Originally Posted by Shmowen

WHY does this movie only have an average rating of 86% on Rotten Tomatoes? It should be around, oh, I dunno.......100?

I would not consider this movie to be that great. It makes for an interesting logic problem ( albeit one which seems to redefine what is possible in the world's rule set as it goes along), and an entertaining action movie but it fails to engage any of the characters with any serious amount of depth. The only character we gain any information on is Leo's character and any insight we get into him is handled with no subtlety or complexity.

I like the movie for what it is, but any good movie allows its human element to breath and not be squandered under esoteric science fiction.

Originally Posted by Fight0

I would not consider this movie to be that great. It makes for an interesting logic problem ( albeit one which seems to redefine what is possible in the world's rule set as it goes along), and an entertaining action movie but it fails to engage any of the characters with any serious amount of depth. The only character we gain any information on is Leo's character and any insight we get into him is handled with no subtlety or complexity.

I like the movie for what it is, but any good movie allows its human element to breath and not be squandered under esoteric science fiction.

Ah, but who is to say what is required of a good movie? Are characters all that matter?

In my opinion, a movie has to have an original story before I can consider it "good" - even if the characters have emotional depth, it'll (to me) still be a lackluster film if the idea is a regurgitated concept ("underdog" sport-movies, anyone?)

I also believe a movie's primary objective is to hold its audience's attention, and - in a best-case scenario - be able to keep the audience intimately interested in the plot to the very end. Accordingly, I believe the story of a film should be its creative crux.

Also (again, in my opinion), I believe defining a "good" movie across genre boundaries is an erroneous task - when I go to see a science-fiction movie, and specifically a psychological sci-fi such as Inception, I expect a level of Asimov or Phillip K Dick-like probing questions to be posed by the film and a respectable amount of spectacle from the director's imagination to be displayed. When I go to see a drama about a reality, however, my expectations are different - I expect a plausible storyline with a realistic portrayal of life. So, when I judge whether a movie is good, I decide whether it has fulfilled - and, in a perfect world, surpassed - the cinematic expectations of the genre it is representing. (The one exception to this are Tarantino movies, since they are usually "genre-mixers" - however, that in itself is almost a genre, so I suppose the situation is really not that different)

I believe Inception, being a science-fiction movie, really broke some conceptual boundaries and posed many "what if?" philosophical queries to the audience, and it was also visually stunning and expertly well-shot. It was the closest sci-fi movie I've seen in a while that has come close to the excellence of the innovative classics that have defined its genre, including Blade Runner, Memento, and The Matrix.

What more could I ask for?

Originally Posted by Shmowen

Ah, but who is to say what is required of a good movie? Are characters all that matter?

In my opinion, a movie has to have an original story before I can consider it "good" - even if the characters have emotional depth, it'll (to me) still be a lackluster film if the idea is a regurgitated concept ("underdog" sport-movies, anyone?)

I also believe a movie's primary objective is to hold its audience's attention, and - in a best-case scenario - be able to keep the audience intimately interested in the plot to the very end. Accordingly, I believe the story of a film should be its creative crux.

Also (again, in my opinion), I believe defining a "good" movie across genre boundaries is an erroneous task - when I go to see a science-fiction movie, and specifically a psychological sci-fi such as Inception, I expect a level of Asimov or Phillip K Dick-like probing questions to be posed by the film and a respectable amount of spectacle from the director's imagination to be displayed. When I go to see a drama about a reality, however, my expectations are different - I expect a plausible storyline with a realistic portrayal of life. So, when I judge whether a movie is good, I decide whether it has fulfilled - and, in a perfect world, surpassed - the cinematic expectations of the genre it is representing. (The one exception to this are Tarantino movies, since they are usually "genre-mixers" - however, that in itself is almost a genre, so I suppose the situation is really not that different)

I believe Inception, being a science-fiction movie, really broke some conceptual boundaries and posed many "what if?" philosophical queries to the audience, and it was also visually stunning and expertly well-shot. It was the closest sci-fi movie I've seen in a while that has come close to the excellence of the innovative classics that have defined its genre, including Blade Runner, Memento, and The Matrix.

What more could I ask for?

I agree that classifying a movie as good is really a pointless endeavour, good is a word that really says nothing. However I would still argue that character development is central to great narrative fiction. If you enjoy special effects for the sake of wonderment, that's fine, it is just not my cup of tea and is definitely a different genre of movie. As for the concepts that Inception brings forward, I just feel like they would be best explored in some sort of textual form; example: I really can't see Theseus' ship being a great movie, but it's much more economically articulated than any of Inception's ideas.

Why I feel Blade Runner is such a great movie is that it so painfully ignores any sort of empathy for the majority of its running time; we're so effectvely thrust into the shoes of Rick Deckard's cavalier that his sudden realization of his sins at the end of the movie come as an effectual moment for both the character and the audience. The Matrix is just a movie asking you to wonder whether or not reality is what we think it is, which is fine, but these sort of ideas have been better articulated in other mediums. It's surely a better action movie, but I would prefer Blade Runner anyday.

Originally Posted by Fight0

I agree that classifying a movie as good is really a pointless endeavour, good is a word that really says nothing. However I would still argue that character development is central to great narrative fiction. If you enjoy special effects for the sake of wonderment, that's fine, it is just not my cup of tea and is definitely a different genre of movie. As for the concepts that Inception brings forward, I just feel like they would be best explored in some sort of textual form; example: I really can't see Theseus' ship being a great movie, but it's much more economically articulated than any of Inception's ideas.

Why I feel Blade Runner is such a great movie is that it so painfully ignores any sort of empathy for the majority of its running time; we're so effectvely thrust into the shoes of Rick Deckard's cavalier that his sudden realization of his sins at the end of the movie come as an effectual moment for both the character and the audience. The Matrix is just a movie asking you to wonder whether or not reality is what we think it is, which is fine, but these sort of ideas have been better articulated in other mediums. It's surely a better action movie, but I would prefer Blade Runner anyday.

Ah, I see what you mean - more so of characters' importance to the plot than to being a cinematic device in themselves. I guess I'm really arguing for your point of view! I should read forum posts more closely. However, I still think that Inception scores the big numbers in almost every department of cinema, but that's just how I felt about the film; in reality, as you said, defining what is "good" is about as individually subjective as it gets.

Oh, I didn't mean that I wanted special-effects when I said "spectacle"; I meant that I want a total, atmospheric, and immersive experience when I watch certain kinds of movies, which would not necessarily include special-effects. More than anything, I meant set design, costume, cinematography, and music. Blade Runner would be a perfect example of blending all of these peripheral features into a masterpiece of film-making - Vangelis' music and, of course, Scott's directing make that movie a real spectacle for all the senses, and the story is of true intellectual quality.

So ya, I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially on the Blade Runner point; it's easily my favorite movie (see: my avatar )

Originally Posted by Shmowen

it's easily my favorite movie (see: my avatar )

lol I didn't notice.

Originally Posted by naurasj

I think that when they go into a "Second layer" or "dream within a dream" it means that they are simply going deeper into their subconscious, not necessarily into a second subconscious.

I know they are going deeper im just questioning how they actually do it because they hook up the character that are in the dream again and use the machine which doesn't make sense because those things are not physical and the machine itself in the dream cannot actually induce the dreamer to go deeper.

Originally Posted by EasternHeat

I know they are going deeper im just questioning how they actually do it because they hook up the character that are in the dream again and use the machine which doesn't make sense because those things are not physical and the machine itself in the dream cannot actually induce the dreamer to go deeper.

Maybe the sleep-device in the dream is really just a "projection" of sorts representing a mechanism which informs the subconscious to go into a "deeper" level? I dunno - as a sci-fi movie, it requires several leaps of faith; for example, how do they share dreams when they're connected via an intravenous tube and not some sort of cerebral monitoring device? (And how is the architect able to construct the dream's physical space before hand if it all takes place in the mind? It seems kinda ambiguous to me at times in retrospect)

Wasn't so much of a movie as it was a wikipedia article. Two and a half hours of plot exposition, jesus christ. It's like Nolan started writing the script and never stopped. These characters just do not ever shut the **** up. So much talking, you'd think they'd have something to say.

<Spoiler>
First, it doesn't make sense how the get to the "dream within a dream" state. Because they just use the same machine? How did that machine get into the first dream? Did they just dream it up?
Second, since the girl was the architect of the dream, she designs the whole thing... so does that mean the first dream is hers?
Third, how did they get to limbo? Did they go into Leo's dream?

And finally, in the end, he could be dreaming, but I really dont think its the same dream as the rest of the movie. If they succeed with their mission, then its reality. But if they fail... its possible that he was sharing a dream with the grandfather. Because he's the grandfather, he would know the faces of the children.

</Spoiler>

Originally Posted by Shmowen

Maybe the sleep-device in the dream is really just a "projection" of sorts representing a mechanism which informs the subconscious to go into a "deeper" level? I dunno - as a sci-fi movie, it requires several leaps of faith; for example, how do they share dreams when they're connected via an intravenous tube and not some sort of cerebral monitoring device? (And how is the architect able to construct the dream's physical space before hand if it all takes place in the mind? It seems kinda ambiguous to me at times in retrospect)

For the bold part that's one idea i had in mind but its still not very convincing if you know what I mean. And I guess for the 2nd part the machine itself is like a computer where the model of the dream is placed and where all of their minds are connected into one? But its still the whole going into a deeper level that is off not because I don't think there are deeper levels in the subconscious because I think there are, but its just how its done that doesn't seem viable at all.

Still a good movie though, I think if they planned it out a little more and really really really thought about it and tried it could have been a really epic movie, as in one of the best of all time. However it is still very good.

Originally Posted by Marlowe

SPOILER:
Also, I'm not sure they were consistent with the "kick" thing, is it something that has to be done in the dream? Or is it something done in the waking world/level above? It seems like there were instances of both happening- Cogg being pushed into the bath in the first scene, for example, vs. Ariadne jumping off the building to wake her self up.[/color]

/SPOILER

Actually, when you think about it, there was still a "kick" for Robert and Ariadne; Eames used a defibrillator to wake Robert up, and Eames' explosives on the snow fortress (ie, the collapsing fortress) woke Ariadne up. I think the idea was that two events (ie kicks) had to be synchronized both in the dream layer one was conscious in and in the layer above them....but how did Cobb and Saito wake up from limbo? Was it the handgun on the table alone? (ie, like Mal, death was the only escape from limbo?)

Yah, apparently death can release you from limbo

Originally Posted by djRAIN

Yah, apparently death can release you from limbo

Also, both Saito and Cobb had already been "kicked" in the highest level of the dream layers (they had drowned in the van), so all they had to do was to realize that they were in limbo (which I think is the main obstacle) and kill themselves.


EDIT: SPOILER about the Ending of the movie:

There's one thing I read elsewhere that really suggests the end was reality; Cobb isn't wearing his wedding ring, whereas he always wore his ring in the dreamworld - perhaps the puzzle has been solved?

Originally Posted by Shmowen

Actually, when you think about it, there was still a "kick" for Robert and Ariadne; Eames used a defibrillator to wake Robert up, and Eames' explosives on the snow fortress (ie, the collapsing fortress) woke Ariadne up. I think the idea was that two events (ie kicks) had to be synchronized both in the dream layer one was conscious in and in the layer above them....but how did Cobb and Saito wake up from limbo? Was it the handgun on the table alone? (ie, like Mal, death was the only escape from limbo?)

If you needed a synchronized kick though, what about in the first dream scenes where Cobb is woken up by being pushed into the bathtub (but has no kick in the dream world)? And didn't it show Ariadne waking up before she fell from the explosives?

I'm also a bit confused about after they've completed the mission and are in the van after the kick. They go through the trouble of swimming out of the van, when if the kick had worked they should have just woken up.

Function spoilers (spoiler_alert)

Oh come on he spins the top to see if he is dreaming or not throughout the whole movie. The top spinning at the end symbolizes how his nightmare has ended and now is happy again.

end function spoilers