Anyone else think Inception might be...

[Kablizzy]

it had an over reliance on CGI at time.

The hilarious part is that most of that isn't CGI.

[SlappyMcGee]

it had an over reliance on CGI at time.

The hilarious part is that most of that isn't CGI.

If you'll reread my hysterical non-review, it was actually about The Sorcerer's Apprentice, you miser.

[Tanner]

I saw this last night and it was an enjoyable if somewhat hectic 148 minutes. DiCaprio was, as always, a frowny, one dimensional stick-in-the-mud but Marion Cotillard more than made up for him by being unbelievably sad and creepy and crazy as balls. I wonder if it was serendipity that Marion Cotillard also played Edith Piaf in La vie en rose or if they chose that soundtrack specifically to jog memories.

[aids]

From my blog:

I’m neither one of those people who knew they would like this movie before they saw it, nor the kind who has to see it several times before getting a solid opinion. (However, I am writing this after seeing it twice, so keep that in mind.) Think of this film as a tapestry. You are introduced to several of the individual strands and sections first, and then follow them along as they weave and twist into a beautiful creation you wish to call your own. Sure, there are some strands missing, some are too short, and some might be covered in cat hair, but when you look at it from afar (the proper way), you are left breathless. I didn’t bother to talk about the actors or the CGI because to put it simply, they are strands made of the finest silk money can buy.

[a happy song]

And your argument against Tanner, that two days is enough to notice an overlying trend in reviewing, and that the only people who could dislike this movie are coming into it with preconceived notions, are both frankly stupid points. I'll give you the latter because you only implied that rather than flatly stating it, but two days to notice a trend? Come on, dude. People are still debating as to why Citizen Kane wasn't the best reviewed movie of it's time.

All of this is to say that Inception is my favorite movie of all time.

Stop bumming Tanner please. My points were fine.

Two days is AMPLE time to notice such a trend when you're talking about massively condensed swaths to data. After spending quite some time on those two days discussing various aspects of the film, it was more than evident that there was emerging a "cool to hate" club in regards to Inception.

The pattern was probably easy to recognise as it's a repetition of what happened with other recent blockbusters (TDK and Avatar being prime examples).

And it wasn't just me, this is something that's been noticed and mentioned all over the imdb forums, in less time than I made the conlusion myself.

And my point regarding pre-conceived notions was in regard to those who had clearly made their minds up about the film already. Prior to its release their were scores of users stating that the film was obviously garbage etc.. and while some were obviius trolls, there are those who consider themselves able to judge something before seeing it due to their superior experiences and so on. Imdb is rife with these types, and the cool to hate club was gathering momentum months before the film was even due.

The release saw these types able to spit their same venom but now with the abilty to say they'd seen the film and they were right all along, reveling in their talented predictions and intelligence.

It was more than apparent. And I guess neither of you were there to see it or you wouldn't be bothering to bitch on me about it, so I've no idea why you're even commenting...

-

As for your points regarding Meta Vs Rotten, yes, obviously Meta has the more accurate averages and totals. But as I find little value in averages as they're directly built from mostly arbitrary scoring anyway, this has very little value to myself and, I'm sure, many others.

And I disageree about the presentation. I much prefer RT's shorts snippets and quotes than Meta's chunks. But, again, if you must be anal about it, then Meta presents MORE so I guess it comes out on top too...

The reason I find RT much more useful is the way it presents the reviews from professional reviewers, especially a few in the top critic's section. I hold certain reviewrs in greater esteem than others, and RT presents a very easy to use system regarding their previous reviews and gives a sense of their overal opinions and how consitent they are.

These are both two very different ways of looking at the values here. If we're talking pure figures and averages, then meta is king, but I find RT much more giving.

[a happy song]

And your argument against Tanner, that two days is enough to notice an overlying trend in reviewing, and that the only people who could dislike this movie are coming into it with preconceived notions, are both frankly stupid points. I'll give you the latter because you only implied that rather than flatly stating it, but two days to notice a trend? Come on, dude. People are still debating as to why Citizen Kane wasn't the best reviewed movie of it's time.

All of this is to say that Inception is my favorite movie of all time.

Stop bumming Tanner please. My points were fine.

Two days is AMPLE time to notice such a trend when you're talking about massively condensed swaths to data. After spending quite some time on those two days discussing various aspects of the film, it was more than evident that there was emerging a "cool to hate" club in regards to Inception.

The pattern was probably easy to recognise as it's a repetition of what happened with other recent blockbusters (TDK and Avatar being prime examples).

And it wasn't just me, this is something that's been noticed and mentioned all over the imdb forums, in less time than I made the conlusion myself.

And my point regarding pre-conceived notions was in regard to those who had clearly made their minds up about the film already. Prior to its release their were scores of users stating that the film was obviously garbage etc.. and while some were obviius trolls, there are those who consider themselves able to judge something before seeing it due to their superior experiences and so on. Imdb is rife with these types, and the cool to hate club was gathering momentum months before the film was even due.

The release saw these types able to spit their same venom but now with the abilty to say they'd seen the film and they were right all along, reveling in their talented predictions and intelligence.

It was more than apparent. And I guess neither of you were there to see it or you wouldn't be bothering to bitch on me about it, so I've no idea why you're even commenting...

-

As for your points regarding Meta Vs Rotten, yes, obviously Meta has the more accurate averages and totals. But as I find little value in averages as they're directly built from mostly arbitrary scoring anyway, this has very little value to myself and, I'm sure, many others.

And I disageree about the presentation. I much prefer RT's shorts snippets and quotes than Meta's chunks. But, again, if you must be anal about it, then Meta presents MORE so I guess it comes out on top too...

The reason I find RT much more useful is the way it presents the reviews from professional reviewers, especially a few in the top critic's section. I hold certain reviewrs in greater esteem than others, and RT presents a very easy to use system regarding their previous reviews and gives a sense of their overal opinions and how consitent they are.

These are both two very different ways of looking at the values here. If we're talking pure figures and averages, then meta is king, but I find RT much more giving.

I saw this last night and it was an enjoyable if somewhat hectic 148 minutes. DiCaprio was, as always, a frowny, one dimensional stick-in-the-mud but Marion Cotillard more than made up for him by being unbelievably sad and creepy and crazy as balls. I wonder if it was serendipity that Marion Cotillard also played Edith Piaf in La vie en rose or if they chose that soundtrack specifically to jog memories.

Really? I found all the performances to be satisfying and more than adequate for their roles. DiCaprio was great as expected, Ellen Page delivered what little we got to know about her character with able charm, and so on...

My two favourite perfomances were from Levvit and Hardy, who both excuded an effortless charisma and underlying cool that gave the film a noirish tone in places. Levvit's character's easy appeal played off perfectly against Dicaprio's hectic desperation.

For me, at least, I thought they were all pretty great.

As for the final point, my girlfriend recognised the piece and made the connection. And apprently there was deeper intent behind the use of it. Somehow tied in with the music being the kick that awoke the dreamers, there's a piece floating about that explains it (google or imdb forums tend to link to it often).

[SlappyMcGee]

Your argument with regards to negative critical backlash was basically "I can notice critical trends two days after a movie is released because I know a lot more than both you or Tanner.

Let me say this, astheoceanblue: I think that you are flatly wrong, and I'm sure that any critic who you accuse of deciding they don't like the film who explained themselves with a full review of the film would probably be offended by your supposition that they are just geek slaves to the public opinion. If anything, I would say that hype and extremely positive critical reviews coming before the film probably influenced more reviewers to follow suit than to dislike the movie.

But you do need time to analyze trends because you need to see how people react to this movie critically in ten years from now, removed from hype and context. This is why you need time to notice a trend.

If I were you, I wouldn't bother responding to me because nearly every post you've made in this thread has made me believe that you are even more dense than the last.

[a happy song]

Your argument with regards to negative critical backlash was basically "I can notice critical trends two days after a movie is released because I know a lot more than both you or Tanner.

Let me say this, astheoceanblue: I think that you are flatly wrong, and I'm sure that any critic who you accuse of deciding they don't like the film who explained themselves with a full review of the film would probably be offended by your supposition that they are just geek slaves to the public opinion. If anything, I would say that hype and extremely positive critical reviews coming before the film probably influenced more reviewers to follow suit than to dislike the movie.

But you do need time to analyze trends because you need to see how people react to this movie critically in ten years from now, removed from hype and context. This is why you need time to notice a trend.

If I were you, I wouldn't bother responding to me because nearly every post you've made in this thread has made me believe that you are even more dense than the last.

Jerk.

I didn't once state this was the case for every single critic, nor did I say it was confined to professional critics. Nor did I sstate theat evvery negative review is a product of this phenomena.

The fact is, this trend was noticed by many peopel and documented and discussed and all of that, and if you feel like looking for yoruself you can. INception imdb board, a few clicks away.

Your responses here jhave been little more than "I know better so sit down", I'm pretty sure you haven't even bothered to research anything as you've not referenced anything.

Perfectly in keeping wioth your type of interaction though, I shouldnt' have expected more.

[Tanner]

Your responses here jhave been little more than "I know better so sit down", I'm pretty sure you haven't even bothered to research anything as you've not referenced anything.

What? Neither have you beyond saying "Go to imdb and read the forums". I've got Malcolm Gladwell's Blink sitting right next to me so while I recognize that it's possible to take large swathes of data and synthesize them at a glance, all of the examples given (at least in that book) are by people highly trained and skilled in the field. I don't think you have professional film industry credits so I'm not inclined to take your two day analysis seriously.

[SlappyMcGee]

Jerk.

I didn't once state this was the case for every single critic, nor did I say it was confined to professional critics. Nor did I sstate theat evvery negative review is a product of this phenomena.

The fact is, this trend was noticed by many peopel and documented and discussed and all of that, and if you feel like looking for yoruself you can. INception imdb board, a few clicks away.

Your responses here jhave been little more than "I know better so sit down", I'm pretty sure you haven't even bothered to research anything as you've not referenced anything.

Perfectly in keeping wioth your type of interaction though, I shouldnt' have expected more.

It's Denser Time!

"research"

"INception imdb board"

[otters~1]

Is it DENSER or DANCER? HUH?!?!

[a happy song]

Your responses here jhave been little more than "I know better so sit down", I'm pretty sure you haven't even bothered to research anything as you've not referenced anything.

What? Neither have you beyond saying "Go to imdb and read the forums". I've got Malcolm Gladwell's Blink sitting right next to me so while I recognize that it's possible to take large swathes of data and synthesize them at a glance, all of the examples given (at least in that book) are by people highly trained and skilled in the field. I don't think you have professional film industry credits so I'm not inclined to take your two day analysis seriously.

Well, the problem here is that the entire thing has been blown out of all proportion. I didn't intend my observation to be anything absolutely conclusive, it's just something that I and others have noticed that /could/ discredit certain extreme opinion.

The point was that many of the very low scores or opinions on this film (as well as other blockbusters that have a lot of positive build up) can be very aggressive in tone and focus on insult against the film's creators and other more personal attacks that discredit the reviews a little.

And this is in no way limited to the professional, and my point was never that every extreme was tainted by this idea.

And I could go into depth and provide examples if you guys want me to, but I shouldn't have to. This was never about proving myself right, I was simply explaining my perspective and was jumped on for it and called dense for going against the grain, which is a little sad.

I also recognise that these people are experienced and probably have more insight than me in certain regards, but after 20 or so years of watching and experiencing cinema from a critical perspective I'm hardly inexperienced either.

Anyway, I don't like average acores and review tallies. NO matter how you weight them people can drag them down with less than professional ideas. And while I recognise nothing I've said is conclusive, it's a worry that can't be eased entirely.

As I said, I never meant for anything I said to be an absolute fact, but simply an explanation of why I hold the opinion I do.

[smartalco]

Back to the actual topic, as opposed to bickering about IMDB...

I saw this last night, and wow. There isn't much I could complain about even if I tried. The acting was great, the story is incredible, the scenes were excellently designed.

I did however get a little confused there at the end, so someone try to explain the below to me.

Giant spoiler within

So in the first level dream of Fischer's mind, wasn't the van falling )or later, the van hitting the water) supposed to be the kick to get them back? So why is it that you see the girl and DiCaprio's right hand (god, I've already forgotten names) swim out and sit on the beach in the dream? Did they just miss the second time (water impact) as well? So if I was following that right, wouldn't that mean they would spend a week's time in the dream, which was full of guys with guns attempting to kill them all, which would send them to their subconscious forever or however that went because of the sedative. But beyond those two (or any of the others that were in the second level dream), the driver of the van should have been forced back to reality by the van falling initially, as he wasn't under sedation, yet I thought I saw him swimming out with the rest of them, maybe I mistook characters?

[otters~1]

While we're on the subject of things I don't understand about Inception:

spoiler

Why was Leo about fifty years younger than the asian dude during the flashback at the beginning? They should've aged the same once they were stuck in the fourth (or w/e) dream level at the end, leaving about a ten year difference max. I think I'm missing something fundamental here.

[Scrivener]

spoiler Q/A session

Flagmyidol: Leo got to the fourth dream level (actually limbo) and found the asian pretty quickly, he didn't age much before he got there. but the asian dude had already been down there since he died in the third level (the ice place), which to Leo wasn't long but was a lifetime to the asian dude, who didn't know he was dreaming.

Smartalco: I think your question is basically why didn't the van driver wake up when he drove off the bridge? The falling sensation wakes up anyone who falls while they are asleep, falling in a dream isn't enough to wake you up to the next level unless you die when you hit, like Fischer theoretically did (I don't think you actually see him hit, but he also has a kick from the defibrillator in the next level up). The van guy wouldn't be woken up from his van dream due to the kick he was administering to the people asleep in the back of the van.

My own question: wouldn't the zero G effect carry down through all subsequent dream levels? the sleeping bodies of people in the vans become weightless, so the people in the hotel become weightless, so wouldn't the fact that the hotel people were weightless mean that their dreams would become weightless as well? in the ice place (third level) and limbo?

[smartalco]

spoiler Q/A session reply

apparently spoilers can't contain quotes, so

***Smartalco: I think your question is basically why didn't the van driver wake up when he drove off the bridge? The falling sensation wakes up anyone who falls while they are asleep, falling in a dream isn't enough to wake you up to the next level unless you die when you hit, like Fischer theoretically did (I don't think you actually see him hit, but he also has a kick from the defibrillator in the next level up). The van guy wouldn't be woken up from his van dream due to the kick he was administering to the people asleep in the back of the van.***

I thought it was the kick in the dream that woke you up (or got you back to the previous level in multiple levels). That is why at the end when they defib'd Fischer, he didn't wake up until after he had jumped off the building, and why the girl had to jump too before she woke up to the fortress. Then even though the elevator was already moving, none of them were woken up from the snow level until what-his-name blew the charges on the snow fortress and made all of them fall. And then the easiest one to realize, none of them woke up in the van after it dove off the bridge until it hit the water, because none of them were falling in the deeper levels until it hit the water.

And I thought the whole point of the van falling was to get out of the dream as soon as they could, otherwise they'd get slaughtered by Fischer's projections (sending them all in to limbo), as without a kick, they would have spent a weeks time in the level 1 dream.

***My own question: wouldn't the zero G effect carry down through all subsequent dream levels? the sleeping bodies of people in the vans become weightless, so the people in the hotel become weightless, so wouldn't the fact that the hotel people were weightless mean that their dreams would become weightless as well? in the ice place (third level) and limbo?***
Ooh, good point.

[otters~1]

@scrivener; oh, of course, he died. I forgot.
--
I don't think it makes sense for the effects (like zero-grav) to carry down more than one dream level.

[a happy song]

Click to show/hide spoiler

***My own question: wouldn't the zero G effect carry down through all subsequent dream levels? the sleeping bodies of people in the vans become weightless, so the people in the hotel become weightless, so wouldn't the fact that the hotel people were weightless mean that their dreams would become weightless as well? in the ice place (third level) and limbo?***
Ooh, good point.

See, this is one of the very few faults I can find with the logic of the film. The bodies in the hotel dream (2nd layer) are clearly experiencing anti-gravity, which, according to the rules of outside stimulus affecting the dream states, should have an affect on those awake in the third layer.

Layer one = sleeping bodies in freefall which causes layer two to experience anti-gravity.
Layer two = sleeping bodies in anti gravity which doesn't produce any effect on the third layer.

Unless I missed something (I did have to use the toilet briefly twice), this seems al little sloppy in comparison with the rest of the delivery.

[Scrivener]

possible explanation?

the bodies in the van are weightless because of the laws of physics in their dream reality, causing the next layer down to also experience zero gravity. However, there is no physical reason that the bodies in the hotel should be weightless, so the effect doesn't carry over. I personally think it wouldn't work like this in real life, but who's to say how dream effects would carry over? It's not like people have experience in that area.

also, I am going to go see this movie again tonight.

[a happy song]

possible explanation?

the bodies in the van are weightless because of the laws of physics in their dream reality, causing the next layer down to also experience zero gravity. However, there is no physical reason that the bodies in the hotel should be weightless, so the effect doesn't carry over. I personally think it wouldn't work like this in real life, but who's to say how dream effects would carry over? It's not like people have experience in that area.

also, I am going to go see this movie again tonight.

Perhaps. It's still not entirely satisfying, but as it's not a concern that trips me to the point of not enjoying the film I doubt I'll worry too much about it.

[Destiny]

Sorry to take away the deep complexity you had all been expressing in your replies with my simplicity.

BEST. FILM. EVER.

[SkyPanda]

Awesome film!


"logic of the film"
I was happy to suspend disbelief about the inconsistencies, because pretty much none of the film would make sense in real life (dreaming inside dreams, shared dreaming, etc). It IS science fiction/fantasy.

[smartalco]

So I just watched this again. In IMAX, which was awesome. But it also helped me clarify some of my questions, so I thought I'd share.

These are spoilers

Concerning the order of kicks, I made sure to pay attention to it this time, and it appeared that to wake up (or at least go a level up), you had to receive the kick in both the current dream and the level up. Fischer didn't wake up in the last dream until he was defib'd a level up and falling in the subconscious. Ellen's character didn't wake up until Eames had blown the charges in the fortress and she was falling in the subconscious. None of them woke up in the elevator even after Arthur had blown the elevator until they were falling in the fortress. And then of course none of them woke up in the van when it went off the bridge like originally intended, they had to wait until it hit the water, providing a simultaneous kick in both the first (bridge) and second (elevator) level dreams.

As for why Cobb's was so young in limbo. I believe the idea was that the asian actually died in the first level (where he got shot). Then Cobb actually died from drowning in the first level dream as well. I think that is why they focused on him quite a bit when the van was under water, and that is why when he entered limbo, he was washed up on a beach, he was wet and had just drowned. So the difference in time between the asian dying and Cobb dying was probably only like 20 seconds in that first level dream, but apparently the jump to limbo is even more accelerated time wise, as when the entered Fischer's subconscious after he died in the fortress, it would have been 4 levels down. So at 20x speed for each level, time would have gone at least 160000 times faster in limbo.

I liked the little things you pick up on second time through, like you see the train a few times ahead of where you find out what it is. It seems inconsequential at first.

[aids]

thoughts

smartalco:
As for why Cobb's was so young in limbo. I believe the idea was that the asian actually died in the first level (where he got shot). Then Cobb actually died from drowning in the first level dream as well. I think that is why they focused on him quite a bit when the van was under water, and that is why when he entered limbo, he was washed up on a beach, he was wet and had just drowned. So the difference in time between the asian dying and Cobb dying was probably only like 20 seconds in that first level dream, but apparently the jump to limbo is even more accelerated time wise, as when the entered Fischer's subconscious after he died in the fortress, it would have been 4 levels down. So at 20x speed for each level, time would have gone at least 160000 times faster in limbo.
*****
Well, the thing is, Saito didn't die in the upper levels, only in the third (hospital) level. He died approximately right after he threw the grenade. Cobb and Ariadne don't enter the fourth level (limbo) until maybe five minutes later. Going off the formula that Yusuf gives, they have ten hours in the first level (van), a week in the second level (hotel), and six months in the third level (hospital).

10 hours -> 168 hours -> 4383 hours -> 87,660 hours in limbo (until the serum is depleted)
16.8 for the first, 26.01 for the second, which Yusuf averages out to 20x per level. So, take that five minutes, and multiply it by 20^4 (for all the levels) to get 800,000 minutes = 13,333 hours = 555.5 days. Wait, that's not right. That's only like a year and a half.

Well, in any case, I still don't understand why Cobb isn't older than Saito, because he spent five decades down in limbo, which is added to his 'mind' but not his 'body.' So, when he goes down to limbo again to get Fischer and Saito and destroy Mal, he should be like 90something. But Saito is still older than him. O.o

[Tanner]

Well, no. Cobb wasn't directly injured on any level except the first. He most likely died of those injuries while asleep in the van and subsequently died on all levels, sending him to limbo from the level where he initially died (the first level of dreams). Also, you're missing one more multiplier for you calculations.