[cerveza_fiesta]

ah, ok.

Doesn't entirely clear up the childrens' age thing and I realize its supposed to be full-on ambiguous at the end.

It was the only thing I could logically latch onto that would swing it one way or the other, but the way ideas are incepted and developed within the dreams, who the fuck knows if it was even his real kids or their grandpa at all.

I'm happy with it though...the ambiguity didn't feel forced, or stupidly obvious, or left in for the sake of a Shammylan-esque "twist ending". It suited the movie just fine given earlier events and debate on dreams vs. reality and perception etc...

@the movie

One of the best elements in that whole movie was the totem. Its just such a simple and totally logical way of telling whether you're in the dream or not. I liked that they added it in there and actually used it to very good effect throughout to kind of "ground" the viewer in reality along with the characters in the movie. Simple, effective, not dumb or overly cliche.

This movie really reminded me a lot of "what dreams may come" which I think was a robin williams movie, where he goes searching through heaven and hell for his wife....except with way more tasteful and less stupid effects, less religious hokey pokey and a better actor.

Oh yeah, totally dug the little nod to MC Escher with the nevernding staircase thing.

And the entire concept of the projections eventually realizing that there is a foreign body messing with the dream and going all apeshit on the intruder. It made the scene in the bar with Cobb and Fischer super tense...how fischer would start doubting Cobb and everybody turns to look menacingly at cobb, then he talks his way out of it and they all go back to their dinner. The security projections idea was sweet too, so that VIPs can protect themselves even from dream intruders with their own personal army.

One question though with the main dream fuckaroundery when they were trying to plant the goal in Fischer's head to break up the company....did they do it? I kinda lost track there by the end after I was blinded by the awesomeness of the winter battle.

[HoosierDaddy]

Yes, it was successfully implanted. "I'm disappointed you tried to be like me" is what Fischer's father says to him in the vault.

[stone monkey]

Inception.... What to say about it...

Let's start with what I liked:

It looks great, all the technical stuff is very well done. The editing is first rate; I have no idea how people get confused about what went on as the dream levels and relative timings are very well delineated. It's not as dumb as a post; that's not to say it's super smart btw, because it isn't (it seems to think it's being very clever, though - more on that later) but at least it tries to do something with the form. The set pieces are superb, particularly the variable gravity fight scene and Ariadne's dream which are handled extremely well...

Okay, stuff I was a bit meh! about:

Characters (what characters?), they were as one dimensional as they come. All they seemed to be were plot engines, fitted in to make sure the action scenes had someone to happen to. The only two characters I had some liking for were Arthur and Eames and they were the most sketchily drawn of the lot. Ellen Page's Ariadne mumbled her way through proceedings merely backed by a bunch of informed attributes and DiCaprio's Cobb was pretty much defined by frowning a bit, expositing plot and wearing nice suits. And Ken Watanabe's Sato could really have been anyone. Which is a problem as you're supposed to care about these people or the stakes they're playing for don't matter.

The film does try to be very clever and fails at it, anyone who didn't spot that there was going to be an ambiguous ending (which made me giggle at the sheer obviousness of it) must have spent the movie asleep (a difficult prospect as it was extremely loud). tbh I wasn't at all bothered whether it was all a dream in the end or not; the characters hadn't earned my interest in that. Which is something that really bugs me; I like a film that tries to be a puzzle for me to solve but I have to care about the puzzle and it has to be difficult enough for me to be invested in solving it. Neither was the case here.

All in all, it was a noble failure. A popcorn movie with great visuals and just enough intelligence to hold my interest, but certainly not the cinematic and philosophical tour-de-force a lot of people seem to think it is. That's not to say I didn't like it, I did; it was an enjoyable enough three hours or so and I wasn't looking at my watch in that time. But it seemed to lack that spark of innovation or excitement that would have put it up there with the greats. I see a lot of people comparing it to The Matrix, which I don't think is a good comparison to make; that film, despite its many flaws, was a game changer, this one isn't.

[Pig Iron]

Loved it too. Lot's of bits that (are meant to) make you think. Saito says the line about being young together again about halfway into the movie for instance. And the scene with old Saito and Cobb is at the very beginning, is the whole movie except for the very end just a flashback after that, or is something else going on? Is Cobb is stuck in limbo the whole time? Is it possible to find an Escher-stair in the structure of the movie (apart from the circles)? And what about how a movie is constructed, with Nolan as the architect and the watcher as the dreamer

Of course you're not supposed to be able to collapse the whole thing into a single reading, it's more fun the more different ways you can turn it around.

[Gem Windcaster]

Abyss, on 30 July 2010 - 02:56 PM, said:

It's trite to state, but there really is no teling clue that swings the dream/reality debate one way or the other, because Nolan intended it to be ambiguous.

Yes, he's an asshole like that.


@ SM:

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 July 2010 - 10:58 PM

[stone monkey]

Erm... You might want to read that sentence where I said I actually liked it...

Anyhow... This would seem like an appropriate place to put these:

 inception1.jpg (80.12K)
Number of downloads: 0

 inception2.jpg (152.1K)
Number of downloads: 0

 inception3.jpg (72.71K)
Number of downloads: 0

 inception4.png (266.81K)
Number of downloads: 0

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 31 July 2010 - 12:33 PM

[polishgenius]

stone monkey, on 30 July 2010 - 08:30 PM, said:

All in all, it was a noble failure.

I think this sums it up aptly. Okay, it's a failure more accomplished and enjoyable than many successes, but it reached for the stars and didn't get there.

The biggest problems are structural - mostly with the climax. The pacing is one - most of the film is paced pretty slowly and is a simple narrative. That means that when the ending kicks in, the huge amount of stuff causes a lurch in the pace. Not helped by being wonky within itself too - the multi-levels is a clever conceit but I think in the end Nolan reached for too many, and the constant intercutting kept taking me out of the flow of the film.

Then, on rewatching, it became obvious that Nolan lost control of his own narrative - something that I wouldn't have noticed if he hadn't set in place such stringent rules for keeping track of it. It's established that kicks are made on the level below to take someone out of it, but on the final two levels they have kicks for the level they're in. They're also presented as an involuntary reaction, but somehow you can 'miss a kick'. Timeframes seem to roll for convenience of tension in opposition to the actual rules set out before they went in (though I haven't sat down and calculated precisely so I might be wrong there). Then in Limbo, Saito ages, Cobb and Fischer don't, despite Fischer having to be in there as long as either (Cobb can be explained by his experiences in there before, but Fischer doesn't even know what it is).


Also, the ending is made even more annoying by the fact that Cobb's spinner falls twice in the film before - so either reality definitely is reality, Mal's defo dead without questions and only the last scene is potentially a dream, which is pointless, or his totem is unreliable on account of being Mal's originally, meaning that it's irrelevant if the spinner falls in the last scene or not.


For the length of those complaints, though, I do like it a lot. The flaws are just all the more visible against both the strengths here and the glory of Nolan's other work (as a blockbuster thriller, TDK kills it despite its own minor issues, as a tricksy narrative, Memento makes it look both simple and nonsensical) and the works it invites comparison to (like Stone Monkey said, it's not nearly the gamechanger that The Matrix was).


Also: on rewatch, the characters hooked me a lot more. In particular Mal, Saito and Eames. That mostly rested on the acting, mind.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 31 July 2010 - 04:08 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

@SM, you actually said you thought it was a failure. Liking is nothing - hey, I can 'like' the most half ass movie ever created if it entertains me, but you actually said it was a failure. So take another look at the image I posted there...it sums it up perfectly.


I hate it when people analyze something to pieces - something that clearly was the best thing made since [whatever movie you had a life changing experience with].
Why don't you go do your own movie or something, that would be a sight.


Personally I just like enjoying great craftsmanship - because that's what it was. It wasn't the Matrix, but nothing ever will be for me, because that was indeed a life changing experience, and not just because of the movie, but because of the place I was in my life and where I ended up - and because of the other fans that I interacted with. It was like this forum, but x1000 times better and more intense.

For me, Inception is certainly along the same lines as the Matrix, a follower or 'beyond' if you will what that was about. It's about what you as an audience fills the movie with though, that's a similarity to the Matrix, and nothing is forced on you.

Inception is nothing short of brilliant, however these movies can't be perfect in the regular sense, because then they wouldn't be what they are. Dunno if that makes sense, but anyway...

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 31 July 2010 - 09:50 PM

[polishgenius]

Gem Windcaster, on 31 July 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

Why don't you go do your own movie or something, that would be a sight.

Well maybe. But I'm more of a writer than a moviemaker. My brother writes films though, I might end up working with him a bit.

Seriously though, that's a nothing argument. Not making something doesn't invalidate one from critically approaching another.

Quote

I hate it when people analyze something to pieces

This is a film that's explicitly designed to provoke thought and discussion. A laudable aim and one big-budget hollywood doesn't see nearly enough of, but you can't then turn around and say only the positives should be discussed.

Quote

something that clearly was the best thing made since [whatever movie you had a life changing experience with].

It wasn't even the best movie I saw in that week. Toy Story 3 was better, I reckon, though by a slim margin.

Kick-Ass is comfortably the best film I've seen all year though. It's not as clever in its concept, no, but the execution is near-flawless.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 31 July 2010 - 11:17 PM

[stone monkey]

@ Gem

Nope, it doesn't. And here's why:

For a movie to be perfect it has to be able to stand up to analysis. Inception doesn't. And trust me, that wasn't any sort of rigorous analysis, it was merely my first thoughts after viewing. If I were really to try and take it to bits I'd probably have to see it a few more times (which I probably will when it comes out on DVD). I regard it as a failure because it didn't actually succeed in doing what it, so obviously, set out to do. Technical proficiency in a film just isn't enough to make it perfect, after all Transformers 2 was technically proficent despite it being a truly awful film.This doesn't make Inception a bad movie, it's actually a fairly good one, it just means that for me it didn't quite work. Which is fine; you aim for the stars and sometimes you only reach the sky. At least you were aiming for something.

I should also point out that that stating that if I criticise a film I should actually make my own is a fairly glib response to my merely stating my opinion on the piece. And calling me a hater is wrong on a couple of counts as a] I actually liked it (as I said) and b] I have specific reasons for disliking certain things about it.

Now I understand that you like it. That's fine. As I said, those were merely the things I liked and disliked about it. The fact that my interpretation and enjoyment of the movie disagrees with yours just means that we're different people with different criteria for what makes an artististically successful movie. That's also fine. But if we're going to have a movie thread isn't it the right place to examine and analyse movies? Limiting it to comments like "That sucks!" or "It was awesome!" would seem to be both rather shallow and also defeating the purpose of the whole exercise if you ask me...

btw If you want to see a truly ambiguous, dreamlike movie I'd recommend Alain Resnais' and Alain Robbe-Grillet's Last Year At Marienbad; I would expect that it would probably bore you to tears, but it really is a haunting, ferociously intelligent piece of work where the fact that the characters are cyphers actually adds to the effect. It's a film that truly plays with the audience's perception of time, memory and reality. The whole thing would appear to be some sort of formal game played out both within the film and by the film makers. Admittedly, nothing blows up in it, but you can't have everything. And if anyone can tell me what actually happened in that film I'd be truly grateful, I've seen it several times over the last year or so since it was recommended to me by a friend and I still really can't decide whether the man and the woman actually had been lovers the year before...

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 31 July 2010 - 11:43 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

polishgenius, on 31 July 2010 - 10:46 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 31 July 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

Why don't you go do your own movie or something, that would be a sight.

Well maybe. But I'm more of a writer than a moviemaker. My brother writes films though, I might end up working with him a bit.

Seriously though, that's a nothing argument. Not making something doesn't invalidate one from critically approaching another.

I never said I intended it to be an argument, it's an opinion.

polishgenius, on 31 July 2010 - 10:46 PM, said:

Quote

I hate it when people analyze something to pieces

This is a film that's explicitly designed to provoke thought and discussion. A laudable aim and one big-budget hollywood doesn't see nearly enough of, but you can't then turn around and say only the positives should be discussed.

Hah, that's hilarious. Thoughts and discussion. That's really funny. Also, I haven't really read your posts, and I wasn't directing my post at you, so whaddayahwant from me?

polishgenius, on 31 July 2010 - 10:46 PM, said:

Quote

something that clearly was the best thing made since [whatever movie you had a life changing experience with].

It wasn't even the best movie I saw in that week. Toy Story 3 was better, I reckon, though by a slim margin.

That says more about you than it does about the movie, imo. Again, this is cracking me up.

polishgenius, on 31 July 2010 - 10:46 PM, said:

Kick-Ass is comfortably the best film I've seen all year though. It's not as clever in its concept, no, but the execution is near-flawless.

I haven't seen it, so I can't comment. But I sense alot of comedy in that comment too.

stone monkey, on 31 July 2010 - 11:41 PM, said:

@ Gem

Nope, it doesn't. And here's why:

Doesn't what?

stone monkey, on 31 July 2010 - 11:41 PM, said:

For a movie to be perfect it has to be able to stand up to analysis. Inception doesn't. And trust me, that wasn't any sort of rigorous analysis, it was merely my first thoughts after viewing. If I were really to try and take it to bits I'd probably have to see it a few more times (which I probably will when it comes out on DVD). I regard it as a failure because it didn't actually succeed in doing what it, so obviously, set out to do. Technical proficiency in a film just isn't enough to make it perfect, after all Transformers 2 was technically proficent despite it being a truly awful film.This doesn't make Inception a bad movie, it's actually a fairly good one, it just means that for me it didn't quite work. Which is fine; you aim for the stars and sometimes you only reach the sky. At least you were aiming for something.

This must be one of the finest piece of bullshit I've ever seen in written form. No offense, but I don't think the creators of the movie would agree what it was 'set out' to accomplish according to you. You are ofcourse entitled to an opinion, that it wasn't very good or whatever, but that the movie works or not is dependent on the perspective of the viewer and not on some ambiguous analysis. In short, it's subjective. Duh. As you already know. But that wasn't what I meant though- what I was talking about was that you weren't even trying. You are clearly here to simply bash it without further ado, and it's killing the fun for other people. Simple as that.

stone monkey, on 31 July 2010 - 11:41 PM, said:

I should also point out that that stating that if I criticise a film I should actually make my own is a fairly glib response to my merely stating my opinion on the piece. And calling me a hater is wrong on a couple of counts as a] I actually liked it (as I said) and b] I have specific reasons for disliking certain things about it.

Yes, I was intentionally glib. And I think you understand what I meant by using that meme, instead of brooding over the correct wording. Thirdly am I rude if I say that I couldn't care less about your specific reasons for disliking it. For all I know it could mean that it made you reminiscent about how you saw someone murder kittens in your childhood. It doesn't have to have any logical link to how well the movie works or should work for other people. Again, I can't believe I have to state that, it should be obvious.

stone monkey, on 31 July 2010 - 11:41 PM, said:

Now I understand that you like it. That's fine. As I said, those were merely the things I liked and disliked about it. The fact that my interpretation and enjoyment of the movie disagrees with yours just means that we're different people with different criteria for what makes an artististically successful movie. That's also fine. But if we're going to have a movie thread isn't it the right place to examine and analyse movies? Limiting it to comments like "That sucks!" or "It was awesome!" would seem to be both rather shallow and also defeating the purpose of the whole exercise if you ask me...

SO it's okay for you to state your opinion, and comment on others views, but when I comment on your opinion, albeit with a funny picture, I am suddenly being shallow? Really? Maybe my reading your post made me reminiscent about someone murdering kittens... Secondly, calling something a noble failure is not examining and analyzing, it's just bashing. I really do think you know what I meant, so stop pretending you didn't.

stone monkey, on 31 July 2010 - 11:41 PM, said:

btw If you want to see a truly ambiguous, dreamlike movie I'd recommend Alain Resnais' and Alain Robbe-Grillet's Last Year At Marienbad; I would expect that it would probably bore you to tears, but it really is a haunting, ferociously intelligent piece of work where the fact that the characters are cyphers actually adds to the effect. It's a film that truly plays with the audience's perception of time, memory and reality. The whole thing would appear to be some sort of formal game played out both within the film and by the film makers. Admittedly, nothing blows up in it, but you can't have everything. And if anyone can tell me what actually happened in that film I'd be truly grateful, I've seen it several times over the last year or so since it was recommended to me by a friend and I still really can't decide whether the man and the woman actually had been lovers the year before...

Now, there's an interesting piece of post that I totally can dig.

However, coupled with your previous attempts at clever posting, I have to say you come off as a movie snob, and I really don't think you mean that, and you might not even actually be one.

Lastly, you don't have to defend yourself, since I am clearly just having a laugh at your expense. In my experience, movies like Inception is near to impossible to make in a way that reads for everybody. It's not mainstream, and it shouldn't be, not in it's core anyway. I am not talking about the shell, which is really simplistic and most people get the shell. The rest pretty much is up to the audience. You get handed nothing. Maybe not completely in the way the Matrix did - but it comes pretty close. I won't be watching Inception with the same awe or even as many times. But to state that it's a failure accomplishes nothing but show your own personality and hints at your experience in life. I am intrigued.

Also, I believe I have a fundamentally different way of analyzing movies than you SM, that much is clear. Don't take this post or the other too personal. I am just tired of intellectual flippancy attempting to sound clever just so there can be bashing. No, I'm not reading too much into it, I have to use those words to describe what I mean, so please read it again with that in mind.

[teholbeddict]

Gem Windcaster, on 01 August 2010 - 02:43 AM, said:

I am just tired of intellectual flippancy attempting to sound clever just so there can be bashing.

What exactly would you say you've been doing for the last three posts Gem....

[polishgenius]

Gem Windcaster, on 01 August 2010 - 02:43 AM, said:

Hah, that's hilarious. Thoughts and discussion. That's really funny. Also, I haven't really read your posts, and I wasn't directing my post at you, so whaddayahwant from me?

Well yes, I suppose it is quite funny, since your reaction to mine and SM's discussion is 'don't you dare say bad stuff' and insinuations (or actually outright stating it in SM's case) - I'm not actually sure if you're not just winding us up here- that we're immature manchildren just looking for an argument.

Quote

That says more about you than it does about the movie, imo. Again, this is cracking me up.

Quote

I haven't seen it, so I can't comment. But I sense alot of comedy in that comment too.

Well, I suggest you do see it. As craftmanship goes, it's one of the gold standards for big action films. It's not an enormously clever film in terms of subject (though it's got more than it seems at first sight) but the moviemaking is stellar.
Also, you can't comment but you did anyway?

[Silencer]

Far out, will you guys stop the freaking back-and-forth already?

[stone monkey]

@ Silencer, I'll apologise to you in advance for continuing the back and forth. But I did feel it was necessary.

So... What have we learned? That different people enjoy different things about different films; that for some of us the analysis is part of that enjoyment; that it's possible to like a film whilst still holding it to a standard of criticism... Or not. As it would appear.

It would appear that this is one of those films that polarises opinions, which is ironic as everyone does appear to like it. The polarisation would appear to be around whether it's The Greatest Film Ever^tm or whether it's merely quite a good one with several flaws. I fall in the latter camp, but it's horses for courses I guess.

Okay, some other things I liked:

The meta stuff with Marion Cotillard and the musical cues was quite well handled. The music thing puts me in mind of that part in 8mm when the score reverses as Nic Cage's character starts looking back through his research material (possibly the only interesting thing about that particular film)

Some other stuff I didn't like:

The exposition was rather clumsily handled. The film was also rather clumsily direct in parts where it could have just hinted for better effect.

As for the charge that I'm a film snob: isn't everyone? We all have films we like, we all have films we despise. And we all have criteria for telling the difference between the two. Part of the point of discussing films is finding out where other people draw the line. Universal acclaim or opprobrium is pretty dull, and it's also somewhat unrealistic to expect it. Most films, like this one, fall somewhere inbetween.

That said, it's only a movie. Whether it entertains you or not is for the individual to decide. Getting personally offended because someone disagrees with your assessment seems to me to be an excessive overreaction. And the purpose of threads like this is for people to come together and state their cases either way. Politely.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 01 August 2010 - 12:43 PM

[Thelomen Toblerone]

I think you're all forgetting the most important part of the whole film. Who cares if it was good or bad, the crucial thing is that the suits were FUCKING AWESOME. And I do so love a good suit.

[stone monkey]

Well they were dream suits...

[Beezulbubba]

http://www.esquire.c...on-suits-072910

[Gem Windcaster]

polishgenius, on 01 August 2010 - 09:26 AM, said:

Quote

I haven't seen it, so I can't comment. But I sense alot of comedy in that comment too.

Well, I suggest you do see it. As craftmanship goes, it's one of the gold standards for big action films. It's not an enormously clever film in terms of subject (though it's got more than it seems at first sight) but the moviemaking is stellar.
Also, you can't comment but you did anyway?

That wasn't a comment on the movie, it was a comment on your comment.

stone monkey, on 01 August 2010 - 12:37 PM, said:

@ Silencer, I'll apologise to you in advance for continuing the back and forth. But I did feel it was necessary.

So... What have we learned? That different people enjoy different things about different films; that for some of us the analysis is part of that enjoyment; that it's possible to like a film whilst still holding it to a standard of criticism... Or not. As it would appear.

It would appear that this is one of those films that polarises opinions, which is ironic as everyone does appear to like it. The polarisation would appear to be around whether it's The Greatest Film Ever^tm or whether it's merely quite a good one with several flaws. I fall in the latter camp, but it's horses for courses I guess.

Okay, some other things I liked:

The meta stuff with Marion Cotillard and the musical cues was quite well handled. The music thing puts me in mind of that part in 8mm when the score reverses as Nic Cage's character starts looking back through his research material (possibly the only interesting thing about that particular film)

Some other stuff I didn't like:

The exposition was rather clumsily handled. The film was also rather clumsily direct in parts where it could have just hinted for better effect.

As for the charge that I'm a film snob: isn't everyone? We all have films we like, we all have films we despise. And we all have criteria for telling the difference between the two. Part of the point of discussing films is finding out where other people draw the line. Universal acclaim or opprobrium is pretty dull, and it's also somewhat unrealistic to expect it. Most films, like this one, fall somewhere inbetween.

That said, it's only a movie. Whether it entertains you or not is for the individual to decide. Getting personally offended because someone disagrees with your assessment seems to me to be an excessive overreaction. And the purpose of threads like this is for people to come together and state their cases either way. Politely.

Who said anything about getting offended? I was annoyed, but not by your opinion per se, it's more about you using a bazooka when you could have used an usp. I think your 'failure' comment is definitely an overreaction, but each to his own, right. Also I think your comment about politeness is quite rude.

I would probably agree with you on most of your criticism about the movie, just like I agree with some criticism directed at the Matrix sequels, which to this day remain the greatest movie experience in my life despite the criticism. Inception was a great experience, despite that there could have been improvements - there is always room for improvement. There will always be someone out there that thought for instance The Godfather was boring.


Meh, I don't even know why I am here. *sigh* Haters gonna hate. It's the way things are.

- Gem, thought Joseph Gordon-Levitt was freaking hot in a suit, and generally speaking too. Also, bazookas are cool.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 01 August 2010 - 05:20 PM

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Gem Windcaster, on 30 July 2010 - 10:54 PM, said:

Abyss, on 30 July 2010 - 02:56 PM, said:

It's trite to state, but there really is no teling clue that swings the dream/reality debate one way or the other, because Nolan intended it to be ambiguous.

Yes, he's an asshole like that.


@ SM:

A clue to it all being a dream perhaps: Did anyone notice the stamp Cobb got in his passport at the end of the movie? Looked like two arrows in a circle with a line through it...like the drawing Cobb makes in the first shared dream with Ariadne...

Gem Windcaster, on 01 August 2010 - 05:19 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 01 August 2010 - 09:26 AM, said:

Quote

I haven't seen it, so I can't comment. But I sense alot of comedy in that comment too.

Well, I suggest you do see it. As craftmanship goes, it's one of the gold standards for big action films. It's not an enormously clever film in terms of subject (though it's got more than it seems at first sight) but the moviemaking is stellar.
Also, you can't comment but you did anyway?

That wasn't a comment on the movie, it was a comment on your comment.

stone monkey, on 01 August 2010 - 12:37 PM, said:

@ Silencer, I'll apologise to you in advance for continuing the back and forth. But I did feel it was necessary.

So... What have we learned? That different people enjoy different things about different films; that for some of us the analysis is part of that enjoyment; that it's possible to like a film whilst still holding it to a standard of criticism... Or not. As it would appear.

It would appear that this is one of those films that polarises opinions, which is ironic as everyone does appear to like it. The polarisation would appear to be around whether it's The Greatest Film Ever^tm or whether it's merely quite a good one with several flaws. I fall in the latter camp, but it's horses for courses I guess.

Okay, some other things I liked:

The meta stuff with Marion Cotillard and the musical cues was quite well handled. The music thing puts me in mind of that part in 8mm when the score reverses as Nic Cage's character starts looking back through his research material (possibly the only interesting thing about that particular film)

Some other stuff I didn't like:

The exposition was rather clumsily handled. The film was also rather clumsily direct in parts where it could have just hinted for better effect.

As for the charge that I'm a film snob: isn't everyone? We all have films we like, we all have films we despise. And we all have criteria for telling the difference between the two. Part of the point of discussing films is finding out where other people draw the line. Universal acclaim or opprobrium is pretty dull, and it's also somewhat unrealistic to expect it. Most films, like this one, fall somewhere inbetween.

That said, it's only a movie. Whether it entertains you or not is for the individual to decide. Getting personally offended because someone disagrees with your assessment seems to me to be an excessive overreaction. And the purpose of threads like this is for people to come together and state their cases either way. Politely.

Who said anything about getting offended? I was annoyed, but not by your opinion per se, it's more about you using a bazooka when you could have used an usp. I think your 'failure' comment is definitely an overreaction, but each to his own, right. Also I think your comment about politeness is quite rude.

I would probably agree with you on most of your criticism about the movie, just like I agree with some criticism directed at the Matrix sequels, which to this day remain the greatest movie experience in my life despite the criticism. Inception was a great experience, despite that there could have been improvements - there is always room for improvement. There will always be someone out there that thought for instance The Godfather was boring.


Meh, I don't even know why I am here. *sigh* Haters gonna hate. It's the way things are.

- Gem, thought Joseph Gordon-Levitt was freaking hot in a suit, and generally speaking too. Also, bazookas are cool.

Indeed!