Checked out the sci-fi masterpiece that is Inception?

[Never_Scurred]

Whoaaaaaaaaaaa.....Memento was brilliant?

Its a good movie, I own the SE disc, but I can guarantee you nobody was calling it brilliant or considering Insomnia a good movie until Dark Knight blew up. Now all the sudden Nolan has and can do no wrong. Please, fanboys. The Dark Knight wasn't even that good of a movie. The Watchmen beasted that movie last year in every way. Saw Inception and its cool visually, and had some really awesome moments, but would I watch it again or consider it the best movie i've seen this year....HELL NO. Joseph Gordon-Hewitt should have been the lead character IMO.
Nolan is still a hack director. If I recall, he needed the Batman franchise, the Batman franchise didn't need him.

[Skykid]

All true shit.

Nice to know I'm not alone with my views.

Like I said, different people have different levels of perception. Some are easily pleased, others want something more.
That's all it boils down to.

[Never_Scurred]

And to the idea of Inception being a thinking man's movie-GTFOH with that shit, its a simple, basic big budget hollywood story dressed up with some interesting yet not-fully-realized ideas. You read beneath the surface and allow yourself to be fooled into thinking this is a high concept sci fi film. Seriously, the hyperbolic cocksuckage this movie is getting is about as ridiculous as the someone trying to convince me that The Dark Knight was a thinking man's superhero movie (this really happened, I lol'd). If that was the case, then what the hell was Batman Begins, eh? I recall that movie thoroughly sucking inside and out, but at the time, you could say that and not get very much argument.

[Skykid]

And to the idea of Inception being a thinking man's movie-GTFOH with that shit, its a simple, basic big budget hollywood story dressed up with some interesting yet not-fully-realized ideas. You read beneath the surface and allow yourself to be fooled into thinking this is a high concept sci fi film. Seriously, the hyperbolic cocksuckage this movie is getting is about as ridiculous as the someone trying to convince me that The Dark Knight was a thinking man's superhero movie.

Brilliant.

Although I'm sure there's something movie related we'd probably disagree on, we're pretty much in sync at the moment.

This thread's suddenly gone quiet too...

[CMoon]

Never_Scurred> OMG, someone with a different opinion than me...

I think I've referred to both Inception and TDK as thinking man's films, and it's OK to disagree with me. The problem I think you're going to run into is what the alternative is. Are there _no_ thinking man's films? Do we have to be talking about sci-fi movies in the caliber of Tarkovsky's Stalker to qualify? I would argue that this is a thinking man's film, and its all the action that's dressing to get the average movie goer in. It isn't as though the plot can easily be deciphered, and that there's any one correct interpretation.

I think maybe you need to develop your argument more than just telling people you liked these films to GTFO. I completely understand your perspective--personally I thought the Matrix and Fight Club were both overblown pieces of shit, but if I want to make that argument other than just drooling all over the internet, I actually would need to make a concise argument.

Ebert has a review up (as usual) where he explains in detail about why Inception is actually a good movie. It is of course an opinion, but it is a well explained and defended opinion. That would be a good place to start instead of just jumping up peoples' butts with your opinion.

[Never_Scurred]

When I got home from Inception, I looked on IMDB and laughed at all the shit people were reading into this flick. Maybe perhaps I tend to take films at face value upon first viewing, but apart from the visuals (which were stunning, btw) and Joseph Gordon-Hewitt's performance, I really did not come away with the deep interpretations that other people did. I just think that sometimes people try to read things into films to make them seem more than what they are, both filmmakers and the audience are guilty of this (see Donnie Darko).
As far as thinking man movies go, you could apply that to any movie if you tried hard enough to find some sort of deeper meaning to the story. My cousin made the case to me that Willie Dynamite was an allegory on free market economics or some shit like that. I always saw it as a really great pimp movie starring the guy from Sesame Street.
Like most things that get overhyped, I just can't buy into the notion that these two films are anything more than what they are-blockbuster hollywood entertainment. Nor do I buy the "Nolan is GOD!" nonsense propagated all over the web. The man made a *supposedly* great movie with Dark Knight. That does not retroactively upgrade his previous films or reputation.

[Skykid]

That would be a good place to start instead of just jumping up peoples' butts with your opinion.

It may be fielded a little heavy handedly, but the thing is he's actually correct in what he's saying.

A 'thinking man's film', isn't a film that's purely defined by having an 'out there' premise - any punk can dream up a zany plot, plageurise a novel and get a brainfuck of superb special effects on the screen. Movies with intellectual sub narratives tend to have subtelties that swim beneath the surface, rather than have a festival on the surface itself.

You could argue that 'A Touch of Evil' is a thinking mans film. It doesn't have any huge meandering twists, it's just an unravelling noir murder mystery - but it's the psychology of the central character that makes the film so brilliant. It's that character's behaviour (and Welles performance) right up until the last scene that lends the film great depth.

You can stick sensational sci-fi in the faces of your audience until they truly believe that, because it features mind-bending ideas and visuals to match, that it must be some really deep shit.

The truth is that's rarely the case. I'm sure Inception is an enjoyable watch, but it's not worth an essay - it doesn't have the credentials for that.

None of this is to say that commercial movies are by default devoid of having any credibility, completely the opposite. In the hands of the right director, films like The Thing, An American Werewolf in London and the aforementioned Moon all manage to elevate themselves beyond the throwaway.

Nolan has no depth, he just has competent surface ability. If that's all you need from a movie, then he's definitely the man for the job.

[Never_Scurred]

I completely understand your perspective--personally I thought the Matrix and Fight Club were both overblown pieces of shit,

I had the opposite reaction to the Matrix when it came out. Even though I knew jack shit about theology and philosophy, my initial reaction was, "Well damn, someone actually went and made an intelligent action flick. I can fuck with this". After doing a little bit of reading on both those topics between revisits of the Matrix, I could see that my impression was justified even though I did not take it to the level of geek-worship that the rest of the internet did. That, is what I consider a thinking man's movie.
As far as Fight Club is concerned, Boo that shit, mayne. This did it better....

[Skykid]

After doing a little bit of reading on both those topics between revisits of the Matrix, I could see that my impression was justified even though I did not take it to the level of geek-worship that the rest of the internet did. That, is what I consider a thinking man's movie.

I'd call it 'though provoking', and leave it at that.

[CMoon]

I'll try to deal with this one thing at a time:

--Skykid: It would really help if you actually had seen the film. It's really hard not to use the 'You're out of your element' line here...

--Touch of Evil is a thinking man's film, especially the restored version, since you are left with the fact that Quinlan is basically the good guy but in a tragic Shakespearian sense.

--Opinions on IMDB: I never let that shit bother me. Honestly I feel people are strongly biased one way or another in regards to this film because of public opinion. Everytime I read IMDB I wish I hadn't. Have your own opinion, but at least be able to explain why. If Inception is a shallow cookie cutter plot and people are just too dumb to see it, at least explain why you think this is the case.

--Matrix? Either of you two grow up reading science fiction? I thought Matrix was just a very shallow reading of P.K. Dick. Not to say Inception is an amazing reading of similar material, but it feels as though it was executed better. Seriously, if you are shitting all over Inception, Matrix better not be more than compost in your mind or you have some serious personal inconsistencies to deal with. The real problem with being sci-fi literate is it's always going to be hard to be impressed by Sci-Fi movies. For myself, I 1) just can't stand Keaneu (sp?), 2) Thought the messiah plot was dumb as hell and led to some of the worst moments in the film, 3) was arguable an action film with sci-fi service, not the other way around (Inception & Children of Men). I want to like this film but the last 20 minutes kill the movie for me.
------Matrix (theology and philosophy): Actually, I had read quite a bit of that stuff and it's another reason I continue to NOT like this movie. I don't feel like the creators understood the material well enough and instead went for the pop-culture angle and touched on just enough topics to make somebody think there was something there. This is clearly about the same attitude you have toward Inception, but I'm curious why.

Relativism: I agree, every movie could be called deep. A lot of people think Matrix is deep--and this is an excellent point. No arguing it isn't for some people. But can't we agree when a film has multiple readings and interpretations it is deeper than a film with one correct interpretation. Which do you think is a deeper film? Predator or Rashomon. I picked these two because I like both movies, but don't you think one is a little brainer than the other? Do you think it is very clear which one is brainier?

Nolan is God: Personally? I don't think so. I liked TDK and Inception more than his other films, but also really enjoyed Begins and Memento. I think rather he is a good director at a time when there aren't many good directors. I don't think he is afraid to make films that challenge the audience, and I think that's partly why people are praising him.

Depth: You (Skykid) started an argument that Nolan's films don't have depth but films like Moon, The Thing, American Werewolf in London do have depth. Personally I think each of these films have their own kind of depth, but you've set up the dichotomy, please explain.

Anyway, sorry for going on and on, but it took a while to get to all your different arguments. Hopefully someone else jumps in too.

[Skykid]

--Skykid: It would really help if you actually had seen the film. It's really hard not to use the 'You're out of your element' line here...

I agree, I'm basing my assumptions purely on his track record and what I consider to be a reliable source who has seen it, which is unfair. I apologise for that.

--Matrix? Either of you two grow up reading science fiction? I thought Matrix was just a very shallow reading of P.K. Dick.

I'd even say that was paying it too much credence. It took me a long time to stop hating The Matrix and at least admit it was entertaining on a superficial level.

Relativism: I agree, every movie could be called deep. A lot of people think Matrix is deep--and this is an excellent point. No arguing it isn't for some people. But can't we agree when a film has multiple readings and interpretations it is deeper than a film with one correct interpretation. Which do you think is a deeper film? Predator or Rashomon. I picked these two because I like both movies, but don't you think one is a little brainer than the other? Do you think it is very clear which one is brainier?

Depth: You (Skykid) started an argument that Nolan's films don't have depth but films like Moon, The Thing, American Werewolf in London do have depth. Personally I think each of these films have their own kind of depth, but you've set up the dichotomy, please explain.

The two points above are one and the same of course. I actually don't think you need me to explain as I think you've already grasped the concept by highlighting Predator and Rashomon as two radically different but equally stimulating movies - but what the hell, may as well talk it up.

It's not really a dichotomy at all (at least not to me,) because I don't identify the same kind of errors in consistency in something like The Thing or AWIL, or even Predator that crop up in Nolan's movies.
Film doesn't need to be complex to be accomplished. For instance, you can make an action movie where a bunch of loud mouthed mercs head into the South American jungle and get stalked by an invisible alien as long as it's handled consistently and executed properly. Predator is one of the better action movies of the 80's because McTiernan was well aware of the fiction, but dedicated to taking it absolutely seriously (the film-making that is, not the one-liners.)

Nolan's films are full of frustrating errors that detract from the quality of the experience. Like I said, I'm not pinning him in the 'worst director' category - at least he chooses original subject matter and fresh angles. But the parts don't usually make a great sum.
For instance, The Prestige was ridiculously mis-shapen and full of problems. Overly long and dogged by implausibility at every turn, it featured Christian Bale in his most limited, single expression performance to date, playing opposite the worst female actress ever to make it to the screen, whilst Hugh Jackman battled both his accent and the dialogue around it, and David Bowie...(we'll just not talk about that). There was a glaring error that really stuck out in that movie too: it's set in period Britain, but Nolan ignored that entirely. If you watch it, for instance during the exchanges between Bale and the English chick, it's completely modern and not of the period at all. Their dialogue and behaviour is directed (or in this case, not directed) as if they're in they're living completely in the present, despite the characteristics of the era. No-one is going to turn around and tell me 'it was on purpose', because it wasn't - it just wasn't addressed.
That said the movie was watchable, but it suffered greatly for its faults.

'The Thing' is commercial horror. It might have a few bad hairdo's, but it's totally consistent at what it tries to do, and it's totally successful in it. It doesn't feature the implausibility or ridiculousness that arises in Nolan's attempts at serious movie making. Nor does American Werewolf in London, also completely commercial, but at the same time deeply satirical and pitch perfectly directed. It keeps its form precisely from beginning to end.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not throwing this out there as something that's rarely achieved. There are many great directors in the field right now who can take subject matter, serious or otherwise, and make a movie with absolute consistency and without errors of casting, directing or scripting. It's not that hard.

The problem for me is that Nolan isn't one of those directors yet. What he does well he does really, really well, but he's still yet to make a 'great' movie.

[CMoon]

Regarding depth, the problem is that you were making out to be a dichotomy earlier--that some of these films you mentioned had depth and Nolan's films didn't. I don't even want to generalize, because the only two films I'd say he's done that are more complex than you'd expect based on their target audience are TDK and Inception. To step back to my comparison of Rashomon and Predator (ridiculous, I know!) is that while both films are good, Rashomon is clearly trying to be a thinking man's film. It is meant to provoke thought. Would you say Predator is trying to do the same thing, on the same level? No, I assume not.

What I'm trying to get at here is that Inception is clearly trying to make the audience think. It doesn't have a twist because the film has no correct reading. I saw at least three or four possible correct readings just on first viewing. I'm trying to keep this on objective terms--whether or not you like Nolan as a director--can't we agree that a film that intentionally invokes multiple interpretations from its viewers could be called a 'thinking man's film', and that none of us should be GTFO'd for suggesting so?

And as far as TDK. I think highly of it because it spends over it's first two hours constructing a paradigm of human weakness. It reinvents the Joker as a sort of terrorist who prays on, what is to him the self-evident frailties and weaknesses (and corruptability) of human kind. Literally, the first two hours are the joker saying there is nothing more to humanity than Skinnerian behaviorism, and if you can create the right scenario, human beings will never cease to act just like a rat in a skinner box. This sort of cinematic dehumanization I think hasn't really been present in films since the 70's. Maybe there's something I've missed, but TDK is barely a super hero film; it's actually a pretty fucked up film (which doesn't inherently make it good by the way.) I enjoy the film because ultimately it isn't Batman that saves the day, but the individual man who recognizes they don't have to be a rat in a box.

Why is this passe or badly executed or whatever else makes it not worthy of being a notable film? I actually really don't get the problem that either of you have with this movie.

[szycag]

Nolan is still a hack director. If I recall, he needed the Batman franchise, the Batman franchise didn't need him.

Sorry, are you trolling? Did you want another Joel Schumacher Batman film? They both needed each other.

I don't think Inception is a thinking man's film either, just a VERY imaginative action film with a creative premise. Yeah there are flaws, but what else are you going to see this summer? I think even the people talking shit in this thread can say that it's worth the ticket to see.

[Never_Scurred]

Nolan is still a hack director. If I recall, he needed the Batman franchise, the Batman franchise didn't need him.

Sorry, are you trolling? Did you want another Joel Schumacher Batman film? They both needed each other.

I don't think Inception is a thinking man's film either, just a VERY imaginative action film with a creative premise. Yeah there are flaws, but what else are you going to see this summer? I think even the people talking shit in this thread can say that it's worth the ticket to see.

I never said Inception was a bad movie, it definitely was worth the price I paid to see it. I just do not have any desire to go out of my way to see it again. Maybe if it pops up on cable or something while i'm channel surfing i'd give it a watch just for those cool ass sequences....
As for the Batman stuff, i'm a big fan of the first two as they both had the right balance of broodiness and camp, without ever trying to take themselves too seriously. The problem I have with TDK is that it tried way too hard to be super serious and dramatic to the point where I could not find it entertaining whereas the Schumacher ones were too colorful, campy and goofy for my tastes. But, at least, the Schumacher ones were more fun to watch. My question to Nolan would be, "Why so serious?"

[Warp_Rattler]

Hey Never_Scurred, are you like one of those people that sees a crowd raving over something and has to dislike it for that very reason? I've seen some pretty negative reviews of Inception that also take the contrarian road. Most of them latch on to pretty superficial stuff in their criticisms.

I kid, I kid. A little bit, anyways.

I make a motion to bar the introduction of The Matrix into any discussion of science fiction films unless somehow the discussion is warped into the Jeopardy dimension and the answer is something like "What is a twofold ripoff of Gibson's Neuromancer and Shirow's Ghost in the Shell with a background in Messianic mythology and a smattering of Buddhist undertones?"

Um, that said... Oh yeah, so Inception. I'm on a nice drunk right now and don't want to ruin it with nerd rage, so I totally deleted the three paragraphs I just wrote for a tl;dr version. Inception was a masterful story well told; it's not going to go down in history like, say, Rashomon (was someone really throwing that around this thread? Really?), but it's a pretty solid film in its own right, built on a good SF foundation and hardly the work of a hack auteur. It might not have been your cup of tea (what's it like to hate fun?) but it's a lot more well-thought out than anything in the genre I can remember in recent years. Hell, it's got fewer plot holes than Blade Runner by far, and that's one of my favorite films (and a fairly universal SF classic). It's not what I'd consider a 'thinking man's film' as there's not much to think about--if you're patient, everything falls into place in the end, and even the ending itself isn't so mysterious if you've paid attention to a few telling details. It's just... solid. And something different from the usual big-name Hollywood tripe of recent years.

Seriously, fuck Avatar.

[Skykid]

Did you want another Joel Schumacher Batman film?

No!

(May he burn in hell for what he did.)

I think even the people talking shit in this thread can say that it's worth the ticket to see.

No-one is talking shit in this thread, they're just talking.

Regarding depth, the problem is that you were making out to be a dichotomy earlier--that some of these films you mentioned had depth and Nolan's films didn't. I don't even want to generalize, because the only two films I'd say he's done that are more complex than you'd expect based on their target audience are TDK and Inception. To step back to my comparison of Rashomon and Predator (ridiculous, I know!) is that while both films are good, Rashomon is clearly trying to be a thinking man's film. It is meant to provoke thought. Would you say Predator is trying to do the same thing, on the same level? No, I assume not.

This is my fault actually. I actually read into the Predator/Rashomon comparison as more a question of how can you hold two polar opposite movies in equally high regard, and that was kind of what I was getting at in my last post.

Personally, I think TDK is probably his best film so far, but I was spurred into action when everyone started creaming their drawers about it in the original thread. I cited one accurate review from the Daily Mail Online that I thought summed it up really well:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/re ... -plot.html

On repeat viewings, once I got past all the flaws and shit, I could appreciate it as entertainment - but I think people (such as yourself, I hope you'll excuse me for saying so) are being far too favourable to credit the movie with having a seriously deep psychological sub-narrative. The truth is the Joker is a psychopath, and the character for what it's worth was well written and very well acted out. His absolute madness was a breath of fresh air for a character that's normally a cartoon style figure and it worked well to drag him into the 'real' world. In fact, Nolan's vision for this (despite being taken from comic books) was good.
Some of the dialogue did a little groundwork to look at behavioural aspects based on the impact of a fractured past - but it didn't really go beyond that. For my money Nolan just wrote the character as a total nut - I don't think he researched much else.
Making a dark movie about a dark knight with a seriously deranged bad guy doesn't necessarily warrant it as a serious 'thinking' movie - it's still popcorn entertainment, just one with a little more venom.
If (and that's a big 'if') Nolan had worked out a better script and not gone ahead with one that suffered from numerous issues of dialogue and plot, and played largely to developing the strengths of the Joker's character, I daresay it might have qualified as a movie that would warrant some analysis.

[moozooh]

Inception is a good movie worth seeing; I hope for its (and the industry's) own sake there won't be many movies like that in foreseeable future — and that's not about its weak parts (which aren't that weak).

[CMoon]

Inception is a good movie worth seeing; I hope for its (and the industry's) own sake there won't be many movies like that in foreseeable future — and that's not about its weak parts (which aren't that weak).

I agree with this. I was imagining this film in the hands of another director (like the brothers that directed the Matrix) and thought how much I could hate this movie. A plot like this can be inherently pretentious, and felt like Nolan managed (at least to some extent) to dodge that.

[CMoon]

Personally, I think TDK is probably his best film so far

Wait and see what you think of Inception. Some people like it more than TDK, other people say it's a step backwards. The whole two-face sequence in TDK bothers me...for some reason it just doesn't feel like it lives up to the rest of the film...but beyond that I like the gritty tone and overall darkness. I'd need to see Inception again to say how it stood up to TDK; ironically I think the films have more in common than TDK has with 'Begins'.

[MadScientist]

Whoaaaaaaaaaaa.....Memento was brilliant? I can guarantee you nobody was calling it brilliant... until Dark Knight blew up.

This is blatantly wrong;

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/awards

[undamned]

Incidentally, this is the one thing I hate about Blade Runner, namely that there is one correct interpretation of Deckard being an android. I really liked it being open instead of a required twist.

Indeed.

Whoaaaaaaaaaaa.....Memento was brilliant?

Its a good movie, I own the SE disc, but I can guarantee you nobody was calling it brilliant or considering Insomnia a good movie until Dark Knight blew up.

Uh, my friends and I have thought Memento brilliant since it was released (at which point I did not know/care who directed). I did see Insomnia at some point, but A.) I didn't care for it, and B.) again, I didn't know/care who directed it.

Just saw Inception this weekend. I really liked it. No, I would not call it "a real thinker," but I thought the execution was superb, and I can't recall anything cheesy in all 150 min.
-ud

[Skykid]

I might go and watch Inception. I'm not expecting it to move the world so I'll probably enjoy it.

Toy Story 3 really wants me to see it though.

[CMoon]

Given those are the only two good movies this year so far, you should definitely go see at least one of them.

[boagman]

Wow. Without addressing all the what-not in this thread, let me just follow-up my first post by saying that I didn't know that Nolan was at the helm of "Insomnia", which I haven't seen, nor do I have any desire/intention of doing so. That being said, every other film he's done is quite enjoyable to me, far better than a lot of the other drivel that Hollywood puts out on a weekly basis, and some (like Memento) are just plain fantastic. That movie, when I first saw it, was the best movie I'd seen in three years, and I *immediately* watched it again, right then and there. It was that good, and that enveloping. Totally threw me on a couple different plot aspects, which I hadn't anticipated at all. His subsequent films (that I've seen) have all shared, to one degree or another, some of that same "feel", which I find desirable, even if I wasn't as satisfied as everyone else might have been with said movies.

Nolan's yet to falter in my viewings, and as such, even if he were to stumble, he's earned at least one "free pass" from me as a result of his success to this point. Inception was quite good, but I'm not sure I'd say it was great, though I certainly left the theatre happy.

It's kind of like Pixar. They've got an absolutely *stellar* track record with me, and since that's the case, I can forgive the occasional misstep such as the crapfest that was/is "Cars" (and I haven't seen "A Bug's Life"). Every other feature they've done, however, ranges from pretty good to absolutely fantastic. By now, even Pixar's built up another "free pass" with me, and Nolan hasn't even used one up yet.

People like Mann and Bruckheimer are really starting to suffer due to the sheer volume of crap they're putting their signatures on (especially Bruckheimer). They've sort of become like Spielberg did in the late 80's/early 90's, and the name starts to actually *hurt* projects instead of helping them.

[szycag]

The soundtrack is really good too, if you like film music. Been listening to it today.

[Skykid]

People like Mann and Bruckheimer are really starting to suffer.

When were they ever good?

[boagman]

Oh, come on now, let's be fair. For Mann, "Heat" and "The Insider" immediately come to mind, and that's right off the top of my head. As for Bruckheimer...let me get back to you on that one.

People like Mann and Bruckheimer are really starting to suffer.

When were they ever good?

[Skykid]

Oh, come on now, let's be fair. For Mann, "Heat" and "The Insider" immediately come to mind.

Both passable, but not required viewing by any stretch.

I think Michael Mann is hugely overrated.

[emphatic]

I think Michael Mann is hugely overrated.

QFT.

[Strider77]

Haters gonna hate... I was really happy with Inception. Toy story 3.... not my thing at all.

I never thought of Nolan's films as hyper stylized.... no bullet time, choppy fast forward action, pretty conserved really and more heavy on the script/dialogue for it's thrills (along with above average casting).

Honestly in this day and age if you find Inception to be low tier.... don't bother seeing anything. I didn't find it to be anything but enjoyable and a pleasant surprise.

Some folks always have to go against the grain just to feel a cut above anyone else.... stop worrying about you opinion being uber elite for a second and plop your ass down in a seat and watch the movie without worrying about if it's:

obscure
your personal amazing discovery
is the director becoming to buzz worthy
the internet speaks to highly of it
since everyone else is liking it, my opinion is higher than the general public so I have to go against it

blah blah blah

Inception certainly is not a BAD movie..... Transformers 2 was a BAD movie. LOL @ TOKYO FIST