same. But really, do we even know how long it's been? A few years? Heck, do we even know that the versions he sees in his head aren't warped, or his attempt to compensate for their aging by making them appear about as old as they are? What about videos/pictures? He might know exactly what they look like.
The key point, I think, is this:
The top wobbles. He puts the top on the table. This item is a direct and blatant representation of whether or not we're in reality. That's its entire reason for existing. When in the dream world, it can spin forever. The fact that it wobbles -- albeit slightly -- tells us everything. This is the real world.
But really, before the film even started I expected that, at some point, the question "is the top level also a dream?" would be posed. It was inevitable. But Nolan's too smart, in my opinion, to do something so obvious, and which so thoroughly undermines the potency of his own drama.
To me, the only real point in this favor of any weight is that the kids look about the same. But really, do we even know how long it's been? A few years? Heck, do we even know that the versions he sees in his head aren't warped, or his attempt to compensate for their aging by making them appear about as old as they are? What about videos/pictures? He might know exactly what they look like.
The key point, I think, is this:
The top wobbles. He puts the top on the table. This item is a direct and blatant representation of whether or not we're in reality. That's its entire reason for existing. When in the dream world, it can spin forever. The fact that it wobbles -- albeit slightly -- tells us everything. This is the real world.
But really, before the film even started I expected that, at some point, the question "is the top level also a dream?" would be posed. It was inevitable. But Nolan's too smart, in my opinion, to do something so obvious, and which so thoroughly undermines the potency of his own drama.
This is the way I see it too. I mean, he talks to his kids on the phone and their granpa and him seem to surely he'd have pictures to show him and whatnot. Most importantly is we're never really given a timeframe of how long it's been since Mol died (possible reason for it all being a dream? uh oh!) we're just there and know that she has.
I forgot about downloading that comic book for this, maybe it'll give more a frame of reference as to how long it's been.
Just finished reading an awesome interview with Dileep Rao, who played the chemist in Inception. This is a must-read for anyone spending any time speculating as to the film's meaning and ending. It solidifies a lot of things I assumed and felt about the film, and Rao's arguments are remarkably persuasive and eloquent.
I'm going to reproduce some of the best/most relevant bits. Spoilers abound, so stop reading now if you haven't seen the film yet!
Yeah. I don't think the "It's all a dream" theory makes much sense to me, because where is "the real" Cobb? We never see n. We never see reality. We have no idea who this man is, what his circumstances are. To me, there's really only two paths: either it's a wobbling top, which it does sound like at the end, and it's real; or the whole thing, regardless of totems, moments, girls, children, people, machines, the whole thing — it's all some dream. And that's more philosophy. I think the film does this wonderful exploration of the entire idea to the nth degree. It feels so full. Because of that, there's so many weird bits that seem to warp our sense of the real and unreal.
I felt a very dreamlike feeling when Cobb is being chased by the Cobol guys and Ken Watanabe shows up to save him. I mean, squeezing through the wall when they're coming for him, I've had so many nightmares like that.
Archetypes. We all dream in certain ways. Teeth falling out, being chased... and that stuff is poignant. But the more you explore it, the more you realize that Chris has already thought about it. I think there is a definitive answer, but it's hidden so you have to take time to think about it. But I do think it's real because it's an Apostatic act on art itself to suddenly say "Well none of this happened, and I have no explanation."
What if Leo is the one being "incepted" with an idea? We keep hearing the phrase "Do you want to become an old man, filled with regret?" and it's like someone — maybe Ellen Page's character because she's the catalyst of his emotional catharsis — has set this all up so he can let go of his regret over Mal's death. That's why at the end with Saito he offers to come back and be young again (not old, full of regret). Even the Edith Piaf song they use to signal ten seconds before kick translates to "No, I regret nothing." And there's so many scenes where Ellen Page is talking to Leo, getting him to reveal his issues, in the same way that Eames tricks Fischer into revealing his issues. Also, Leo's kids are the same age at the end, right?
I'm not trying to be authoritative, so this is just my understanding of how I approached it from my work on it. But you're saying it's like some sort of crazy-ass psychotherapy session where the whole thing is a constructed narrative of massive complexity only to distract Cobb so that he will achieve his change? I mean sure, you could totally say that that's what it is. In a way, that's what we're doing to Fischer, so it's not unfounded.
The problem for me is that you're using negative evidence to support a story that isn't there. I don't know what to say about a character who only exists before and after the movie. You're talking about a character who isn't on screen. And I mean on one hand, it's awesome that this movie can sustain that kind of discussion. It shows you just how well-though-through and comprehensive it is, but I mean I don't know where that kind of speculation ends. It's like people who are convinced 9/11 is an inside job. It's a mental heuristic failure to think that one or two minor details explain absolutely everything. I mean, kids wear the same clothes all the time.
To me, it's a far more elegant story if it's a vast job that Leo has to pull off. The threat is real, the growth is real, the adversary is real. The weakness of "It's all a dream" — why we hate that, why we feel cheated when narratively anything is revealed to be all a dream — is that you've just asked me to spend so much time and emotional capital investing in the stakes of this, and you've now swept it away with the most anti-narrative structuralism that doesn't have anything to substitute in its place. It's laughing at you for even taking it seriously. You don't want to feel like a victim of the narrative, and I don't think Christopher Nolan would do that.
This part's really funny:
Well, two ideas. One: Leo is aged too, but he's been down there less time and from a younger age. Cobb is in his forties and Saito in the eighties by the time they meet.
Is there anything to the idea that Leo knows he's in limbo?
Well that's option two: He knows where he is, so he can keep track a bit better of where he is, who he is.
Ellen Page warns him something along those lines just before she leaves him in limbo...
But Leo also starts out younger. In fact, he looks even younger in real life than as Cobb in the film. He looks so young!
I kept thinking about how much he looks like Bizarro Chris Nolan.
He does! It's weird.
And if movies are the director's dream, that means Leo as Nolan is...
Stop.
Anyway, in short, I completely agree with Rao: I think the idea that the top level is a dream is a fun thought, and something we're supposed to ask, but Nolan gave us about as much evidence that it's real as he could without spoiling all the fun, so to speak. The top wobbling is plenty, and all the reasons it might actually be a dream are circumstantial and easily explained away. And, as Rao suggests at the end of the interview, the most important part is that Leo has gained a faith he didn't have before.
I'm glad that I wasn't the only who thought DiCaprio's character looked a helluva lot like Nolan, too.
Dileep Rao
I gotta remember this guys name and keep a look out for him when he pops up in another movie. He was pretty great in that Drag Me to Hell also.
*spoilers*
Finally saw this last night. I really liked it, but there were a couple of things that didn't sit right with me.
Although I really dug what Nolan did with this film, I feel like we got most of the cool visual stuff and action pieces in the trailers. They could've easily have done more with that hallway fight scene. I kept expecting the van to start rolling, and therefore, the hallway would start rolling. The zero G thing made it look like two astronauts fighting. Also, it felt like the architecture thing never fully got realized. We got the endless staircase and the city folding on top of itself--both brilliant, but after that I wanted more, and then this is where we find out that everything has to be pre-built before shared dreaming, so it was a little bit of a let down. I was hoping for some on-the-fly architure by Ellen Page, who apparently, is a natural and a genius at this, but never got it.
Also, the part in the mountains with the snow suits and whatnot felt just a little too Bond-ish for me.
As far as the ending is concerned, the whole "leaving it up to interpretation" seems to be very popular these days. My whole thing on that is that the kids are exactly how Cobb remembers them, so that either means it's a dream, or Cobb was away for such a short amount of time that the kids didn't grow at all.
Anyway, I really liked this film. It deserves multiple viewings, and I'm impressed at the way Nolan took such a complex concept and storyline and made them perfectly understandable for a first-time viewer. Editing did a great job with this one, and Zimmer's score was awesome.
I liked it a lot, but I suppose after seeing this thing being pushed for so long as an action-packed mindbender, I was expecting a little more than what I got.
Pretty nice visual:
Yeah, the snow scene seemed a bit much to me, too, but overall it's such a minor complaint that it doesn't really matter to me.
The best part is - this movie hadn't been hyped around here at all. I'd never heard of it until the day before it came out. I saw the trailer and found a babysitter immediately. (I never find a babysitter just to watch a movie.)
Also, Parson's visual up there ^^^ is great.
I concur.
Finally saw this last night. I really liked it, but there were a couple of things that didn't sit right with me.
Although I really dug what Nolan did with this film, I feel like we got most of the cool visual stuff and action pieces in the trailers. They could've easily have done more with that hallway fight scene. I kept expecting the van to start rolling, and therefore, the hallway would start rolling. The zero G thing made it look like two astronauts fighting. Also, it felt like the architecture thing never fully got realized. We got the endless staircase and the city folding on top of itself--both brilliant, but after that I wanted more, and then this is where we find out that everything has to be pre-built before shared dreaming, so it was a little bit of a let down. I was hoping for some on-the-fly architure by Ellen Page, who apparently, is a natural and a genius at this, but never got it.
I would have loved to see them delve into all this more too, but the movie would have ended up at 3 1/2-4 hours. Unless they end up oming out with a Inception 2, i'm sure the studio would love too, but I can't see Nolan or anyone else doing it, so there might be some cool little nuggets on those ideas in the direct-to-DVD release of the sequel.
Also, the part in the mountains with the snow suits and whatnot felt just a little too Bond-ish for me.
As far as the ending is concerned, the whole "leaving it up to interpretation" seems to be very popular these days. My whole thing on that is that the kids are exactly how Cobb remembers them, so that either means it's a dream, or Cobb was away for such a short amount of time that the kids didn't grow at all.
Nolan seems to be very precise in exactly how everything he shows us is presented to us, that I don't get the feeling he's the type of director to have parts of his story take place off camera and for an audience to fill-in.
I don't know what else anyone could expect from this film. It had so much action to almost be detrimental, being called "Bond-ish." All the stories within the stories and events in one having an impact on the others I would think qualifies as mind-bending enough.
The only thing I can see is wanting more, literally. And get that 4 hour epic that goes into all the brushed upon themes and expands all the great scenes.
Here's a question I'll put to everybody:
Do you think there can only be the 3 levels (or 4 if you want to think the top level was all a dream too) and then you drop to the limbo?
If there was a 4th level though, with time being drawn out to decades in the 3rd, it would stretch out to centuries down there. And then to even think of a 5th level with things going out to millenia.
Thought it was funny.
Hahaha. That's awesome.
Article regarding the ending: http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/buzz-log-the-end-of-inception.html
This guy has a really compelling take on things. Says that the whole thing is a metaphor for the filmmaking/creative process itself, the "shared dream," with each of the characters representing a director, financier, writer/designer, crewperson, actor, audience, etc.
Idiots, it wasn't all a dream. That fucking top fell. Nolan's not that kind of director. And stop looking at it so critically, jesus h.
The top didn't fall. So Nolan may well be "that kind of director". Not that you're wrong in your interpretation.
The more I read this thread the more I think this is the most overrated film of the year, bar none.
Show don't tell, you guys should all know that by now.
Tell that to Nolan and his two and a half hour script of expositions.
I only remember a few explanations and he only did that because American audiences are dumb. The rest he let us figure out for ourselves.
I saw it today! I looooved the movie! The hotel scene + the shots of them in the car would have to be my favorite parts.
The snow scene was fine for me, but I'm happy it wasn't longer than it was.
Oh, I was about to get pissed off when Mal said Cobbs should stay with her in limbo. Good thing he didn't.
The fact that Saito looked so much older than Cobbs is because he ended up in limbo before him I think. It might have just been a little longer, but in limbo, that's a long time.
The British guy was awesome, I liked him a lot. OH, and the whole him being Fisher's uncle in the dream and everything that went along with it, I dug it.
I'm taking the movie as it was shown to us, the whole idea of everything being a damn dream would ruin it for me. Things are getting overanalyzed.
Also,
what about if the inception was actually done to cobb to help him get over what happened between him and his wife and cillian murphys character was just a pawn in that inception. maybe they're real mission was to implant a thought in cobb.
I hate this idea. A lot.
There were vast tracts of explanatory dialogue. Explanatory dialogue within explanatory dialogue, within explanatory dialogue, if you like.
Besides, I thought the guns and ski battles were for the dumb audiences?
Anyway, I'm not gonna bash it anymore. I'm just baffled at why some people are hailing this as a masterpiece. Did I miss a memento?
I still think Memento is Nolan's best piece. It has already lived a decade, and I think even more time will treat it just as well. Inception is right behind it in my book, though.
edit:
thinking about it, I rank Memento, Inception, and the Dark Knight as 1a 1b and 1c respectively, thats how much I love all three.
edit:
thinking about it, I rank Memento, Inception, and the Dark Knight as 1a 1b and 1c respectively, thats how much I love all three.
What? Nobody liked 'Following'?
Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me alone.
~The Zen of Sarcasm
There's also Insomnia, which was meh. But all of his other movies are great.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that not a single second of the movie takes place in reality. For the exact reason because of the type of Director/Writer Nolan is.
I'll address the "Top" or "reality" layer
- We never see Cobb travel anywhere, yet he is somehow moving to all sorts of countries. There are very simply cinematic devices that are used to tell the audience that a character is traveling. Nolan uses none of them. Instead, at several points in the movie, we are explicitly told that in dreams, you don't remember or think about how you got where you are.
- After narrowly escaping hitmen, for a faceless global corporation, Cobb squeezes though tightening buildings and is saved last-second by Saito who claims to be "looking after him".
- Ellen's character is way too projection-like. She kind of just moves in and out as needed.
- There are a lot of interesting inconsistencies: for instance, the disappearing/reappearing wedding ring on Cobb's finger. Ellen's clothing etc...
- Considering this is a caper movie, where the employer is a major corporation, there is never a discussion of compensation. Ellen's character doesn't even flinch that what they do isn't "technically legal"
- The machine is too purposefully vague. In a movie like this, you always get a brief explanation as to how the device works. Even if it is total bullshit like "it intercepts the alpha waves produced by the brain". Cobb only dreams what he needs to for the machine to be real enough
These are just a few but there is a big list of things that are too dream-like in the "real" world.
This leaves you with 2 root causes.
- Nolan made a bunch of rookie, lazy film making mistakes, that are being misinterpreted.
- Nolan decided to do those things to sneak an additional layer into the movie.
From what I know of Nolan's film making, he doesn't make a bunch of rookie mistakes. Go watch The Prestige. The smallest details in that movie have meaning, once you know what you're looking for. He isn't a sloppy film maker, so I can't accept the first cause.
So that leaves you with 2 "common" interpretations of the ending.
- The top fell over and he got out of Limbo, by killing himself with Saito.
- The top didn't fall over and he stayed in Limbo, but having removed Mol, he reshaped it to something less terrible.
To me, both of these ending are totally acceptable and both are good. BUT I do think he built in a 3rd "ending", if you want to call it that, where upon more thoughtful consideration, the entire thing can be a dream. None of it happened in the real world, and as far as I know, there isn't even a machine that allows you to enter shared dream spaces and Cobb doesn't actually extract memories.
All that said, I don't necessarily think this is the "right" ending, or a "better" ending. But I do feel that he purposely left out a lot of stuff in the "real" world to allow for a 3rd interpretation.
Does anyone know offhand if he wrote Insomnia or just directed it from someone else's script?
He was just the director.
Another thing that's been bugging me and maybe it was explained but why was Cobb'c subconscious the only subconscious melding with Fischer's? Why wasn't Ellen's melding with it too? That's really the only thing that makes me think it might have all been a dream, but i don't think it was. And i'm betting Nolan will never tell us.
Insomnia was actually a remake of a Swedish film from a few years prior.
edit:
thinking about it, I rank Memento, Inception, and the Dark Knight as 1a 1b and 1c respectively, thats how much I love all three.
What? Nobody liked 'Following'?
I just watched it again yesterday, and yeah, it is a really good little movie. It would be great if Nolan remade it with a bigger budget like Mann did with LA Takedown.
There were vast tracts of explanatory dialogue. Explanatory dialogue within explanatory dialogue, within explanatory dialogue, if you like.
Besides, I thought the guns and ski battles were for the dumb audiences?
Anyway, I'm not gonna bash it anymore. I'm just baffled at why some people are hailing this as a masterpiece. Did I miss a memento?
I want to set up a safe place for those who didn't like Inception. Sometimes it makes me angry when I feel like the only one and other times very scared. I just don't understand, it didn't even seem like a complicated movie to me, I'm really surprised it's inspired this much discussion.
I'm not listening to you, you also don't like Skins.
Skins is really shit.
That's it! I'm leaving!
Here's my two cents on the ending, pasted from my blog at www.fredventurini.com
So the big, lasting piece of the discussion is the last shot and what the cutaway from the totem means. Was it all a dream? Or has Cobb returned to reality? I have seen 6 separate explanations of the film.
1. All of Inception is Cobb's dream.
2. Everything after Cobb's sedation test is a dream.
3. Saito pulls a "Mr. Charles" on Cobb.
4. Adrienne is a therapist and is the architect to cure Cobb.
5. We see reality during the film, but the end is Cobb stuck in limbo or a dream.
6. We see reality near the beginning of the film, and Cobb is in reality at the end of the film (the happy ending).
Yet with a film that has 5 distinct layers, there is a deeper level that no one is considering. So I shall consider it.
Cobb's children are older, as we see in the casting of the children. There are two sets of kids at IMDB. The kids are cast in two different sets, two years apart. So the children Cobb encounters at the end have aged. Would they not have stayed the same if it was memory or dream? Brandon feels like they're the same age, but it's hard to tell without having a DVD to really study it and the fact we never see their faces. But I prescribe to the "happy ending" that Cobb has won and entered back into his reality. The happy ending is his.
Yet Cobb's reality is Christopher Nolan's dream. It is a reality within a dream, and we, as viewers, are experiencing that reality through the sharing of Chris Nolan's dream.
We cannot see the final totem fall. It spins perfectly in the dream state infinitely and never even wobbles. In this case, at the end, it wobbles, and we are abruptly "awoken" not before it falls, but AS it falls. The wobble makes it pretty clear to me it falls since it never wobbles in the dream state.
The cut signifies not that Cobb has indeed returned to reality, but that Cobb and we as viewers have both returned to reality.
Cobb is the protagonist. We experience the film through him, so we share his totem. Once it is established how the totem works, we have begun to share it since we know its secret. Notice that Nolan does not let it fall when he is splashing his face--it doesn't seem to make sense in the context in the film for certain theories, other than to confound, but instead, I think it is meant to preserve Cobb's reality and our dream state as viewers.
So at the end, the totem spins. If it falls, we are in reality (the real world), and it proves that Cobb is in his reality. So it wobbles and as it falls, we are thrust back into a darkened theater and do not get to witness Cobb going back to the table and seeing it on its side.
I do not believe for one second there is an "open ending" to the movie. Nolan doesn't appear to work that way. So I would like to think that as complex as the film seems,there is a definitive answer to this "maze," but as we learned in the film, only the architect (Nolan) knows that path through the maze so that projections or dream-sharers (us) cannot navigate it easily. The film is the maze of the director's dream.
Either way, Nolan has done quite a trick--performed "inception" on us, planting an idea that grows like a virus . . . the ending was his idea, but has created an outpouring of theories (including this one) that makes us think the ending was our idea. Neat. I believe it when I hear it took him 10 years to finish writing this movie. It seems that damn complex to me.
Has anyone seen any of those online blog things about this maybe explaining the movie as a sort of Schrodinger's Cat type thing? With the movie and everything we're shown as being the box and it being both all a dream and Real at the same time?
The movie owes EVERYTHING to psychoanalysis, which pleased me immensely. From the unconscious-as-city-space to the very words they used to describe what was going on, from the idea of projection to the trope of the basement-as-darkest-part-of-the-mind, ALL of it comes from psychoanalysis. There isn't a SINGLE concept in the movie that I can think of that doesn't begin with Freud. I saw this with my dad and we both looked at each other and said: "Freud!"
Anyway, I loved this movie. Maybe I'm not an expert on what makes a great cinematic masterpiece, but I am an expert on what gets me hard, and this film got me fucking hard. I'm hard for Inception.
thanks for sharing.blackhawk tactical pants.
— Spambot
"I could have done worse!" exultantly cried the murderer Lebret, sentenced at Rouen to hard labor for life. — Félix Fénéon
I'm going bed to rest my head. I'll talk more about this 2.5 hour orgasm tomorrow.
Yes, I want to play. I really, really do.
I took the spinning top at the end to indicate that the audience could interpret it either way (dream or not dream). It doesn't fall over (dream) but it does wobble (not dream).
BUT the kids being the same age points to it being a dream (I hadn't even noticed that until someone up above pointed pit out)
Leo's dad, played by my fav Michael Caine, says something along the lines of "when are you going to come out of the dream" when we first see them together. Could be interpreted metaphorically (non-dream) or literally (dream)
EDIT....forgot to read the second page of posts before posting...
Well I know karate, Voodoo too; I'm gonna make myself available to you
I don't need no make up; I got real scars
I got hair on my chest; I look good without a shirt
Plus, what the fuck was Michael Caine doing at the airport?
thanks for sharing.blackhawk tactical pants.
— Spambot
"I could have done worse!" exultantly cried the murderer Lebret, sentenced at Rouen to hard labor for life. — Félix Fénéon
Being awesome.
Is it just me or does anyone else think this image is wrong (regardless of your dream/non-dream stance)?
The level they label Limbo is just another dream level. You only go to Limbo if you die on one of the lower dream levels. Leo, Page and the rich kid don't die to get there, they use one of the dream linking machines. It's not Limbo, it's the fantasy world Leo and his wife constructed.
Only Leo and Saito go to Limbo because only they "die" in the dreams. Saito from the gunshot wound, Leo from the collapsing dream world.
Well I know karate, Voodoo too; I'm gonna make myself available to you
I don't need no make up; I got real scars
I got hair on my chest; I look good without a shirt
Anyway, I loved this movie. Maybe I'm not an expert on what makes a great cinematic masterpiece, but I am an expert on what gets me hard, and this film got me fucking hard. I'm hard for Inception.
Brainfag!
I'll have to watch this again before I can say anything other than 'awesome'. One thing I'll add to that is JGL has become a fine actor. For me, he stole the show.
Yes, I want to play. I really, really do.
He was the architect on their team who screwed up the carpet detail in the first act
Which is the most hilarious reason for a character death. YOU PUT IN THE WRONG TYPE OF CARPET YOU FOOL!
And to say just because there's no real consequences when they die means there's no tension is questionable. The whole front of the film builds up why he can not fail doing this, what the ramifications of him failing would be against how difficult the job is going to be. He needs everyone on the team to be there or he can't get it done, therefore they can not die either or he fails. There's even danger in them not really knowing what will happen to them if they die there, what it will end up doing to their waking self's mind.
Agree in principle. But, I guess the tension just didn't really work for me.
The corridor scene really was excellent though.
[***spoilers***] In the end, all of the characters were either bad guys (to a degree) or not developed enough to care about. [*** End Spoilers***]
But other than that, it was fantastic.
You gotta say, though, if that's the case it's a pretty major failing.