Watched it and gonna watch it again.

@DIB: I liked your thoughts on the whole movie!

This is a mind fuck of a film, and if there is one movie you have to see this summer it has to be this!

 

Last time I watched what someone called a "mind fuck film" it was Shutter Island. And it fucking sucked.

 

Shutter Island doesn't even compare to Inception. It's far and away the best film I've seen in a long time.

 

Spoiler

At that last moment in the theater, there was an audible groan of frustration at the ending. Pretty damn awesome.

 

Same here, when i watched it last night and mind you it was late showing, theatre was packed full and everyone let out a groan of frustration at the ending. That was an epic movie, Nolan is fucking genius!

 

This. Fo'sho. Loved every minute of it.

 

Spoiler

Same here; open-ended endings tend to get that reaction. Needless to say, most of the car ride back from the theater was spent debating whether he was in a dream or in reality.

As others have said, an awesome movie.

 

Christopher Nolan... How the fuck do you even come up with something like that? I just, don't even know...

Have my babies.

 

Don't you hate it when the movie industry realizes that one of their number has done something awesome, and immediately work to counteract it with extremely gay?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afs7SSaUuXg

A movie about Facebook.

Who reads the pitch and consciously decides to funnel money into this? Granted, it has the look of an indy 2 million + dollar venture, but the fact that it exists is still insulting.

It's a movie about a fucking website for crying out loud.

As for the cast: Justin Timberlake is actually a good golfer and is said to be a good actor, fine.

But how do you explain Jessie Eisenberg? There's already an obligatory awkward teenager typecast actor in Michael Cera, there's no need for a second to be thrust upon the wide screen.

The one imperfection of my Inception viewing was witnessing that shit. The pompous tone (we invented Facebook! myspace is suing us), the elevator music, the fact that every single actor looked like a bitch. The popcorn turned to ash in my mouth and I ended up being able to eat it at about the end of the first act.

 

Good movie. Saw it on an IMAX screen (one of the older, properly huge kinds, not the digital tripe they tend to build these days), and it looked even more impressive. Some of the movie's scenes were shot with a 65mm camera, and I think I recognized a few of them (sharper, finer grain, etc.). But in any case, it was an impressive spectacle.

The only thing I didn't really like was the movie's soundtrack - IMO Zimmer has been dumbing it down too much lately (Dark Knight being another example of this). But overall, I give the movie 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Edit: as a side note, the DH trailer also looks pretty damn awesome on a big screen.

 

Side note: Was anyone else thinking Occulemency and legilimency throughout the movie?

 

No. It took 100% of my brain power to process the sheer awesomeness of this movie.

It was as if... I was dreaming.

(see what I did there)

 

I saw this a couple hours ago. I loved the hell out of it, and especially the way the ending is open to interpretation.

Will buy, will watch again.

 

Saw this a couple days ago. Awesome shit, but I'd be happier if it made more sense. I'll probably have to watch it again, and hope I understand it better, but I'll still go ahead and post a few things bothering me, hoping people here to have some answers.

Spoiler

When Cobb's top seems to hesitates at the end, forcing the question of whether or not any of the film happened outside of dreamworld at all, it's a bit pointless, since we're obviously at the same level we were before when the top stopped spinning (I suppose this is similar to what DIB was saying).

What I really don't understand, is how the top works as a totem. My understanding was that the point of totems was to be sure you weren't in a dream engineered by someone else - which is why the others carried an object, which only they knew the weight of. Why would Cobb's top spin endlessly in dream? Wouldn't someone engineering a dream for him know that his top isn't supposed to spin endlessly?

Another thing, off the top of my head, is the whole mess about synchronized kicks and falling out of chairs and whatnot. I'll admit I didn't understand a whole lot of this, but what I think I understood didn't really work well.

So basically, the sedative they use leaves ear function intact, so the feeling of free-fall (off a bridge, or a chair) would serve to wake them up. How is the van falling off the bridge not a synchronized kick in itself? The dreamer from that first level going into free-fall sends the whole second level into a gravity-free state (indistinguishable from free-fall, as I see it), so logically the third level should be gravity free too. And they should all wake up, since they're all falling at the same time, in all those levels.

So yeah, this is why I'm of two minds (although there's probably a lot more I didn't fully understand, like all the limbo stuff). I don't mind ambiguous endings, but I still expect movies to somewhat enlighten the viewer. In some ways, I liked the Prestige better, simply for the ways things come together in the end, even though most aspects of this film are infinitely superior (characterisation and emotional depth, in particular). Still, probably the best film of the year.

 

Yeah, I had to have a think about this, too. Best I could come up with:

Spoiler

The effect is determined by which one of the characters is dreaming at a particular level. Like this:

The bearded fellow driving in the rain, backing off the bridge, that's his dream, and the hotel, next level down, is Arthur's (Levitt's) dream. Yes? So Arthur is the one dreaming the next level down while in the van, which is experiencing gravity loss as it backs off the bridge. Arthur is the one being tossed around and its his inner ear that loses gravity.

So in Arthur's dream, where gravity is lost, although all of the characters are there, it is Eames who dreams of the fortress in the snowy mountains at that level in the hotel.

The van backing off the bridge effects gravity in the level Arthur is dreaming, but because, technically, Eames is dreaming in the hotel and not in the van (although he is in the van, it's not his dream at that level or the next), there is no sensation to cause gravity to fuck up in the fortress/snow dream, although he is floating around in the hotel.

Does that make sense? Any plot holes?

So because Eames dreams the snow fortress in the hotel, and not in the van, the third level remains unaffected because there's nothing causing the sensation of gravity loss in the hotel - it's simply a byproduct of the first dream level, with the van going off the bridge.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

This movie bored the living shit out of me. Cobb's makeup was terrible and the entire ensemble looked like they'd collectively robbed a Brooks Brother's store prior to filming. The entire thing was a gigantic riff on the movie Scarface from the sound track to the obsession with the idea of a fall, and the special effects weren't enough to keep me enthralled. The only thing I liked about the entire thing was the naming of Ariadne. That was it.

 

Joe: no, you didn't really answer my question. My idea was that free-fall is indistinguishable (to the inner ear) from a gravity-less state to the guy dreaming in one world, and engineering the next (which is why, when they enter into free-fall, Levitt dream world becomes gravity-less). So basically, why is the effect of Eams being in free fall so different from Levitt being in free fall?

That said, I do realise I'm being a bit nitpicky.

 

I'll just leave this here to help.

 

Thank God I and most people stopped giving a shit about Giovanni's opinion ages ago.

 

Whoa. Whoa whoa whoa, and whoa.

Brooks Brothers is awesome, motherfucker D8