[Requiem]

Okay guys, it's time to talk about Inception. I saw this a week or two ago and it seemed like a pretty interesting idea, but some parts of the film were lost on me. Some might say my mind is too simple for such a film - possible! But I think we could hash out some potential theories and explanations if anyone has seen it.

[Red]

I saw this. I liked it. I didn't think it was that hard to follow, honestly. Though they did leave a lot of room for interpretation, as a dream should. What were your guy's thoughts on the ending?

Spoiler

While they left it vague enough for it go either way, the fact that it started toppling over at all indicates to me that he was in reality.

[Sway]

Agree with your spoiler, Red. For more reasons than just that, even, but I like letting people interpret it themselves.

Very few directors have been able to consistently outdo themselves with each subsequent film they put on their resume. I think one of those directors, however, happens to be Christoper Nolan. Inception is, in my amateur opinion, his Magnum Opus amongst an impressive body of work.

It's easy for me to consider this film as the quintessential example of how the culmination of experience over a series of multiple movies can be pooled together to make something truly great. Every aspect of the film feels polished and well crafted; from the grandiose scale of the unique narrative concept and its execution, to the very personal and emotive characters brought to life by a handful of superb actors.

One of the most significant takeaways from this film, aside from the understanding of it being made up of multiple narratives happening at once (among other things), is an action set-piece that takes place in a hotel hallway, but in a completely zero gravity environment, without the use of any major computer effects. Chris Nolan has shown audiences the beauty of practicality with The Dark Knight (flipping a semi-truck) and does so again here but with the wow-factor and jaw-dropping effect scaled exponentially. Arthur's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) fight sequences in the zero-G hotel hallway were pure spectacle, movie magic at its finest, and arguably the most interestingly filmed action sequences in a long time.

That said, this movie could have actually been so, so much more, if Nolan wanted it to be. In the beginning of the movie, Ellen page warps a city around itself, blows up an entire city block, molds and changes the landscape on the fly, and generally does some pretty cool shit... and then that's sort of it. In the beginning of the movie, my mind was reeling with all the things they could do in a dream world with only loosely defined rules. I wound up being just a bit disappointed with this aspect of the movie. Other than a few M.C. Escher-esque staircase tricks,and the aforementioned zero-G scene, most of the dreamscapes were 100% predefined, and seemingly unmodifiable by the characters (although the grenade launcher out of nowhere confuses this a bit for me). I know they explained this away by saying that changing things would tip off the dreamer that they were dreaming, but I think that's a cop out, as they also said that people tend to accept anything in the dream and only later realize that it might not have been real.

Then there's the scientific explanations that seemed a little dumb to me, like time slowing down exponentially in multiple dream levels even though the human mind can only work so fast, and that a sedative can send you to a limbo of the mind that can't be easily broken. But, I understand that those were vital to the plot.

Comparisons to The Matrix are inevitable, and I'd argue that The Matrix did more with the concept of an open and modifiable world, and it did it better.

But, that doesn't mean this isn't a great movie, and a treat for the mind; the flaws are minor in an otherwise riveting experience. The story is compelling, the direction and cinematography are phenomenal (except in the snow world, where things got a little muddy), the score was outstanding, and I'll definitely see Inception again. It does what it set out to do, even if I think the concept could be pushed farther.

[Requiem]

Your summary is ridiculously better than mine was. I was intending to post about a few things I found somewhat confusing or unexplained, but hopefully when I get a little more time. Stay tuned!

[Kvitne]

I agree with Req, very eloquent summary Sway. I also agree with Red's analysis of the ending, and I feel that was the best way to end it. Going either way wouldn't have had the same effect as the ending Nolan chose.

One thing that hasn't been discussed is the theories involving the movie being a metaphor for movie making. I like these a lot, because they seem to be fairly plausible. I can't do the concept justice with my own description, but basically the characters on Cobb's team are different parts of the movie making team. Cobb's the director who takes charge of what happens in the dream, Arthur's the producer who scouts out locations and does background research, Ariadne is the screenwriter who constructs the worlds, Eames is the actor who takes on different faces during the dream (he even sits in front of a vanity mirror in the movie), Saito's the big money behind the film, and Fischer is the audience who is influenced by what is going on in the film/dream. Mal could also be seen as the director's personal experiences and such effecting the film, and if this were true it would seem that Nolan doesn't feel this is a good thing.

I'm really not doing the concept justice, so here's a link to an article that more aptly describes it: http://chud.com/arti...TION/Page1.html

[Sway]

That's interesting in a very meta way, although I don't really like that interpretation.

Another Inception tidbit:

[Kvitne]

Oh yeah! I saw that a few days ago. Really cool stuff.