Jump to content

Inception


Millard

Recommended Posts

And what if I were to watch any of those movies and tell you I didn't care for it? What would you say? That I lack the intelligence to appreciate its artistic value? I'd hope not.

 

I would give you a decent explanation into understanding the movies. Because if you don't think these movies are great, you probably do lack the intelligence to recognize their artistic value (let's not even talk about appreciate it). :)

 

YGuy, I'll go into that later. I haven't got much time on hands at the moment.

 

Oh, would you now? :rolleyes:

 

Because I wouldn't even bother trying to explain anything about Inception or anything else to you, because it would be pointless. Because I actually recognize that other people have different tastes and points of view and to try and convince them that they are wrong would be presumptuous on my part. And, most importantly, that these other points of view are NOT necessarily a result of someone being less intelligent than I.

 

That I think that a good movie is judged by its popularity is simply a reflection of that belief; that I can actually recognize something is a good movie even though I didn't necessarily like it. For example, those movies you listed are probably all very good movies, but there is a good chance that I wouldn't care for at least one of them, for any number of reasons. That's how human beings are. You can't please everyone, but when you do manage to please a good majority of them with a movie like Inception, in my book you've got a winner. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And what if I were to watch any of those movies and tell you I didn't care for it? What would you say? That I lack the intelligence to appreciate its artistic value? I'd hope not.

 

I would give you a decent explanation into understanding the movies. Because if you don't think these movies are great, you probably do lack the intelligence to recognize their artistic value (let's not even talk about appreciate it). :)

 

I'm going to tackle this.

 

Inception is about as close as to arthouse as the average moviegoer will ever get. It's not going to compete with 8 1/2 or Yojimbo or Salo, it's not designed too. I'd like to think of myself as a film aficionado and i've seen much deeper and meaningful movies than inception, however it's not a bad movie. For starters, it's miles better than Avatar, a movie that I still don't get how the hell it got half as much as it did. I don't really think Inception is hard to grasp, a mentally retarded person could probably grasp most of it and walk away feeling satisfied. But it is for an action movie, not a mindless shoot em up (no pun intended) - it's a thoughtful movie with plot that is simplistic ,yet complicated depending on how you wish to view it.

 

Inception is better than alot of shit thats pumped out, and in that regards, I can see why it's *must see*.

 

I still think Following, is a better Nolan movie, I do think i'ts a must own for DVD collectors, and it is probably a film that most casual cinema fans could stomach a time or two.

 

Not perfect, not Amazing, Not mind blowing, but a solid top movie that should be one of the top films of the year on almost everyones list.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what if I were to watch any of those movies and tell you I didn't care for it? What would you say? That I lack the intelligence to appreciate its artistic value? I'd hope not.

 

I would give you a decent explanation into understanding the movies. Because if you don't think these movies are great, you probably do lack the intelligence to recognize their artistic value (let's not even talk about appreciate it). :)

 

I agree completely.

2257AD.TUMBLR.COM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what if I were to watch any of those movies and tell you I didn't care for it? What would you say? That I lack the intelligence to appreciate its artistic value? I'd hope not.

 

I would give you a decent explanation into understanding the movies. Because if you don't think these movies are great, you probably do lack the intelligence to recognize their artistic value (let's not even talk about appreciate it). :)

 

I agree completely.

Would you get over yourselves and ditch your stupid elitist attitudes? :|

wl7w9j.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to do so when we see stuff like avatar make the money it did - it goes to show that the majority of moviegoers care only for a cheap thrill, rather than a quality piece of cinema.

 

I don't think it makes anyone less intelligent...but there are some pretty [cabbage]ty movies around that the average moviegoer would call amazing, and that's quite unfortunate.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you guys ever once stopped and considered that JUST PERHAPS Avatar's main purpose was to showcase advances in the CGI industry? There are incredible things James Cameron managed to do, and calling it a cheap thrill is just a big [bleep] you to all those animators and artists that slaved for hours over that movie.

wl7w9j.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think avatar is nothing more than a glorified version of cowboys and Indians with a nice earthy story. No amount of CGI can make a decent film great.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think avatar is nothing more than a glorified version of cowboys and Indians with a nice earthy story. No amount of CGI can make a decent film great.

This this this.

 

The CGI was phenomenal - every single person who worked on it 100% deserved the oscar they got.

 

The rest of the movie was subpar at best.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this movie last week, and it was amazing. After the movie, when I called my dad to pick me up, he thought I was on drugs because I kept asking him if I was dreaming. :unsure:

Roses are red,

Violets are blue.

This line doesn't rhyme,

And neither does this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you get over yourselves and ditch your stupid elitist attitudes? :|

It's not being elitist, it's called being abstract. Some people get it, the majority don't.

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That I think that a good movie is judged by its popularity is simply a reflection of that belief; that I can actually recognize something is a good movie even though I didn't necessarily like it.

 

That has got to be one of the strangest things I've ever read.

21o4pav.jpg

Signature by Maurice Sendak

When the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to do so when we see stuff like avatar make the money it did - it goes to show that the majority of moviegoers care only for a cheap thrill, rather than a quality piece of cinema.

 

I don't think it makes anyone less intelligent...but there are some pretty [cabbage]ty movies around that the average moviegoer would call amazing, and that's quite unfortunate.

 

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. For example I didn't really like Clash of the Titans at all. The CGI was amazing, as was the action, but I thought the movie itself was just meh. Yes Avatar was average at best, but in my opinion it was a world better than movies like Clash, and combine that with he best damned CGI experience I've ever seen and it becomes a hell of a movie. Yeah CGI isn't everything but neither is plot. I guess it's just more important to some than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to do so when we see stuff like avatar make the money it did - it goes to show that the majority of moviegoers care only for a cheap thrill, rather than a quality piece of cinema.

 

I don't think it makes anyone less intelligent...but there are some pretty [cabbage]ty movies around that the average moviegoer would call amazing, and that's quite unfortunate.

 

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. For example I didn't really like Clash of the Titans at all. The CGI was amazing, as was the action, but I thought the movie itself was just meh. Yes Avatar was average at best, but in my opinion it was a world better than movies like Clash, and combine that with he best damned CGI experience I've ever seen and it becomes a hell of a movie. Yeah CGI isn't everything but neither is plot. I guess it's just more important to some than others.

From what I've heard of clash (haven't seen it personally) the CGI wasn't that great.

 

Bottom line here is that some people care more about the artistic quality a movie possesses, thus these cinema critics, as it were, find it harder to appreciate a movie with large negative qualities. I agree, plot isn't everything, but it is a critical component, and I can't bring myself to call a movie with a bad plot "good". Entertaining - perhaps. But entertaining and a genuine, quality movie are two different things.

 

All movies are made to entertain - for example I found "attack of the clones" entertaining but the general consensus among the movie-going public is that it's the worst star wars movie out there, and I agree,

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. For example I didn't really like Clash of the Titans at all. The CGI was amazing, as was the action, but I thought the movie itself was just meh. Yes Avatar was average at best, but in my opinion it was a world better than movies like Clash, and combine that with he best damned CGI experience I've ever seen and it becomes a hell of a movie. Yeah CGI isn't everything but neither is plot. I guess it's just more important to some than others.

I just can't fathom this statement., I guess it's what you call Michael Bay syndrom (Explosions, Explosions Explosions (robot chicken reference) For me CGI is a step down overall in movie making. Take a look at this.

 

george-lucas-1983-2005.jpg Here's a trilogy without CGI, And a trilogy with CGI, "Bigger" name cast with the same director with the same "vision". One set of movies is iconic, one set of movies is widely scorned.

 

The question to me must be asked - Why do people in 2010 turn back to watch movies like Casablanca, The Hidden Fortress or The Shining?

 

Simply because a good story, powerful acting and a perfect mix of the two creates a film that makes an impact on those who view it.

 

If CGI is all you care about, will you watch Avatar in 30 years? or will it be to "painful" to watch, Must like people praised beast wars in 1995 (first 3D) Cartoon, in 2010, it's hard to watch even for die hards.

 

Plot, Acting, these let movies stand the test of time. CGI, is a gimmick, and although it can cut cost, over the test of time many "great" movies in your for cgi I'd wager you'd have a hard time returning to decades later?

 

Ever watched and enjoyed black and white film? Ever seen a C or D grade Horror flick and enjoy it? Theres a reason films like Citizen Kane never drop below $10 on sale, and "cgi" films that have impressive visuals and nothing else - Drop price quickly.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you guys ever once stopped and considered that JUST PERHAPS Avatar's main purpose was to showcase advances in the CGI industry? There are incredible things James Cameron managed to do, and calling it a cheap thrill is just a big [bleep] you to all those animators and artists that slaved for hours over that movie.

 

If you believe that Avatar was created to showcase the advancement of CGI, your sadly mistaken. first and foremost it's about the story, the technology that brings it to life is second.

tFtfA.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1994, director James Cameron wrote an 80-page scriptment for Avatar. Cameron felt that the technology had not caught up with the story and vision that he intended to tell.

 

It's clear Avatar is primarily about the SFX (especially looking at the way it was marketed). The story is laughable, especially compared to Camerons previous work.

keen.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1994, director James Cameron wrote an 80-page scriptment for Avatar. Cameron felt that the technology had not caught up with the story and vision that he intended to tell.

 

It's clear Avatar is primarily about the SFX (especially looking at the way it was marketed). The story is laughable, especially compared to Camerons previous work.

 

Yeah, thats marketing.. Their job is to get as may people into the theater as they can. They don't care about the story they just want to make sure that enough tickets are sold that film will make enough money so everyone comes home with money in their pockets. So of course they're going to focus on the 3D aspect of the film, who wouldn't? It's hot and If I'm not mistaken every 3D movie that has been released since has been a hit in the box office despite reviews. From that quote you pulled, it only shows that Cameron cared so much about his story (keyword) and his vision that he was willing to wait for the technology to catch up with it. He didn't just write any old story for the technology he wrote a story and then created the necessary technology so he could tell his story the way he envisioned it. If you really believe that Avatar is all about the special effects you really need to go and listen to every interview James Cameron made about avatar because they will prove you wrong.

tFtfA.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to tackle this.

 

Inception is about as close as to arthouse as the average moviegoer will ever get. It's not going to compete with 8 1/2 or Yojimbo or Salo, it's not designed too. I'd like to think of myself as a film aficionado and i've seen much deeper and meaningful movies than inception, however it's not a bad movie. For starters, it's miles better than Avatar, a movie that I still don't get how the hell it got half as much as it did. I don't really think Inception is hard to grasp, a mentally [developmentally delayed]ed person could probably grasp most of it and walk away feeling satisfied. But it is for an action movie, not a mindless shoot em up (no pun intended) - it's a thoughtful movie with plot that is simplistic ,yet complicated depending on how you wish to view it.

 

Inception is better than alot of [cabbage] thats pumped out, and in that regards, I can see why it's *must see*.

 

I still think Following, is a better Nolan movie, I do think i'ts a must own for DVD collectors, and it is probably a film that most casual cinema fans could stomach a time or two.

 

Not perfect, not Amazing, Not mind blowing, but a solid top movie that should be one of the top films of the year on almost everyones list.

 

Das, your tackle failed. You've said things, but nothing usefull. It doesn't matter that this is as close to arthouse as some people will get (I don't even agree), it doesn't matter that it can't compete with the movies you mentioned, for the quality of this 'discussion' it doesn't matter that you've seen deeper movies, it doesn't matter if Avatar was better or worse and after that talk you say it's better than most '[cabbage]' that's pumped out, but I still don't see why.

 

I do have to agree that just because many people like a movie doesn't make it "good".

 

While I wouldn't call Inception an "amazing" movie, nor one of the very best I've seen, I do consider it to be a good movie, for several reasons.

 

Visually: Impressive, effects wise. I also liked the set designs and shooting style - I found many of the sets had a new take on what was old and while not being anything "new" per se, they kept things interesting.

Acting: I didn't see a single bad actor in the entire film. Granted, the female characters were somewhat one-dimensional but that's never been Chris Nolan's strong point(dark knight??) and I do think Mal's character was one-dimensional deliberately, to show that she was only a shallow construction of Cobb's mind. Ellen Paige's character could have been a bit more interesting however.

The Idea: While the concept of dreaming and manipulation of such is far from groundbreaking, the thought put into the construction of the plot was far more than what goes into most movies - it was intricate but not so much so that it wasn't understandable.

 

The movie isn't very impressive, visually. They make decent sets and have a understanding of how to use a computer, that's about as impressive as building a lego boat. The images don't show us anything about the story. And Nolan's action scenes are still horrible; stiff and fragmentated with no feeling for rhythm. The acting wasn't bad, but you wonder what's the use of it when all the other things are so average (especially the characters!) and don't form a 'whole' together. And the idea, well, it's not much new, and the thought of the construction of the plot still isn't impressive to me. It's lifeless, it's about as 'impressive' as solving a puzzle.

 

Next to all that, you have to wonder: how do you rate a movie? It's not exact math where you pick three different points of the movie, give 'm a 6, 7 and 10 and take the average of that. When you watch a (good) movie every thing should fit together..to give an example: if you've got good acting and a bad characters, what's the point of the acting? Nothing, the actors do their best, but it doesn't make the characters more interesting.

21o4pav.jpg

Signature by Maurice Sendak

When the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rate a movie based on how well it entertained me, purely, I walk in mostly, expecting to be disappointed as i'd like to think i've seen some fantastic films in my life. Sci Fi and Fantasy is my main squeeze and I love campy movies like the last starfighter and even some questionable films like "Never Die Alone" and other "Stinkers". Quality is qualitative. Wolverine Orgins was absolute crap to me, because it bastardized the source material, , yet, it was still - to a degree, entertaining enough to buy on Blu.

 

I suppose at the end of the day, it comes down to subjective taste - I found the action scenes in Inception wonderful. Granted i've seen better fights, better plots, it was well enough to be better than a large majority of the crap people put out and flock to see.

 

What wlll people flock to that has a chance of being a Criterion or An arthouse classic? I think Inception stands a fair chance, especially if Armageddon, a film I found.. above average at bestl, made the cut - inceptions not far behind.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts on this movie:

 

So I loved the movie, I absolutely loved it. It made me think, it made me go over every bit of the movie to try and come to my own conclusion about the ending. Even if there were only 2 possible situations, so mine would be no where near unique.

 

However, while i love what I took from the movie, I agree with How2PK on is critique of the movie. It is horrible is you look at it with the basics of a movie in mind. Emotion, plot, characters, acting, setting. There is little emotion, the plot was very predictable as far as I'm concerned, and pretty boring. I mean, first the main problem is presented as Cobbs getting the idea out of the guys head. Then it's Cobbs pulling off inception. Then all of a sudden the real plot is Cobbs is trying to go back home! But then that storyline isn't emphasized much, and this all becomes about Cobbs pulling off inception. The main plot is never clear, right up to the end.

 

The characters are mostly shallow, and quite frankly confusing. Never is there any hint that Cobbs has any memory of his wife being the amazing person she supposedly was. Yeah, there's his guilt over what he did, but you'd figure that at some point in the movie, we would have seen a Mal that was in love with Cobbs, that he loved. Instead there's always the crazed psychotic [bleep] at every turn. Also, how is it that Mal is able to enter the dreams? No one else has any of their demons popping out of no where. Then you have the bad-ass (The forger), the token minority (Chemist), the concerned supporting actress (Ellen), the intellectual (The guy that fights in zero gravity). Cobbs is pretty much the only character that can't be summed up in a matter of words.

 

The acting was quite good. However acting is used to deliver the characters, so really it can only ever spoil a good story.

 

The setting was pretty much the best a setting could ever be in this kind of film. It was simply a setting, and wasn't meant to make some sort of artistic claim or be a show off of CGI, it was just a setting.

 

So pretty much, because the characters were lacking, there was a confused plot, and so there wasn't much of a movie. There was an idea, one that has been used quite often, but one me and my friends have never really seen in a movie ourselves. So I love that the movie made me think, but I hate that it didn't make me feel.

 

Oh, and How2PK, while I agree with you, you're sounding like a douche.

There's no such thing as regret. A regret means you are unhappy with the person you are now,

and if you're unhappy with the person you are, you change yourself. That

regret will no longer be a regret, because it will help to form the new,

better you. So really, a regret isn't a regret.

It's experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rate a movie based on how well it entertained me, purely, I walk in mostly, expecting to be disappointed as i'd like to think i've seen some fantastic films in my life. Sci Fi and Fantasy is my main squeeze and I love campy movies like the last starfighter and even some questionable films like "Never Die Alone" and other "Stinkers". Quality is qualitative. Wolverine Orgins was absolute crap to me, because it bastardized the source material, , yet, it was still - to a degree, entertaining enough to buy on Blu.

 

I suppose at the end of the day, it comes down to subjective taste - I found the action scenes in Inception wonderful. Granted i've seen better fights, better plots, it was well enough to be better than a large majority of the crap people put out and flock to see.

 

What wlll people flock to that has a chance of being a Criterion or An arthouse classic? I think Inception stands a fair chance, especially if Armageddon, a film I found.. above average at bestl, made the cut - inceptions not far behind.

 

I'm in agreement with you Das. I enjoyed the movie and thought it was pretty interesting.

 

That being said I am not a film buff nor do I try and seem like one. I'm positive there are much more artistic films out there. However for a person like me who sticks to what hollywood puts out I thought it was a good movie. *shrug*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is based on [bleep]ing with your mind (down to the very last frame). That's not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, I loved the movie, but I agree with those who would have wished for more rounded characters and emotional intricacy. But really? A talentless hack? Just because a movie is geared towards the masses, that doesn't make it completely unpalatable.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone get that the whole thing was a dream, or is that just me? Because throughout the movie in his dream, his kids were wearing the same clothes as they were in the end of the movie. Plus they were the same age, which to me is imposssible. but ehh

I wont smoke it if the name ain't right

My haze is looking like its been in a color fight.

Guess we are smoking on Picasso, light it up, ignite the spark.

Man it feels good to be smoking on fine arts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.