Inception... Third best movie of all time?
Friendo 26 comments
Revised again on July 20, 2010: This movie is currenty rated #3 out of the all time top 250, with 39,850 votes counted on IMDb. Only preceded by The Shawshank Redemption (1994), and The Godfather (1972).This seems incredible to me, this movie was just not that good, and for sure must fall from this grace. Once again, the rating of this film is a sad commentary on the mentality of the movie goers in this country. The original review follows below.
Rarely do I ever go out to see a mainstream movie on it's opening day, but I saw the trailer, and thought "That looks pretty cool, I'll blow eight bucks per person on it", which ended up being $26.00 after the two large Cokes @ $5.00 each.
Was it worth it? Well it's hard to say, but I'm leaning towards "Not worth it."
Inception was...kind of a cross between Dark City, Memento, and The matrix, and possibly more complicated than any of them alone or put together. A dream, within a dream, within a dream, and then, one more unexpected dream. Each one taking ten times longer than the one before it.
Though I will say, this is the kind of movie that one revisits over and over again in ones head, to see if one can figure it out. Whether you ever figure it out or not of course, is not really important, I 'spose it's the thoughts it provokes on a long term basis that do count. If you leave the theatre, trying to figure it out, and are still trying a few days later, then perhaps it did make it's mark. Truly though, it was so overwhelming, I just can't make a real judgement at this point.
Who doesn't like Leonardo DiCaprio? Joseph Gordon-Levitt, for sure cool, before and in this film. And Ellen Page (Hard Candy, Juno, Peacock, and The Stone Angel, along with many others) Wow, she really does it for me, but I gotta hold back, my girlfriend is looking over my sholder.
The reality is, you'll just to have to find out for yourself. Unless you're going to wait for the DVD, you'll have to pay the 21st century price. If you think you'll get out without dropping a Twenty, you're dreaming within a dream. Am I the only one who's seen this?
Inception (2010) Your mind is the scene of the crime.
UPDATE Sunday 7/18: O.K. here's what I don't get...At this point, I.M.D.b. rates this movie at number 83 out of the all time top 250, with a score of 9.3 counting 5123 votes at this point. Now that I have had some time to think about it, here is another sad commentary on our lives and times. Now don't get me wrong, the movie was entertaining, visually striking, and complex...But what it lacked was real human substance, significance, relevance, and the like.
Now that I'm going on this subject, I need to say-with deep regret- that this film falls into the category that so many mainstream American films do these days, playing to the children of a lesser God, those with an impared sense of genuosity. Those pretentious masses, who can watch a man walking away from an explosion without looking back, and for the hundredth time, say: "Cool!"
Oh, and BTW...Now that my girlfriend isn't watching me: I have got it so bad for Ellen Page. She really does it for me. I googled "Ellen Page Naked" but nothing any good came up. I think she's so hot though, she's even great fully clothed.
Tony Fyler
Sunday 18th July 2010 | 01:22 PMI was due to be seeing it today at the London IMAX (biggest screen in Britain apparently), but frankly, sold my ticket. Seemed like an opportunity to be expensively bored for several hours, especially with the 'one more dream after that' mentality. I seem to be one of the few peopl on the planet who hated Dark Knight, but that's pretty much why I did - it never seemed to tie together, it just unravelled into ending after ending after ending. Not sure I can be bothered to go through that experience again, no matter how cool the CGI.
...in response to this comment by lulz. Could you be a bit more specific??? I don't mind being a moron, but I like to know why...Seriously.
f-
...in response to this comment by Tony Fyler. Woah! I thought I was the only person on the planet who though The Dark Knight was an overrated snooze fest. Glad I'm not alone on that one :-)
...in response to this comment by Friendo. LOL - He (she?) probably liked Transformers as well :-)
Joe Marco
Sunday 18th July 2010 | 04:55 PMdamn you friendo...now I have to take a stoned chick to see this thing.
...in response to this comment by Joe Marco. Is her name Lulz?
f-
Trent Greguhn
Sunday 18th July 2010 | 10:46 PMI completely disagree with you Friendo.
There was huge human substance within Leo's character and the dynamic with his wife, who actually ISN'T his wife which you keep have to reminding yourself.
This falls within the definition of thriller movie because of all the action that's going on, but the story is completely unique. I mean good lord, you complain about "mainstream" America, but how many people do you think actually understood the subtle complexity of the story line? We FINALLY get a movie that doesn't knock you over the head with what it's saying and completely original without being an adaption of some sort and you don't like it because it's mainstream? Not eccentric enough?
I mean really, when you have a cast like this, (you forgot to mention Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe-- and how could you forget Cillian Murphy?) I fail to see how this couldn't be an enjoyable experience.
From what I understand the only people who HAVE seen it who've commented so far are Friendo and Lulz. My suggestion is to actually go see it-- I promise you'll be entertained. I was worried about the two hour and forty minute play time but I actually wouldn't have minded it being longer.
I'm sorry, but I have to say this kind of thinking is going to be the death of movies. Whatever happened to just enjoying a film by its merits-- now we pick it apart by the slightest problems, or we refuse to suspend our disbelief because movies are so realistic now. Or-- we refuse to go see it altogether based on what?
The screenplay deserves an Oscar for being so involved. The trailer is a terrible representation of the film, to which I think Friendo would agree also since he's actually seen it. Seriously-- instead of railing on it without even seeing it, go see it then come back and tell me what's wrong with it.
Also, I paid $12.00 for both my girlfriend and I to see it. Matinee prices are often forgot about ;)
Trent Greguhn
Monday 19th July 2010 | 12:47 AMAlso, I cannot help but give props to Christopher Nolan for being able to use slow motion in a non-cliche manner.
Not only was the slow motion used well, but it was integral to the story and couldn't have been used any other way but in slow motion.
That is impressive.
My hope is that someday I'll be able to write something as involved as this movie was. You cannot fully appreciate it until you've seen it, and when you see it I ask that you realize how hard it would be to create a universe that you see in Inception.
Tony Fyler
Monday 19th July 2010 | 01:59 AM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. It''s a fair point that I should probably see it before I criticise it. But that's not going to happen, because everything I hear about it turns me off, and that being so, there's no social convention that says I have to see it.
If we're talking about movies I HAVE seen, I can give you a lengthy critique on the sloppy writing, largely half-hearted performances and self-reverential direction at the expense of telling a coherent story involved in the Dark Knight (except that would probably mean watching it again, and I'm hoping to never be that bored again). That being so, and the general public having raved over it mysteriously, I figure my view of Chirstopher Nolan movies is not in sync with the majority of people who watch them (apparently, except for Mikey - woohoo!), and so I don't ache to see them and numb both my brain and my behind for another handful of hours while Mr Nolan struggles to think of a point, and then struggles even harder to come to it.
Trent Greguhn
Monday 19th July 2010 | 03:00 AM...in response to this comment by Tony Fyler. True, if a movie turns you off then you don't have to see it. But if it turns you off then you should be able to articulate why it turns you off. I'd get a better understanding of your perspective of why the movie turns you off if you could explain it to me.
And again, I'm happily willing to discuss where you found the writing to be sloppy, which performances were half-hearted and what part of Nolan's directing was not likeable if you cite specific instances as far as The Dark Knight goes.
The general public hasn't raved over it mysteriously. They rave because it's a damn good film and highly enjoyable with fantastic performances.
I went into Inception with no expectations, and I thought the trailer gave the movie a its-been-done-before feel, but when I actually sat down and watched it I realized my first impression was anything but right.
I'm not even necessarily defending Christopher Nolan at this point, I'm defending movies and questioning what seems to me a propensity for disliking something that is popular and well-liked by a large group of people.
Hell, I could tell you a few things that I felt could be left out of the film, but that doesn't take away from the whole experience of it. Weighing it by its merits I feel like this film is breath of fresh air to what has been nothing but bland and uninteresting stories this year.
We have tons of movies trying to be like Superbad, Anchorman and the Hangover, cliche action movies and sequels and adaptions. Even Pixar has resorted to making Toy Story 3 (a fantastic movie) Monsters Inc. 2 and Cars 2.
Nolan finds a point in each of his films, whether it be Machiavellian tone found in the Dark Knight or corrosive and creative powers of the mind found in Inception he always seems to find a way to comment on something while telling a damn good story.
I'm open to debate and counter-points, but as of yet I haven't heard one specific example. I think you should go into Inception with an open mind and see what happens.
Tony Fyler
Monday 19th July 2010 | 05:27 PM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. That's fair enough Trent. Will make myself sit through it again, and come back to you. "rave mysteriously" was probably inelegantly put - I mean they've raved, and, having sat through the same movie as them, I am mystified as to the appeal - but this is because I don't find it to be a damn good movie, entertaining or with good performances. As I say, will come back to you with specifics once I've watched it again. And just as you're not necessarily defending Nolan, I'm not necessarily attacking him either. I thought Batman Begins was very good, very tight and cogent and solidly entertaining. Neither am I particularly anti-populist, though one has to beware of the Emperor being butt-naked of course. I'm happy to watch anything at all if it makes me smile, if it makes me think, or if it makes me ask uncomfortable questions. On the strength of Batman Begins, I was happy to go into The Dark Night, hype or no hype. Having been unconscionably bored and made only to think of a director who had forgotten how to tell stories throughout that movie, I'm rather gun-shy to lend him my eyeballs for the length of Inception.
On a lighter note - Machievellian tone? That was the point of that movie? This is Batman we're talking about, isn't Machievellian tone something of a given, even in the full-colour Schumacher versions, Machievellian tone is woven into the very fabric of the concept. If that was all that movie was about, it could have been done in about a third of the time, an with vastly more satisfying results, I'd say. But as agreed, I'll come back to you with specifics once I've watched it again.
Kim OJ
Tuesday 20th July 2010 | 09:50 AM...in response to this comment by Mikey. I just saw the dark knight a few days ago and I was not impressed.
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 21st July 2010 | 07:16 AM...in response to this comment by Tony Fyler. Well, this thread is specifically about Inception which to my knowledge the only person who have seen it and don't love it is Friendo, which is fine since movies are subjective and opinion based.
As far as The Dark Knight goes, Heath Ledger is awesome. And to act that well is crazy to me-- have you tried acting or writing a screenplay or directing a movie? It's really hard work.
Not all Batman stories have Machivellian undertones, as Batman rarely thinks the ends justify the means (if he did, then he would have no qulams killing anyone), it was primarily the Joker who brought those tones and acted as a mirror for Batman to reflect upon himself and what he might become.
As I've said before, I'm biased and I love Batman. I love all the movies (with the exception of Batman & Robin.) But if you were to go see Inception instead then you could go into a fresh universe with no previous material to work from or be biased towards and go in objective. I wouldn't expect you to have to pay for a movie you don't want to see, so maybe wait for dollar theater?
Kim OJ:
Why not impressed?
...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Well Trent, Looks like your hope for this movie's success is being brought to fruition by the viewing populace, the ratings have gone way up this week. This is not what I would have predicted. But as fellow contributors and readers alike surly already know, my doom and gloom predictions are rarely born out.
I honestly have to say though, I just didn't get that much out of this flick...It was too long, and that "great slow motion" was not just a bit-but way too slow. It took so long for that van to hit the water, I could have watched "Full Metal Jacket" twice, and gotten three times as much out of it. where's Stanley Kubrick when we need him?
I will give it one thing though, it was visually exciting, and as Mike eluded to the CG's were intimidating and more than realistic.
Looks like this is going to ride to the very top...Now I know how it feel to be one of those contrary critics.
f~
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 21st July 2010 | 02:04 PM...in response to this comment by Friendo. #3 out of all time seems a bit of a stretch to me, I just think it's getting some shock value out of raters right now, and if it passes Shawshank Redemption, one of the few movies I deem a perfect movie along with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Dr. Strangelove. I'm sure Nolan's success with the Dark Knight is drawing some favors from moviegoers for this movie.
Again Friendo, I'm open to criticism of the film but I don't think "too long" should be one, and if you're a fan of Kubrick then no movie should feel too long for you. If you have the patience for 2001's twenty minute concerto intro then Inception seems like a walk in the park. And the slow motion, again, was absolutely necessary, and had to get slower the deeper they went with the dreams.
The only problem I felt existed in the movie was the unnecessary chase scene in some nondescript village in real life. It ruined the juxtaposition of reality with the dream world, real life, uneventful days with fantastic over the top dream worlds. Had this scene been omitted then I feel the movie would have coalesced more into the point of the film. Apart from that I found it entirely consistent and enjoyable.
andrew
Wednesday 21st July 2010 | 06:37 PMhow does a movie that has just come out,probably not in cinemas here in aust yet be rated in the top 250?
...in response to this comment by andrew. You've got to remember Andrew, that's #3 in the top 250 on IMDb with 46,333 votes. And all things being relative, 46,333 is spit in the wind compared with what the worldwide totals will ultimately be. See it for yourself, go here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/ I hope it goes down a bit. I felt similarly the year "Silence of the Lambs" was best picture...Sad, sad, sad.
And Trent-buddy-You almost have a point on the Kubrick length thing(interestingly, "Dr. Strangelove" and "2001" are both in my all time top five, though Dr. S. is pretty short) but I'm not sure you can even compare the modeled special effects of the 1968 "2001" pre-computer graphics scenes played out to The Blue Danube, with Inception. Remember, in 1968, in Cinerama 70mm, with incredible stereo, this was all new. Nobody had ever made anything like this before. It captured ones mind with sound and visuals that had hitherto never been beheld on any screen. Trent, my friend...No comparison.
Go here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/trivia and check out the trivia for "2001" I don't believe any movie will ever generate so much of this kind of thing again. I really hope Trent that you are not trying to compare Inception to this Kubrick all time masterpiece.
Love ya' buddy...thanks for taking me seriously.
f~
DavidS
Saturday 24th July 2010 | 07:35 AMI must say the movie was... meh. I can't phrase it any other way. Was it bad? No. Was it good? No. Was it something I've seen before? Yes. Was it shown in a new way? Yes.
I don't go to the theater to enjoy some deep movie. I stay at home with netflix for that. I went out with a buddy, grabbed some tacos, and hit a movie to break my weekly routine. It was a pretty movie and I'll be the first to admit that I love showy flashy movies more than I should. Overall I think it was worth the 15 bucks to see (I also snagged some of those new 3d glasses from the movie next door). I wouldn't be disapointed if I never saw it again. Being number 3 on the top 250 list? That's a shame and people should feel bad about it. Granted Dark Knight is on there too and I personally don't think it deserves it either (it was a good movie but not top 250).
Finally, OMG Ellen Page OMG. Yeah, I'm totally into that too. I remember being so confused at Hard Candy when it came out because I didn't know if I should be turned on or mortified.
P.S. I'd also like to point out that Ellen Page is older than me and it's not weird at all I found her hot in Hard Candy.
Ellen Page
Saturday 24th July 2010 | 09:51 AM...in response to this comment by DavidS. Well, I realize this leaves me open to criticism having never actually seen the movie myself, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a great leap of faith by taking your word for it, DavidS.
Oh, and thank you for your kind words about me. ;-) Wanna catch a movie sometime?
...in response to this comment by DavidS. Hi David...Thanks for watching my back on this one. Nice one. And thanks for saving me on the Ellen Page thing. I was beginning to think I was wacked out on that one. She's all I have been able to think about since I saw the movie. Don't tell Hillary though, she's kind of sensitive...I don't know how women can be jealous about movie stars though, they are so unattainable...Like, never in a million years...Sigh!!!
I'm gonna really go out on a limb here: When I was a child, there was this cartoon called "Mighty Mouse" he was always pitted against the cats, and they always almost got him, but he would always win in the end. Deep inside, I wanted those cats to have their way with the self centered mouse, but MM won every time.
I can't really tell the rest of the story, I'll leave it to the imagination of the reader.
I gave you a kudo for your well thought out comment. Good to have you around...Watch out for those religious studies though.
f~
piyez
Friday 6th August 2010 | 09:53 PMwell, this is a movie for those with some thing more than just a pie hole above the neck. Don't think Nolan made this for guys who spend $8 on a movie ticket and $10 on soda....simple as that...
...in response to this comment by piyez. If he didn't make it for guys who spend $8 on a movie ticket and $10 on soda (actually that was for two sodas) who did he make it for? Guys who spend $24. on a movie ticket and $80. on soda?
"Simple as that"??? What does that mean? Who did he make it for? Who...Tell me who! All the deep thinkers who go to the movies here in the States? Com on piyez, Just who did he make it for? WHO? You twit...Who? What???You got no "Pie Hole"?
f~
I fixed the Trailer video above. It should play now, with available HD.
I still think it's not that good...For sure worth seeing, but only once.
f~
Henk V
Sunday 24th October 2010 | 08:02 AMI'll wait for the DVD if anyone around here remembers. Ive got a lot of old drama to watch already.
Mikey
Sunday 18th July 2010 | 12:31 PMYeah the story looks like total wank. I'd watch it for the CG and nothing more.