Oops, I'm a little late with my replies and I promised last night I'll explain myself more...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan
Are you saying there was too much exposition in this film? I didn't find that to be the case. I thought it has the necessary amount to keep it comprehensible.
|
Way too much explaining of the plot and the rules. But that's what happens when Nolan makes his plot and his puzzles seem too convoluted. Under this superficial complexity this film is not hard to get. Actually there's nothing to get here, that's my big gripe with it. The only engagement it asks of its viewers is to carefully follow plot points, not to miss anything and to remember the rules of the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackhammer
I only watched Inception myself for the first time last night and I do agree with Dankstra on a lot of points.
I absolutely commend a director working within a hugely commercial arena wanting to add gravitas to a film but stripped down I found the film an action film in disguise and less about psychological machinations and more about the spectacle and although it was a film with great visuals I didn't find a huge amount to actually get me thinking as there is always the excuse that 'it's just a dream' thrown at me.
It is a very good film but it could have been absolutely superb if it remained oblique enough- as dreams often are.
|
Yeah I can agree with this and give him the respect for trying, but I believe he doesn't have the sensibility for that.
Matrix (the first one) did it much better and without the pretension that it represents more than it actually is, an exciting sci-fi movie. This false gravitas and complexity of the pseudo-psychology is actually hurting the film's fun sci-fi element. We're too busy following the plot points to actually enjoy the film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt
I don't think it was a film for the arthouse community, I don't think it was a film for people who want to see a film to think about the ideas presented.
I think it was an ambitious film and because it was a film on such a grand scale, if Nolan made it too oblique I think it would have flopped financially (maybe not critically) and I don't think he could take that risk but I think it remains ambiguous enough for it not to be a typical run of the mill film.
I don't think it was a film meant to be overly thought provoking, I just think it was a summer blockbuster that had more ambition and substance than a lot of other blockbusters. I think if you're looking for your mind to be tested you're going to be disappointed, but if you're looking to be enthralled by a brilliant action/heist/thriller then you've watched the right film.
I can see why people think it folds in on itself due to it's ambition, but IMO Nolan manages to pull it off.
|
I didn't expect it to be an arthouse film either, but I remember when it came out it was praised as a masterpiece on every level. I knew then that was a lot of rubbish, but I was hoping it'd be at least intriguing, in the vein of Prestige, but on a larger scale. The bold part is also a problem for me, 'cause I didn't find the movie exciting even as an action/heist and I blame the complex plot for that. As I said, we're too busy picking up plot lines and learning the mechanics of dreams. The whole film is mechanical and sterile. And don't get me started on those dreams. Even if they're constructed they should have some elements and feel of real dreams and not be this literal. I've read somewhere an interesting comment, something like 'maybe Nolan dreams mechanical manuals'. Hilarious and so true. Even dreams in
A Nightmare on Elm Street, a ****ing horror movie are more dream-like than here. That's why I ask: what's the point in putting his story in dreams? They certainly feel more like some virtual, video game reality, but yeah Matrix did that and much better. I will have to watch
Paprika and
Dark City and see how they compare to Inception. (Actually I've seen Dark City long time ago, but I need to remind myself.)