Inception *Spoilers*

Yeah, I just realised i contradicted myself. Nevermind me. I'm just confusing myself. I meant to say that I considered that it was all a dream when i watched it last time and it seemed pretty cool watching it from that perspective, but, like it's said in the film, if you're in the dream world it just spins and spins, it never even shows signs of toppling. So just the sound of it faultering is evidence enough that it's reality. geeez. this movie is still fucking with my head.

I watched half of the movie again last week, then I got too tired. I still love it and want him to not be dreaming at the end.

Also, there wouldn't be 6 layers in a dream.

I can say one thing about Incpetion - it sucks ass/coock/spinach. All the jokes made in South Park were true.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I find Memento (with all it's flaws) a far better movie. But of course it's all an opinion based.

What are Memento's flaws again?

Also, What are Inceptions flaws?

Also, what films do you actually like?

the closest thing to a flaw I can find with Inception is that it really is a very simplistic story over all. Just a couple guys go in to change an heir to an oil company's mind and plant an idea. But what a presentation of it!

I don't think a story has to be complex to be good. In fact, most of the time, overly complex stories have mammoth flaws because of the scope of the story. I think the simple premise executed in a unique and interesting way wins easily.

I thought that the whole hallway fight, while it was pretty cool, was pretty much unneeded and masturbatory on the poducer's and director's part. That coupled with Leonardo DiCaprio's inability to act really hurt the movie.

That being said, after only seeing it once in the theatre, I liked it.

Right now I'm debating whether or not to buy it on Blu-Ray.

Leonardo can't act? I disagree.

I also thought the hallway fight was awesome.

I'm with you, Imke. Since when can't Leo act? It's just he's fallen victim of the being-in-too-many-films syndrome that happens when you've been a badass actor for so long.

I liked him in 'Gilbert Grape' but, other thant that one role, I have yet to see him do any better than his acting on 'Growing Pains.'

I also thought that the hallway scene was cool; but it did little for the story-line in the movie and wouldn't have been missed if it was left out.

I really enjoyed his roles in for example Revolutionary Road, Catch Me If You Can and The Departed as well.

For me it was definitely something that added to the whole experience of the movie, it's something I talked about to people afterwards.

I liked those movies... again...

Maybe I just have a personal grudge.

The hallway fight scene was freakin' visually stunning, and it added to the suspense, the twisted feeling of the dream world, and it showed JGL's character's proficiency in his job, which adds some depth. I really don't think it was an unnecessary scene.

Yeah I thought the hallway scene was completely relevant. It also showed that whatever happens on the layer above effects the layer below. There really isn't much to fault this film on.

There's something about Leo that I never really liked. But I would never say he can't act. I think he's a really good actor. And lately he's starting to grow on me. I never knew why I didn't like him anyway... Probably because ever girl I've ever dated loved him and that was reason enough. lol

About Inception, there are many reasons I hate it, but I will go only with main three:

- I don't perceive dreams like that, so for me the whole dream part was like "WTF? did they ever dreamed for real?"
- The whole movie seams like a intelectual masturbation of Nolan and the actors who thinks they play in a very smart movie. And Nolan should really cool down because Dark Knight had some serious problems and wasn't the best movie ever (it wasn't even the best Batman).
- They didn't even give a ONE sentence of pseudo-science talk to explain how all this dream invasion works. It's like they want to say "it's possible, ok? deal with it".

*Spoilers*
I know it's very opinion based, but that's my opinion.
Am I supposed to write all my favorites or just similar in someway to Inception, but which I find better?

Re: Memento's Leonard Shelby's condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterograde_amnesia

*Spoilers*
Or my English is so bad or I can't find there a explanation how after the whole process of amnesia started he could remember (in a form of a story about different man) that he killed his wife. And he killed her because he suffered from memory loss at that time So how he created and remember that memory? If someone care to explain I would be grateful, one thing less to bother me in my life.

I'm confused. Someone else take over.

Memento: The condition is simply damage to the hippocampus. It allows you to store memories from your short-term to long-term. The portrayal of this condition in Memento is pretty damn realistic. For your complaint about the movie, you need to look into how the brain functions.

We don't know the extent of the damage to the hippocampus of the character, so we don't know how bad his condition is. We do know that there're cases where there is only damage to the episodic or semantic memory circuits. We humans aren't great with numbers, and our brains aren't built to store them very easily. What we excel at is storing meaningful events. It's not surprising that he would forget a room number, but slightly remember a person's face and the situation associated with it, which our brains are extremely good at.

Inception: Your complaint about the portrayal of dreams is understandable, but through a filmmaker's point of view, it's the only way it could be done, and it was done well. When you dream, everything in your dream makes perfect sense. It's fucked up as hell when you wake up, but it makes perfect sense when you're in it. So, naturally, Nolan set the dream sequences in realistic scenarios to better give you this feeling of consistency that you'd have in a dream anyway.

I don't understand your second complaint. You thought he just wanted to make a smart movie, and it wasn't a smart movie? Huh? I thought it was pretty clever, and offered a lot of aesthetic appeal, and delved into a physical exploration of the unconscious mind while giving a simple story of a man and his quest for his family. And The Dark Knight had serious problems? Huh? You can't just say things like that without offering examples, dude. C'mon. And I think it absolutely was the best Batman, but that IS actually opinion, unlike the "serious problems" comment.

And your third complaint, I just flat out don't agree with it. The Time Machine, the book, offered no explanation about how it worked, because no one would know how, at the time, but it was still a damn good story. Sci-fi is about "what ifs" and that's it. Einstein later came out with a way that time travel COULD be possible. Wells just introduced the idea through a clever story. So far, I haven't heard of neurologists complaining about Inception's impossibility. There's a machine that connects people to be in one dream. Yeah, deal with it. There's no reason to think this "what if" scenario's not possible. People actually think it could be possible (albeit with a far more complex machine than just a wire hooked up to your body).

Besides, I was more interested in knowing why on earth people would make such a device, and how it would be useful. The movie did explain that. The whole explanation of soldiers using it to learn how to deal with searing pain without actually suffering from it.

I liked Dark Knight fine, but I actually liked Batman Begins better. I read all this shit about the breadkown, the third act, this and that and this and that and it's a lot of shit said and analyzed, but at the end of the day, just watching these two movies on my own, I enjoy Batman Begins a little more. And I know they're about the same length, but for some reason, I Felt it when I was watching Dark Knight. I waited all fucking year for that movie like everyone else, but toward the end, well I was wondering when it finally Would end.

Thank God, Isaac had the energy to do that. I know I didn't.

I wish I could remember where I heard it, but I read a quote one time in regards to art how "one person's flaws are just another person's style."

One of my bosses had an interesting interpretation: He thinks that the entire movie is a dream and that Mal is alive, going into Cobb's dreams, trying to get him to realize he's in a dream and wake him up.

I agree, Nate. There's no real need to go into a long-winded (or even a short-winded, really) explanation of how the machine works. It's not really relevant. It's fiction. The guy made up a machine that allows people to go into other people's dreams. Done. That's all we need to know. Knowing more, like Nate said, would just be a distraction. And likely come off as masturbatory on Nolan's behalf.

It's like Zombie movies or any (post)apocalyptic story that doesn't explain how it happened. I think most of the time it's unnecessary. And sometimes more effective and horrific than being told exactly what went down. Like in The Road. We never know anything about how the world ended, and why, we just know that there's very few people left, and the man and his son are left wandering the earth, scared shitless of cannibals. Way more effective, I reckon.

the type of movie depends on if it needs to be told or not as well. Inception is more of a thriller/suspense/action type of deal. there's not much technological know-how behind it.
if it were a story where they needed to find out why something happened/find a cure/fix something so the world can go back to normal type of story, then it'd fit perfectly for them to get into some of the workings of things.

You're completely right, Nate. It wouldn't have added anything to the plot or characters. So if it doesn't do one of those things it's probably driftwood and can easily not be there.

It's called an "Applied Phlebotinum" (pronounced: pl-ot de-vice).

A few answers here:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/pl_inception_nolan/

Thanks for the answers. I would love to answer all the points but I'm not in the mood for an internet argument so I will just finish with this:

I really wanted to like Incpetion, because I like previous Nolan's movies. But this one was too much for me to accept and didn't show anything worth the effort of liking it in the end. For me this movie is like a pretty box that Nolan's describes to be the pretties box ever, but after looking at it I feel that the box isn't the prettiest one. What's worse the box is empty. So I didn't get neither the prettiest box ever, nor anything inside that would compensate for that first fact. So for me Nolan is a douchebage that can't back up what he says with an action. And that self-pride that Nolan has now, radiates from that movie, And it really irritates me because I'm not seeing anything that would justify this self-pride.

This movie for me is empty, and very average. Music is awesome but rest is really hard to be liked by me. Maybe you found in Inception some kind of prize for your time, I didn't. And that pisses me off totally.

You are free to disagree, and say I'm a moron that didn't get the movie. But I won't change my mind. Thank you.

Of course you won't.

at least at that point we agree

Oh, I have a question. Did you like District 9, by any chance?

I didn't see it. I'm planing to watch it in near future.

Shadov. Keep it up, sir.

Inception is pretty good. Like a 40-degree day.

That's in Fahrenheit or Celsius?

F.

A 40F day would be nice right now.

Let me know when you do and what you think of it. Then I can tell you if we can be friends.

QFT

I withdraw my previous statement about The Dark Knight. I just watched Under the Red Hood on Netflix. THAT is the best Batman movie ever.

Looks cool enough.