Inception

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheUsualSuspect
  • Start date Start date
I've seen the movie five times in theaters and I think your ideas were pretty solid, except I'm not sure about these parts:

I am then bugged by the question of how Cobb ends up washed up on the shore. I presume it's because he died from drowning in the van? I like to think this, as we see Cobb seatbelted down (yes, I just made that verb up, I think) in the van and then a direct cut to him washing up on shore. I thus assume this signifies the drowning in the van, meaning that Cobb died in a dream while under heavy sedation which would mean that he is plunged into limbo.

Cobb and Ariadne voluntarily went into limbo, then Ariadne left and Cobb stayed back to find Saito. They were on the snow fortress level and used the machine to put them to sleep, sending them to limbo, because they wanted to find and rescue Fischer. That whole resolution between Mal and Cobb in their house took place in limbo. Mal was shot here, Cobb was stabbed here, and he came to terms with his guilt and let her go here. So I'm not sure how he would have plunged into limbo, since he was already there.

But I never thought that maybe he died 'again' when he drowned in the van, and sent his subconscious back to the start of limbo, on the shores. Maybe he was looking for Saito in limbo, and concurrently drowning in Yusuf's dream. Then when he died, he just reappeared on the shores of the subconscious as if he just got there. This also may account for the age different between he and Saito. Saito died a while ago in the snow fortress dream, and seemingly decades in limbo. Cobb just died in Yusuf's dream and went straight to limbo. Basically, we saw his entire time there. He washed up on the shore, the guards took him to Saito, he ate at his table, Saito shot him and woke him up. It may not have mattered that he was already in limbo for so long because he essentially 'started over' when he died.

Then he persuades Saito to take the leap, i.e. shoot himself, in order to return to reality. Cobb must've realised that the other levels had collapsed by now, which means that if you kill yourself in limbo, you go straight back into reality, much like Cobb and Mal already did.

I never even thought of the other dreams collapsing factor. That makes sense. So then did shooting themselves immediately wake them up on the plane, or did they linger somewhere between dreams until the timer went off. Because I thought the only way of waking up from the highest level was through the timer, and clearly everyone else used it. But since everyone on the plane woke up about the same time, I assume the timer awoke everyone. Do you think maybe when Cobb and Saito were in limbo staring at each other across the table they had a profound revelation and understood the nature of the dreamworld, so when they shot themselves, they immediately woke up to reality?

All of this makes a lot of sense, but I still think we're reaching beyond things Nolan presented in the film. I want definitive evidence of why things happened the way they did. But maybe this just isn't that type of movie.

Still, great ideas Brodinski.
 
But it doesn't "denigrate the might of human intelligence" to say that one could trick someones subconscious into revealing secret ideas? I don't think it's a big stretch to go from buying into the idea that the subconscious could be tricked in this way to buying into the idea that the subconscious could be trained into guarding against such trickery.

Maybe I just don't have as much faith in human intelligence as you.
 
Yes, but the point is why is "militarization" the only line of defense? It's a dream, therefore limitless, so why aren't there pink elephants with laser beam eyes or any zillion other elements other than guys in suits with guns? Could nobody in that narrative involved in constructing dreams get beyond The Matrix? There's only the one thing that is really different: the freight train that comes in the middle of the street in the first level of the dream. So why aren't there more differences like that instead of more and more guys with guns? Once the suspected "intruders" of the dream have been identified, why don't the walls just collapse and crush them or fire materialize out of thin air to burn them to crisps? Even with militarization, once the armed defenses realize that they are being shot at as a countermeasure, why don't they turn into bulletproof robots or have invisible force shields? Obviously the answer is a bit of a cheat, to give the dream characters a fighting chance, but armed operatives with no aim who are felled by one single shot by the dream warriors is hardly much of a defense, is it? As the one character says as he ups the size of his armament a bit, "dream bigger". The guys with guns part definitely got very repetitive for me, as well. The train out of nowhere and the anti-gravity hotel are by far the most interesting bits, and that's because they're not more of the well-dressed Keystone Cops.



The movie definitely works despite these holes, but they are a flaw in imagination and a bit of a narrative cheat.

I think.
 
Wow, these conversations are getting as deep as the film itself. I wouldn't even know where to jump into the conversation because I am having a hard enough time digesting the movie as a whole in the first place and to try to break it down at this moment would totally blow my mind out of the water. I think I need to see this film at least one more time to get a harder grasp on it.
 
some minor spoilers in the last paragraph

I saw Inception again today, and I now feel comfortable writing some thoughts down after I mopped up the drool and picked up my jaw.

Inception is not a lot of things. It's not a psychological examination into the subconscious nor is it a complex character study. So don't expect it to be one. Instead, the film aspires to be a mindbending adventure heist film set in the realms of dreams and in this regard, the film is flawless. With jawdropping and visceral sequences, it not only engages the intellect but also the emotions as it deals with guilt and loss and being haunted by your past. In its own right, it's a masterpiece.

Inception was filled with great performances. Not DiCaprio's best but very solid. I was once again shocked by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. This kid is full of talent. Cillian Murphy stood out as well, in my book.

The vocal and physical reaction Cobb (DiCaprio) abrubtly shrieks into after his wife Mal (Cotillard) jumps from the multi-story window really stuck with me as one of those great moments Leo has in all of his films. Another favorite scene was Fischer speaking with his projection of his dying father in the safe room vault - this was another moment that gave me chills.

I give Inception no less than a perfect 4/4 stars.
 
Went and saw this last night and wasn't terribly impressed. I thought it was a little over long. And the big "twist" at the very end of the film was so ridiculously predictable even I could see it coming. I thought it unnecessary and pointless.

I completely agree with Christine and will be interested to hear other MoFo's views after a repeated viewing or two. I know I'm not in a huge hurry to see it again.

Holden made a reference to the old A-Team television show in his review. I couldn't agree more. All we really needed at the end was for Cobb to wake up and give us Hannibal's trademark line.

Anywho... [rating]3[/rating]
 
Yeah, that's my way of accounting for the age difference. Cobb was already in limbo, but then drowned in Yusuf's van, causing him to replunge into limbo but in a different location, namely the shore in front of Saito's feudal palace. Of course, Cobb could've also died when the snow fortress was blown up, but I just made the link between drowning and washing up on shore + the fact that the film cuts from Cobb drowning in the van to washing up on shore.




I think the others were woken up by the timer. But I do not believe that Cobb and Saito were awoken by it. As I already said, I think the other levels collapsed, meaning that limbo is now the sole remaining level. Cobb and Mal already got out of it by killing themselves, so why should this be any different for Cobb and Saito?

Another theory could be that other rules apply for limbo. Cobb said that if you get killed in a level when under heavy sedation, you get plunged into limbo, this being unconstructed dream space OR the dream space of whomever of the party has been there for the longest period of time (i.e. Cobb). But does this rule also apply for limbo? I thought that Cobb mentioned that the only way to get out of limbo was by killing yourself. Seeing as Cobb built limbo (together with Mall) he must've realised he was in it and then asked Saito to take a leap of faith with him.

Too many theories and ideas are still circulating in my mind though. I'm unable to draw up any definitive conclusions.

Thanks btw for the quick reply C&W
 
Awesome movie. Interesting that there's a small class of people that didn't care for it.
 
Action scenes ? Action movie ? I would take that question up with someone who didn't like it. Dicaprio shooting guys and sliding on knees to catch them is awesome.
 
Yall just didn't "get" the shooting in Inception.

Yeah, I'd have to say that the car chases and the snow shootout were really unnecessary--extra clutter--especially the second time when you KNOW that it's pointless. The 0-G fights were very impressive in the same way the action in the original Matrix was impressive. The Matrix was far better in integrating action into the concept. Inception had a start-stop action kind of feel. "Time fur sum action nao lolz". Not to say that this really affects the rest of the film, but if it was all gone I would not miss it.

I don't think the Mombasa chase was "necessary" to the ambiguity as some claim, in that, if these were projections of the unconscious, there would have been many more, and they would have relentless.

The cinematography was below par for Nolan's perrenial Wally Pfister IMO. The non 0-G action scenes especially were very poorly composed. I did like the clever use of rack focus for most of the closing airport shots. All the effects shots were perfect however, and, seeing as there was much more focus on these shots, it's understandable.

Perhaps the best Nolan script since Memento. Not as good a film as TDK or The Prestige by any means.
 
But Fischer's subconscious only populates the maze with its projections. The maze itself is in the mind of one of the team members and so Fischer's ability to manipulate that environment is limited. The freight train was brought into the equation by Cobb's twisted subconscious, just it was his subconscious that brought his wife in.

I'll agree that part of it, too, is that the characters have to be given a fighting chance but I think a big part of it is that the audience has to believe the world just as much as Fischer has to believe it. Yes, this is taking place in a dream, but it still must have some basis in reality or there's not much sense of actual danger. I think, even in dreams, you can only expect so much suspension of disbelief from the audience.
 
Yes, but what good is the training if all it's good for is armed guys who can't hit anything? If the training can't make your subconscious any more effective than that, then he needs to get a refund. Yes, the two great bits in the final dream assault, being the train and the anti-gravity hotel, have NOTHING to do with Fischer's defenses. So then what's the big challenge? They can morph into other projections and do what they want when it helps get them out of a corner they've painted themselves into, but not when it can logically throw up legitimate defenses.



That's the problem with such movies, setting limits on the limitless. Why are his defenses just inept soldiers? The only answer the movie gives you on any kind of examination is, "because", like a ten-year-old playing with his action figures. The movie is very clever in lots of ways and a treat visually, but it isn't as deep as it pretends and certainly not airtight. That's the point.




Even in Inception's dreams, maybe.
 
Inception
Christopher Nolan, 2010



Christopher Nolan has done it yet again with his seventh feature film, Inception. Nolan first truly original film might be his greatest yet; maybe he should stick to original ideas in the future. To me this seems as like a cross between the intelligent storytelling of Memento mixed with the look of The Dark Knight. The film really does make you question reality, because it goes so deep into the concept of a dream; and as the film goes on you just go deeper and deeper into the dream. The whole storyline is just so incredibly done. I find it hard to believe that anyone could even think an idea like this up and somehow make it work. There is nothing quite like it.

Of course DiCaprio shines from start to finish, this actually might be one of the most emotionally challenging roles that I
 
I get it. It's impolite to derep someone, but the option is there. Just like how the Japanese are allowed 40 days of vacation, but you're considered a jerk if you ever take more than 20. I get it: metarules.

And to Genesis Pig: I'd criticize the action in any film. It's a film, not an action film. If you want to allow all kinds of concessions to a film just because it's marketed a certain way then fine. Don't stop me from criticizing action films. I wouldn't criticize the action in something like Transformers because it's new, something to see. Awful, awful film, but the action was not dull. Not to say that you've got to be new all the time, but Inception just felt very old all of a sudden when the action scenes came in--save for the 0-G, that was exhilarating--the rest was pointless, depressing almost. Inception's concept is brilliant and exciting because its so original. The strange choice to fill it with a lot of action totally destroyed a lot of the tension for me. The second time around was even worse. You just don't care about what's happening at all. What Nolan could have done was stylize the aggressive projections more so they could have been almost "satirical" figures since killing them is basically no more than getting past a locked door. They could have been almost funny like archetypes from James Bond films. Redshirts, if you will. He took them too seriously for me to take them seriously.

I basically hate all action films anyways. Nolan has been the only director to do them well. This time he failed in action though. The rest of the movie was wonderful, but we've got to look at the work as a whole.

Feel free to derep. I won't consider it impolite.
 
Yeah, I agree. Watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service to see it done, much much much better.
 
Because it's his subconscious, and nobody's subconscious associates random things like pink elephants with laser beam eyes with the concept of "defense." I'd say, to a person, the first images that word conjures for any of us deep down would be some variation on guys with guns, or a fortress, or any of the other things that we do, in fact, see in Inception.

I get what you're on about, and I'm not unsympathetic to it, but I think the key here is to remember that this isn't his conscious mind. He doesn't have control over it. It does things on its own, so it can't do calculating things like flatten whatever building the good guys are in. It's nebulous, sure, but then again, so is the subconscious.


This complaint I can understand a good deal more; the projections are annoyingly incompetent at times. That said, it's clearly better than nothing, and even at that level of effectiveness it probably makes sense for the titans of industry to have it done in a world where psychological corporate espionage is a possibility.

I also really like meatwad's explanation that their effectiveness reflects Fischer's state of mind, as well as Fiscal's points that they did manage a thing or two. They were ineffective more in terms of efficiency, or ratio of bullets fired to targets hit...but as a swarm they got things done eventually, and I think we can presume they would have overwhelmed the good guys if things had gone on much longer.

What I really would have liked to have seen are the good guys using genuine creativity to outsmart the more predictable projections. This would explain why they're able to withstand the assault so well and dovetail perfectly with the film's recurring themes about the raw power of inspiration. It fits so well I'm kind of stunned it wasn't employed in this manner.
 
Why would I derep you for your own personal views.. What you have stated are your own personal views..
Just the same you feel Godfather is overrated among other things... they are your own personal views.. not necessarily wrong or right..
You are just talking about how the movie should have been according to you.. So I would never derep someone for sharing their own personal views.

The movie is making its money, plus getting good reviews... lots of fans already..
So I think Nolan did an awesome job!!... He did everything right..
 
Back
Top