Strider77 wrote:
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
People's perceptions of my taste in film is definitely something I don't worry myself over, I just call it as I see it. Whether that's because of experience or not isn't my problem.
I'm sure Inception is a good watch, and I will see it - I just don't reckon it could possibly be a masterpiece because I don't think Nolan is of that caliber.
He makes good movies, and yes, better than most in the same school. But he's no genius.
A complete understatement. The first one was a bad movie. The second... Well, Ebert said it best:
If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination.
boagman wrote: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.
We'll just have to agree to disagree without being disagreeable, then. I consider "Heat" to be great, and "The Insider" to be pretty darned good viewing. To me, probably the best sign of a good director is what they're capable of eliciting from the actors. "Heat", in this capacity, is fantastic, as Pacino, DeNiro, Kilmer, Sizemore, Voight, Portman, and others are all used at high ends of their abilities. With "The Insider", Pacino's still pretty good, but the real nods are to Crowe and Plummer, who make the movie a lot of what it is. Oh, and just so you know: I'm not a guy who worships Pacino *at all*. He can be positively awful, and direly needs to have a director at the helm who can reign in his ego. When that doesn't happen, you get shudder-/laugh-inducing crap like "88 Minutes", which may be the most unintentionally funny movie I've ever seen in my life. Mann is a bit self-important, sure, and his choices of music are certainly questionable, but the man has shown the ability to get high caliber performances out of actors who don't always give anything close to resembling a quality performance, merely a paycheck appearance. Not always, perhaps, but he can do it.
That being said, Mann hasn't really made any "statement" films in quite some time, and stuff like "Public Enemies" would certainly be fodder for those who'd question his abilities. That takes absolutely *nothing* away from "Heat". It was then, and is now, fantastic. I don't see that changing any time in the future. "The Insider" is very, very good as well. Mann may think he's better than he is (and it may show through in spades, sometimes), but he *can* do it right when he's on his game, and causes the actors to do the same.
boagman wrote: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.
We'll just have to agree to disagree without being disagreeable, then. I consider "Heat" to be great, and "The Insider" to be pretty darned good viewing. To me, probably the best sign of a good director is what they're capable of eliciting from the actors. "Heat", in this capacity, is fantastic, as Pacino, DeNiro, Kilmer, Sizemore, Voight, Portman, and others are all used at high ends of their abilities. With "The Insider", Pacino's still pretty good, but the real nods are to Crowe and Plummer, who make the movie a lot of what it is. Oh, and just so you know: I'm not a guy who worships Pacino *at all*. He can be positively awful, and direly needs to have a director at the helm who can reign in his ego. When that doesn't happen, you get shudder-/laugh-inducing crap like "88 Minutes", which may be the most unintentionally funny movie I've ever seen in my life. Mann is a bit self-important, sure, and his choices of music are certainly questionable, but the man has shown the ability to get high caliber performances out of actors who don't always give anything close to resembling a quality performance, merely a paycheck appearance. Not always, perhaps, but he can do it.
That being said, Mann hasn't really made any "statement" films in quite some time, and stuff like "Public Enemies" would certainly be fodder for those who'd question his abilities. That takes absolutely *nothing* away from "Heat". It was then, and is now, fantastic. I don't see that changing any time in the future. "The Insider" is very, very good as well. Mann may think he's better than he is (and it may show through in spades, sometimes), but he *can* do it right when he's on his game, and causes the actors to do the same.
Continuing the agreeable debate on disagreeing points of view, I found Heat to be a bloated, often tiresome vehicle for its two stars, completely hinged around single and very well directed central scene.
But everything else felt like sofa stuffing featuring paper thin characters getting all worked up over nothing.
Michael Mann films have a tendency to bore me - although some of his films do have engaging moments. Even in Collateral, which was a comedy for the most part, I'll admit I was intrigued at certain points - it's just as whole it never comes to much. Mann is obsessed with drawing focus on the inconsequential aspects of his story and ends up padding out scripts that have potential with a load of visual waffle. He's like a student film-maker with a pretty good camera eye but one who hasn't quite grasped the art of editing.
I don't really agree he pushes his actors to any great degree and I would never risk a cinema ticket to see one of his movies, although if someone lends me a DVD and I've got nothing better to watch, I might give him the time of day.
At least we do agree on Al Pacino. I never rated him as an actor. Most people assume because he was Tony Montana and the guy in The Godfather that he's some kind of genius actor.
I found him best in Dog Day Afternoon and progressively disappointing thereafter. Pacino is a 'shouter', an actor who is limited to raising his voice to portray emotion, and that's pretty much his entire repertoire.
Skykid wrote:At least we do agree on Al Pacino. I never rated him as an actor. Most people assume because he was Tony Montana and the guy in The Godfather that he's some kind of genius actor. I found him best in Dog Day Afternoon and progressively disappointing thereafter. Pacino is a 'shouter', an actor who is limited to raising his voice to portray emotion, and that's pretty much his entire repertoire.
Yep. Couldn't agree more there. I'll just add this: doesn't he understand that shouting gets *tired*? It's sort of akin to someone who swears all the time; they fail to understand why no one pays attention when they do. If it's just what you do as a matter of course, why should anyone take note of that? Pacino's shouting pretty much elicits the same reaction from me. As well, I fail to see what *anyone* sees in "Scarface". It's honestly an atrocity of a movie, and I've never seen any of "The Godfather" flicks, nor do I plan to.
I'm of the Peter Griffin school of opinion when it comes to The Godfather: It does nothing for me. I've seen a ton of better gangster movies and ones that are far less boring (mostly from Scorcese.)
doesn't he understand that shouting gets *tired*?
Ha ha, of course not! He's a very successful actor (was), so as far as he's concerned, he's a brilliant performer with a huge amount of range.
the truth is he's completely limited in what he can do because he's just not that good.
Scarface is a movie of its time and I can appreciate it for that, even though it's no great film and some of its dated really badly.
I wouldn't have to have the DVD in my 'crib' though.
I think Nolan is pretty good.... I don't find any directors to be the end all be all clear and cut.
Two of my favorite movies are Aliens and Blade Runner, those are by Ridley Scott. I think Scott has made some great movies but some are not that amazing at all, Hannibal being one of them. Spielberg is the same way, Jaws and Raiders are two of my favorite flicks but Speilberg has made some flicks that I was just OK with.
Damn Tim, you know there are quite a few Americans out there who still lives in tents due to this shitty economy, and you're dropping loads on a single game which only last 20 min. Do you think it's fair? How much did you spend this time?
Except that we have Rutger Hauer and Harrison Ford to thank for most of the more intresting parts of the plot in the movie. And lets not forget that Scott is probably the only person who really liked the voice-over.
That's my point kinda... everyone lauds themselves for being so smart because they claim "x" director is so amazing and another is so lame.... it's a collaborative effort. Sometimes the pieces come together for something great, sometimes it stinks.
Inception was pretty darn good, the cast helped with me a lot along with the story concept. The girl (architect) could have easily been an opportunity to insert some bimbo for T&A and some forced lame romance, the rest could have easily been douche bags as well.
Damn Tim, you know there are quite a few Americans out there who still lives in tents due to this shitty economy, and you're dropping loads on a single game which only last 20 min. Do you think it's fair? How much did you spend this time?
Of course, but it takes a great director to get the utmost from his team and his actors.
If someone is technically really good but hasn't got a clue about casting and directing performances (Danny Boyle springs to mind) you'll often get weaknesses that let the film down.
A lot of the time the director doesn't have the final word on casting. But sometimes I've been really glad a producer told a director no or they didn't get what they wanted for some reason or another. There have been times when the producers have saved a film believe it or not, maybe not often.
That shark not working in Jaws made that movie gold, and I'll pass on Will Smith as the lead in the Matrix or any lead if given the choice. Sometimes it's luck also. I think Directors get to much of the credit and not enough is given to those involved with the writing and screenplay.
I enjoy the 1st Poltergeist a lot and that dude who directed the texas chain saw massacre "directed" it.... Spielberg "produced" it. In this case it was Spielberg that made that movie, he might as well had been called the director/producer and that other dude an assistant. It's obvious when you watch it.... it's a Spielberg flick, it shows nothing in common with that other guy's flicks.
It's dangerous to declare so and so is this and that, sometimes your claiming their number one based on others work.
Damn Tim, you know there are quite a few Americans out there who still lives in tents due to this shitty economy, and you're dropping loads on a single game which only last 20 min. Do you think it's fair? How much did you spend this time?
Strider77 wrote:
That shark not working in Jaws made that movie gold.
I think Jaws is among the best films mentioned in this thread. I grew up with the film. Every time I see it, it gets better. Damn near an American classic at this point. Great acting, awesome plot, actually invented a few shots. This is, IMO Spielberg's best film, but clearly all you alls prefer Hook
As far as Nolan and Inception, here's a nice write up on the subject by one of the blokes from Madman's Cafe:
I like the connections he finds between all of Nolan's films.
Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
Strider77 wrote:
That shark not working in Jaws made that movie gold.
I think Jaws is among the best films mentioned in this thread. I grew up with the film. Every time I see it, it gets better. Damn near an American classic at this point. Great acting, awesome plot, actually invented a few shots. This is, IMO Spielberg's best film
Skykid wrote:Continuing the agreeable debate on disagreeing points of view, I found Heat to be a bloated, often tiresome vehicle for its two stars, completely hinged around single and very well directed central scene.
But everything else felt like sofa stuffing featuring paper thin characters getting all worked up over nothing.
Michael Mann films have a tendency to bore me - although some of his films do have engaging moments. Even in Collateral, which was a comedy for the most part, I'll admit I was intrigued at certain points - it's just as whole it never comes to much. Mann is obsessed with drawing focus on the inconsequential aspects of his story and ends up padding out scripts that have potential with a load of visual waffle. He's like a student film-maker with a pretty good camera eye but one who hasn't quite grasped the art of editing.
I don't really agree he pushes his actors to any great degree and I would never risk a cinema ticket to see one of his movies, although if someone lends me a DVD and I've got nothing better to watch, I might give him the time of day.
At least we do agree on Al Pacino. I never rated him as an actor. Most people assume because he was Tony Montana and the guy in The Godfather that he's some kind of genius actor.
I found him best in Dog Day Afternoon and progressively disappointing thereafter. Pacino is a 'shouter', an actor who is limited to raising his voice to portray emotion, and that's pretty much his entire repertoire.
For Skykid,
If you check out some of Michael Mann's earlier films like Thief (circa 1981) and The Keep (circa 1983), you can see the interesting pacing that he sets up. Of course, the electronic BGM tunes done by Tangerine Dream for The Keep sci-fi film set during the WWII era does lend a cool vibe to it. To watch The Keep in it's original 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio is awesome compared to watching it in chopped up 4:3 format which really isn't the proper way to view it anyways.
Watching Thief with the main character played by James Caan as a master skilled thief with ties to the mob underworld is an interesting look into the state-of-the-art (for 1981) safe cracking methods to break into such a massive security vault to steal valuable loot. Seems to give the movie viewers a glimpse of Mann's vision for his upcoming Miami Vice television series in released later in 1984.
Oh man, I'd forgotten about The Keep. Apparently it never even came out on DVD. It's a weird movie as I recall, not really good, but unique in a way that makes me want to see it again.
Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
Yeah, The Keep film appears from time to time in 16:9 widescreen format on IFC. Interesting that the Keep was built to contain the creature inside but a pair of Nazi soldiers want to see what lies beyond a certain door located deep within the Keep itself -- could it be a stash of hidden treasure? Greed does them both in and they pay for it with their lives. That's too bad that it hasn't been properly released on DVD or Blu-Ray formats.
It'd be interesting to ask Mr. Mann's take/opinion on The Keep film and if there are any "lost" deleted scenes that got axed on the cutting room floor that would add more background info to the film. Pretty nifty of ulitizing backwards film spooling of the creature special EFX all done in real time -- you don't see that type of EFX used nowdays.
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.
I just read this all the way through... dear god, do yourself a favor and relax. So much hot air... get over it. All that text and then... wait, TOKYO FIST?!?!? I think your trying to get a rise or are pulling our legs a bit in all seriousness.
I think Jaws is among the best films mentioned in this thread. I grew up with the film. Every time I see it, it gets better.
That movie to me is 100 percent effective... nothing is bad. The score is absolutely needed, so are Shaw, Scheider and Dreyfuss's preformances, the sound and view.... there isn't anything that I'd touch in fear of ruining it. Not to mention that scene where Shaw recaps his WW2 story... amazing how just a bit of dialogue, 3 guys and a boat can creep you out while having your attention at 100 percent. Some say Jaws wasn't scary... it's not in your face, but if I think about that movie while at the ocean or in the water..... I'd be flat out lying if I didn't confess to feeling less relaxed then before even to this day.
Having said that... it's not a "thinking man's movie". It's a simple adventure movie, and it's great... just like Raiders of the Lost Ark. It doesn't always have to be a vague kaleidoscope like 2001, open to endless interpretation (I'm not bashing 2001, It's stellar) to be considered great.... A movie can lay it's cards on the table and be something special also.
Damn Tim, you know there are quite a few Americans out there who still lives in tents due to this shitty economy, and you're dropping loads on a single game which only last 20 min. Do you think it's fair? How much did you spend this time?
Strider77 wrote:
That movie to me is 100 percent effective... nothing is bad. The score is absolutely needed, so are Shaw, Scheider and Dreyfuss's preformances, the sound and view.... there isn't anything that I'd touch in fear of ruining it. Not to mention that scene where Shaw recaps his WW2 story... amazing how just a bit of dialogue, 3 guys and a boat can creep you out while having your attention at 100 percent. Some say Jaws wasn't scary... it's not in your face, but if I think about that movie while at the ocean or in the water..... I'd be flat out lying if I didn't confess to feeling less relaxed then before even to this day.
Having said that... it's not a "thinking man's movie". It's a simple adventure movie, and it's great... just like Raiders of the Lost Ark. It doesn't always have to be a vague kaleidoscope like 2001, open to endless interpretation (I'm not bashing 2001, It's stellar) to be considered great.... A movie can lay it's cards on the table and be something special also.
I agree with just about everything here (except the Dreyfuss part - he was a necessary character though) and I absolutely love Jaws. To me it's the original blockbuster by which the template still abides today, and probably still the best.
I think there's been some misunderstanding regarding the term 'thinking mans movie' though - somewhere in this thread everyone has misconstrued what everyone else means.
To me, Jaws is more intellectually stimulating than something like Johnny Mnemomic because the latter is a pile of shit, despite having a fairly complex and thought provoking premise, whereas Jaws is a masterclass in film making of its kind, and therefore gets deeper every time I watch it.
I love Jaws. Anyone who rags on it (and I've met a few) to some degree invalidate every opinion they have thereafter.
I think everyone is making up their own definition of thinking man's movie. Even taking it to the point to be an evaluation of quality.
When I used the term I simply meant films which did not hold the audience's hand, requiring them to make their own decisions and interpretations. I think I seem to be one of the few people in this thread who's argued consistently that Inception IS a thinking man's film, because there is no one correct interpretation, and Nolan seems interested in erecting world views which are designed to challenge the viewer. I think I posted a link to review earlier that looks at Nolan's use of deception, and that Nolan does seem to have on an ongoing theme in his movies about the characters' (and the audience's) willingness to accept deception as a superior alternative to the truth.
Anyway, yeah, Jaws is IMO a great as any of the other great American movies. When I look at the 100 or so other films that are ranked above it on IMDB I cringe, on the other hand, quality should never be determined through a popularity contest.
Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
Inception's strongest feature is its abilty to inspire debate and conversation.
Almost as if someone behind the scene pulled some strings and made sure that the movie was only pretty good, and not a masterpiece - that way more geeks will argue about it for longer, many of whom will have to see it for a second time in order to decide on a final opinion...
<minor spoilers>
As far as motive, I know Leos character had one, the others seemed to just tag along to see if it could be done.... But damn, they sure went through a lot of trouble for a utility company!! Unless J totally missed something, that was a big disappointment for me.
The action was drawn out and emotionless for me, I did not come to the theater for chase scenes and generic shootouts.
They made the dreamword do crazy shit once in the whole movie, talk about missed opportunity...
Leo and his wife were Gods in a dreamworld... So they made a city?! That's uber lame, I'm sorry.
Not a masterpiece, but still better than 95% of the movies that come out these days.
"I've had quite a few pcbs of Fire Shark over time, and none of them cost me over £30 - so it won't break the bank by any standards." ~Malc
Cmoon, by your definition (and even without having seen it) I would also agree that Inception is a 'thinking' movie. I've heard enough about it to gather that it's a creative idea and one with enough avenues to push the viewer to use their brains.
Whether that means it qualifies as a masterpiece or not is something I'll decide on when I watch it.
At least we're all beginning to understand each other though - this is definitely a thinking mans thread, if nothing else.
CMoon wrote: quality should never be determined through a popularity contest.
That's because the public is made up of idiots, which automatically makes a public vote null and void.
Watched it here in D.C. somewhere around the Verizon Center block. They had some horrible 2K projection (I can see the pixels! Even with my poor ol' eyes) for the ads at around 16:10, I thought, and then the screen opened up considerably wider for the feature flick on a regular film projector. Nice touch. The movie would have looked like shit on 2K, at points, but to be honest the opening was so stunning visually that I wouldn't have been able to complain.
First things first: I skimmed through the posts on page 1-2 and some random thoughts:
2001 similarities? Yes, lots of wall-walking. No offence to PC-Engine Fan X! but I had no trouble following everything that happened on the first watch.
Hans Zimmerman is a great soundtrack artist, though lately what I've heard from him (all three of the latest movies I've seen in theaters had soundtracks from him! Dark Knight, Sherlock Holmes, this now) has been very dependent on a strong theme. Kind of like a Harold Faltermeyer for the 2000s (think of how movies like Beverley Hills Cop, and Tango & Cash have a strong core theme and they play around with that through the whole movie). Of course, The Dark Knight was a collaboration (I think a more or less direct one, not just folding in the themes from Batman Begins, which I haven't seen).
And on that note, I don't think Nolan can really be faulted for the script. That script, by the way, kept things moving, was coherent, didn't embarrass itself too badly. (Though I have to cringe a bit whenever it's asserted that the subconscious is really ten, fifty, whatever times faster than the waking brain; not having to pick and choose visual information to process does not mean the visual cortex becomes a supercomputer capable of creating stable landscapes - it does good at creating new scenes, though, I've found; a lot of artists probably can paint by what's on their eyelids.) If you could swallow the "ground rules" the rest seemed to follow. It's very easy to perceive the ending as being an if / or situation; everybody in the theater seemed to groan / laugh at the very ending and most of us "got" that it could have been [slight spoiler here] the "reward" being set up (though it wasn't made clear why they needed DiCaprio's character to subject them all to the possibility of sanity death to pull off the op, and in fact I think the more one subjects the plot to this scrutiny, the more it falls apart).
Nolan's job mainly was, aside from giving a thumbs-up or down on the plot, was to keep that action recognizable and flowing. From a filmography standpoint, there's nothing I could criticize, only a few cases of intentionally broken focus to discuss perhaps. When they wanted to hover over a shot a while longer, they did, but perhaps they folded in dialogue from the next scene to keep it from dragging. (As in one of the "teaching" sequences.) I know this is quite basic and the assistants can probably do a lot of it themselves, but it shows attention to detail. Speaking of which, I thought the CGI was flat overall, though some things that struck me as wrong (the cars blowing up) were just due to my not thinking (a petrol bomb won't break out the windshield necessarily).
Much more importantly, I felt the movie did not fall for some common plot pitfalls I was half expecting, and that's an area directors often can and should exercise a veto over. Was the dude whose mind they were invading actually invading theirs? I thought it a likely possibility through the movie, but I'm glad they didn't get into that, turning it into some unreachable Jacob's Ladder, solely an arms race of levels. How hot and heavy do you allow incidental romances to get? Now, the whole "poor Cobb and his wife troubles" subplot was...interesting, but from a human interest standpoint, mainly. However, it came with some major, major unresolved sacrifices for the other teams. They try to paper over this with the young actress saying "rargh why you doin this" in a few speeches, but the bigger question of how the other team members (not to mention the all-knowing, airline-buying-in-record-time Saito) didn't know / why Cobb's partner didn't raise an alarm makes it a bit more glaring. Still, I think it gets the job done.
But what sets this movie apart from Blade Runner (Blade Runner isn't 2001 either, so that doesn't help us)? Obviously, Blade Runner's little paper cranes (thank you Mr. Olmos!) serve as a metaphor and a clue, or warning, or trigger (or all of those) in the popularly accepted reading of Blade Runner's script. The idea of "tokens" takes that idea to the logical next step by concretely incorporating it into the story. It's not more subtle, whatever subtlety counts for. Cobb's wife, whom we're led to believe at one point is a "shade," also directly references events he's been following to throw out the possibility he's in a dream, but she isn't allowed to argue too strongly so it seems like a bone for discussion. Yet it doesn't strike me as enough meat on the bones for an intelligent discussion. It's just a possibility, so what? How does the fact of Cobb being somebody's dream figment (I don't buy that was ever an option) or being in a dream or not in a dream (which was what the whole audience was thinking) change my life? Not at all. As they say throughout the film - improvise, and suddenly needing to get into dreams to steal fanciful fake flubdubs doesn't seem like the most grounded form of intellectual espionage, thriller or no. The reason Deckard as android / not android was interesting - and relevant - is because it cuts to the chase in arguments about collaborating with evil and just trying to stay alive, versus doing the "right thing." There's a discussion going on between the competing principles - life versus justice. The reason Inception was interesting is because dreams are so essential to who we are, and because using them as a battleground is inherently unsettling. But after the film your feet settle on the same ground as before. Plot subtleties are not shipped wholesale from one movie to the other.
The tokens remind me of fast food toys for some reason; they're something you're supposed to grab onto and which is meant to flesh out the world and think through the ramifications easily. I don't think there's anything wrong with clear signposting like this, nor do I think a movie has to bury clues to be worthwhile. In ways like this, Inception proves to be a more time-conscious and pressurizes the plot - in a way that doesn't always allow the imagination to run free after. (Of course, after this - wouldn't your imagination fly around a while anyway?) I actually feel, in terms of pacing, that the end half-hour or so of the movie was far too predictable. It's part of why I was expecting a Hail Mary pass attempt to throw in something fresh. The wind-down was kind of satisfying, but the whole climax didn't really feel like one - no new scenery, no new complexities to mull over, just an excuse to blow stuff up that we've been waiting to blow up for a long, long time. It did fit in a whole lot more than Army of Shadows did (at nearly two and a half hours) but nothing felt quite as awesome as in that other film because the highs were all quite high. It's an odd moment when you realize that a guy dangling around on wires between elevators and running on ceilings is supposed to be a breathing space. I don't mind a more intense movie, but the relentless plot pacing reminds me of The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle's ending. (Random, eh?) Highly effective, however.
Well, I think that the lack of a sort of moral story to guide us could be one. I don't mean a little drama of what's right vs. wrong (come on, if you put a machine in front of Morgan Freeman and said "here is a machine that lets you defeat terrorism, with this you can fix fucking ANYTHING," he's not going to hit the self-destruct button, now is he? Would you opt-out of the anti-terrorism machine with Morgan Freeman at the helm if it replaced the thousands of dispersed, fractured national intelligence bodies and the 20,000+ private sector companies that have sprung up to service them?), or the "In history books, he's the kind of cop that used to call black men niggers" of Blade Runner's theatrical release narration. I mean a way that compellingly (a lot of us argued, back when Dark Knight came out, that Dark Knight wasn't really subtle about it, but it also didn't create as much room for thought as some probably thought) says "here's a good thing you can do, and here's a bad thing that comes from that. Is something else more bad and good?" There's some heart-rending moments of physical courage and duty being put on display. Not a lot in the realm of courage to do "the right thing;" DiCaprio's Mr. Cobb is of course bound to draw out his speeches and scenes of longing eye contact; that's expected. When you look at the story with the heir and his father - sure, there's a nice story there, and it ends nicely - but I'm disappointed that audiences are left with the impression that the team of (mostly) ruggedly handsome heroes are actually do-gooders. They were setting out to create a business deal, and no matter what Cobb says about "positive emotion" and catharsis, they set out to fuck the guy over. This gripe of mine reminds me of the old movie code days where it was decreed that bad guys (and girls) had to get their comeuppance, let bad things go unpunished; but here it really seems a lost opportunity. Basically, in Inception, everybody wins, even though it's also clear that is not the case. Mr. Saito is more or less a stand-in for any fascist organization's idealized concept of a supreme ruler (certain scenes with him, that seemed to only make sense in his mind - I think they screwed up on limbo - struck me for their setting as something out of a Shinobi game, mixed with imperial Japan, but I'm getting way out there); he's more lovable than a Hitler and less a clown than we remember Mussolini. I'll accept that the girl might just be more interested in clearing out some festering personal problem when she's confronted about it than in puzzling out some seemingly abstract dissolving of a huge monopolistic energy business, but what about the rest of the cast?
If you were to suddenly open your eyes during REM (Rapid Eye Movement) stage of sleep, you experience the sensation of the dream fading back into reality + the situation of sleep paralysis (meaning your eyes are open suddenly & can look around in your current enviroment but suffer the effects of a few seconds of not being able to move your body -- this is a strange phenomena that a few have experienced). I've experienced this type of situation a couple of times and it is quite uncanny. The dream seems so real & vivid that it is actually projected on your retinas as it slowly dissolves into reality. This type of situation/phenomena would've been an interesting topic or subject matter to explored in the Inception film or at least make for an interesting transitional scene from a dream sequence to the real world.
Glad to hear that you understand the basic concept on the first viewing of Inception, Ed.
For some folks, a second viewing is necessary to better understand what is going on in the various situations all taking place together at the same time and/or to finally grasp the idea/concept of what Inception is all about. Although the film really doesn't delve into the inner workings of the technology/machinery that makes such an act of Inception possible...I'm sure lots of countries, governments, mega corporations & special interest groups would like to sway the balance of power for their own use/agenda. Money is no object in that case considering the fact of such deep pockets to afford to do so. It'd be interesting to see rival Inception teams trying to outdo each other if all linked up simultaneously...could be another topic for a sequel if the writer/director is up for it.
PC Engine Fan X! wrote:Glad to hear that you understand the basic concept on the first viewing of Inception, Ed.
I'm still kind of confused how it could be easy to miss...or if you think the basic meaning is something me and the whole theater missed.
I'm of the opinion that most of the plot was served up on a silver platter, and there didn't seem to be much that you could go back to and "rethink" after a viewing. There are some "discussion points" like Cobb's wife arguing with him but it was rather limited. I hope that makes sense.
About seeing things on the retinas, I've been able to do that a few times while awake. I don't have immediate control over what I'm seeing but I can sort of direct what comes up a few seconds later when it happens. To be sure it's extremely rare. Don't recall seeing a dream on my retinas dissolve when awake, but then again my sleep schedule isn't too demanding
chempop wrote:
Not a masterpiece, but still better than 95% of the movies that come out these days.
I agree with this, but the word masterpiece is overused. Even I overuse it. I think there are a handful of truly great movies, and I mean objectively great movies. Clear directorial vision with no compromise, skilled cinematography that does the lion's share of telling the story, actors pushing their abilities to the limits. There's really only a few of these films out there, and no, I don't think a single film by Nolan is there. On the other hand, I think Nolan is one of the better directors of this decade.
skykid wrote:
That's because the public is made up of idiots, which automatically makes a public vote null and void.
Yes. But when you said voting, did you just mean for top movies?
Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
CMoon wrote:I think Nolan is one of the better directors of this decade.
This is actually probably true, but it's worth keeping in mind this decade has absolutely stunk for movies.
There are other directors people forget about who have far more ability than Nolan, like Chuan Lu, Q.Tarantino (yes, still), Ang Lee, David Cronenberg and Wong Kar Wai to name a handful.
Yes. But when you said voting, did you just mean for top movies?
Sorry man, I don't get the question/joke?
If you mean do idiots vote for the top movie polls, then yes, I'm sure they do.
CMoon wrote:I think Nolan is one of the better directors of this decade.
This is actually probably true, but it's worth keeping in mind this decade has absolutely stunk for movies.
I was having this thought as well.
Incidentally I changed my mind on something in my (spoiler-heavy) post above (namely, I thought the limbo being mentioned was that people would be sent into the dreamer's limbo, whereas Saito seemed in control of his years of being "in limbo," it seemed really structured; what I had forgotten is that they say Cobb often projects nasty things by accident so it wouldn't necessarily be "his" limbo that was the problem, but rather that they'd be stuck with his demons, in somebody else's limbo - on writing this out I'm still vague on whether they were arguing that it would be the heir's (dreamer's) limbo); this bit didn't really change my mindset but it's worth mentioning. And mentioning my theory about the "dream bigger" bit being a one-off was news to the folks I was talking with and they accepted that.
I stick to my guns on the movie not really raising any sort of worthwhile ethical questions. This is a refreshing change from the rather heavy-handed approach of The Dark Knight, of course (which I thought worked for that movie, but it was still a clear limit to that movie; it didn't sacrifice the ability of the viewer to consider different alternatives, but the alternatives to consider in The Dark Knight - small restrictions on freedom vs. dying in horrendous explosions - were not only kind of rigged but also not news to anybody who watches the news). It was argued that I should care about the one guy having a monopoly, but I think that's just a limit to the writer's inspiration, and in any case in a democratic, modern, legal society you deal with monopolies through the courts and by public opinion, not by pulling somebody's brains out through tubes connected to other brains connected to other tubes (a whole series of them! Like the internet)
| My games - 
