Right, I'm posting in the Inception thread, holy shit what could it mean...
I liked it.
Sorry to disappoint everyone.
Hahh, right. Can't leave it there obviously, I suppose this crazy thread deserves an ending, so here's what I thought:
Firstly, it's not a masterpiece is it? Let's get that notion firmly out of the way. It does happen to be a surprisingly original and well orchestrated bit of thought provoking sci-fi, and I do enjoy such things. It's stylishly shot, has plenty of adrenaline and it gets your brain into a very interesting groove. This amounts to a very slick Hollywood movie, and by todays bottom-of-the-barrel standards, certainly a cut above most.
Despite this, I'm going to throw a future caveat out there and say that I thought The Prestige was better first time round than it was second (by a long way). I'm not sure what I'd make of Inception on a repeat viewing. As it stands though, it was better for me than anything Nolan has done so far, including the Dark Knight. This was an altogether tauter piece of work.
However, masterpiece it isn't. That's reserved for film of an altogether different caliber. I'm not sure how much I enjoyed being confused by Inception, but I'm guessing quite a bit because confusing the audience was its main objective. By offering layered confusion, it's actually brilliant at convincing you it's smarter than it actually is. What is smart is that it pulls of said confusion as seemingly intelligent, so props for that at least.
There were countless holes in the plot - stupidly so at some points - but the film elevated itself above them by being consistently entertaining despite its flaws.
SPOILERS N SHIZ:
So, why, when heavily sedated, if killed you fall into limbo in the first dream level, but if you die underneath that level you only kick yourself back up to the one above?
If Cobb's wife was unconvinced she existed in the real world because of the Inception placed in her mind in limbo, couldn't she just spin the spinning top to determine if she was actually in reality?
There was a point when Cobb suggested as the van fell toward the river, that the little dude with the slicked hair would only have a 'couple of minutes' in his time to sort everything out, whereas they would have an hour. But then that guy in the hotel spent what appeared to be 30 minutes or so fighting in hallways, wrapping up bodies, planting explosives and carting weightless people into lift shafts? What happened here?
Does that chick from Hard Candy have more than one expression? Is that what being groomed by a paedophile does to you?
I disagree with the notion presented to me by a friend that Cobb was too fat for his role. DiCaprio is a little portly, but in the dream state I assume more is physically possible. HOWEVER, this was never once explained to be the case (iirc), and if in fact that didn't turn out to be the case, the film was plainly ridiculous by the end. That weedy dude from 3rd Rock was punching out guys like he was James Bond and everyone turned into Call of Duty supermen by the third act, taking out armies like it was a walk in the park. The entire notion that they could evade a military subconscious was farfetched anyway - I don't know how no-one caught a bullet in the van, including the Indian driver, but then it's Hollywood so it can be let go.
I was initially very put off by the scripting. Surely you all must have noticed the amount of 'informative' dialogue in the first hour, right? There was a point where I realised the on screen action was pointless and the dialogue was so dense in explanation it was the movie equivalent of an audio tape instruction manual. Once things got underway and it became more tricky and confusing, this went away almost completely as it relied on the momentum and depth of the idea of dream states. I do understand the need to lay some ground rules for the audience by way of filling them in, but some of it smacked of first-draft scripting.
These criticisms aside, I did enjoy it for what it was: very entertaining. I liked its cinematography, subtle use of CG and how it made no reference to the era or technology - everything just 'was'.
Although some were better than others, I liked the ensemble cast (DiCaprio was very good indeed, as usual) and I felt as though it was a very slick piece of entertainment with no flaws big enough to break your suspension of disbelief. I particularly applaud the lack of humour. I abhor unnecessary humour in Hollywood movies (which is most), especially sci-fi, so things being kept serious was a big plus for me.
The last shot was actually perfect. Not only a cut to black (my fave way to cap a movie) but a fantastic cliffhanger that had me flip the film back to the opening scene almost immediately.
My biggest problem is now I want someone to explain it to me. I don't mind that it was often nonsensical, implausible, and full of unexplained holes; it was intriguing enough a concept to have me wanting an explanation. Was Cobb ever out of limbo? My assumptions are along the lines that, the events of the film had taken place once, but were cyclical perhaps, because of the limbo state - explaining why Saito had grown old and Cobb was still in there. I could accept that the opening of the movie is just the ending, and the jump to the young Saito and Cobb in the Japanese dining room was a flashback cueing the beginning of the film - but only if the ending with old Saito was the same as the beginning. They're not though, they're slightly different. Saito says different things in the beginning, something about knowing a man (Cobb) who had 'delusional notions' or something to that effect.
And at the very end, what would have kicked Cobb back into the plane (and reality?). As there's no explanation for that I can only assume it isn't reality and the top keeps spinning?
Gahh... I need some sleep!
For perspective, I'd score Nolan:
Following: 5
Memento: 7
Insomnia: 4
The Prestige: 6
Batman Begins: 6
The Dark Knight: 7
Inception: 8
| My games - 
