Inception
- Red_5
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:59 pm
- Location: Twitter.com/Defend_America
- Contact:
Inception
...The inevitable discussion thread!
I don't know about you guys, but it's easily my favorite movie!
Intense, creative, mind-bending, no sex, dang well thought out, etc.
Let's hear your thoughts!
I don't know about you guys, but it's easily my favorite movie!
Intense, creative, mind-bending, no sex, dang well thought out, etc.
Let's hear your thoughts!
- Krom
- DBB Database Master
- Posts: 16138
- Joined: Sun Nov 29, 1998 3:01 am
- Location: Camping the energy center. BTW, did you know you can have up to 100 characters in this location box?
- Contact:
It was good, although the director must hate the audience since they didn't show if it stopped or not at the end.
Actually the first thing I thought of when I looked at the plot outline was an animated movie I've seen called \"Paprika\" but aside from having people use some <plot device> to dive into other peoples dreams they have very little in common.
Actually the first thing I thought of when I looked at the plot outline was an animated movie I've seen called \"Paprika\" but aside from having people use some <plot device> to dive into other peoples dreams they have very little in common.
- Red_5
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:59 pm
- Location: Twitter.com/Defend_America
- Contact:
Re:
EVERYONE in the theater I was in started freaking out simultaneously! I really loved/hated that twist though, VERY thought provoking!Krom wrote:It was good, although the director must hate the audience since they didn't show if it stopped or not at the end.
- phx13 [POC]
- DBB Cadet
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:14 pm
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Re:
That's what you say about everything.phx13 [POC] wrote:It made my balls explode
Re:
The director doesn't hate the audience at all, it stopped in the end and he was in the real world. If you pay attention to his wedding ring throughout the movie he will have it on whenever he is in a dream and have it off whenever he is in the real world. He didn't have it on in the end.Krom wrote:It was good, although the director must hate the audience since they didn't show if it stopped or not at the end.
Why doesn't it work?
- DarkFlameWolf
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: North Carolina
My boyfriend wants to see it again and I couldn't wait for it to end.
I gave it only two stars. I liked the story, the special effects and especially the actors but I didn't like the cinematography. The lens distance to subject, and excessive camera shake, was awful and I never liked movies where the characters are so \"in my face\" I can almost count skin pores so I won't be buying the DVD or seeing it again.
I liked the last twenty minutes partly because of the music and partly because it was finally over. Just wanted to give another point of view.
Bee
I gave it only two stars. I liked the story, the special effects and especially the actors but I didn't like the cinematography. The lens distance to subject, and excessive camera shake, was awful and I never liked movies where the characters are so \"in my face\" I can almost count skin pores so I won't be buying the DVD or seeing it again.
I liked the last twenty minutes partly because of the music and partly because it was finally over. Just wanted to give another point of view.
Bee
- Foil
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re:
Okay, I can understand the objection to the "up close and personal" filming style. I enjoyed it, as I felt the film was more character-driven than anything, but I can appreciate someone not liking that style.Bet51987 wrote:...I didn't like the cinematography. The lens distance to subject, and excessive camera shake, was awful and I never liked movies where the characters are so "in my face"...
But where are you getting "excessive camera shake"? They used a lot of rolling / tilted / moving shots, but Nolan used almost zero camera shake.
I can say that, because I always take note of camera-shake nowadays. My wife has had inner-ear issues for almost 10 years now, and is very sensitive to even the smallest shake. It's something I now watch for, and I only remember one scene early in the film where any shake was used.
After the movie, my wife said she had to focus on other things during some of the rolling / tilting / moving shots, but she also mentioned the lack of shaking, and said she appreciated that the director hadn't overused it.
Re:
Sorry, I should have said it differently. I just meant that I didn't like the quick scene changes, panning, and moving shots while still shooting with an "in your face" close-up lens. It ruined it for me and I found the same problem with the Star Trek movie.Foil wrote:Okay, I can understand the objection to the "up close and personal" filming style. I enjoyed it, as I felt the film was more character-driven than anything, but I can appreciate someone not liking that style.
But where are you getting "excessive camera shake"? They used a lot of rolling / tilted / moving shots, but Nolan used almost zero camera shake.
I also thought the lead in was boring and way too long but the excessive use of the close up lens was my main reason for wanting to leave and I'm very much a science fiction fan and I see every one of them.
@AlphaDog. Yeah, those had "camera shake" but third person movies are supposed to.
Bee
Re:
Remake or not, this movie was better than 99% of the other ones out there in the theater. What movie are you talking about? I want to check it out.Neo wrote:This is basically that other movie from the 1980's where that young man enters into people's dreams.
Why doesn't it work?
Re:
I did notice the lens distance being quite close but it didn't seem to bother me that much. Maybe because I was sitting on the very back row but I don't know.Bet51987 wrote:The lens distance to subject, and excessive camera shake, was awful
Regarding excessive camera shake, I honestly didn't notice this at all. Most recent movies I have gone to see I distinctly remember walking out of the theater thinking "blah blah blah was cool, but I will never purchase this or want to see it again because of the excessive shaking in every scene". I can't stand that, this annoyance started for me with the Bourne Identity. Now I actively look for shaky reports before I go see a film. But I really didn't notice it in this film if it was there.
Why doesn't it work?
- Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
Re:
Which one?Neo wrote:This is basically that other movie from the 1980's where that young man enters into people's dreams.
I quite enjoyed eXistenZ. It wasn't so much "dreams" as "video game simulations", but the basic idea was the same.
Re:
Haha, that movie pissed me off. Now THAT is the worst ending ever. One of those movies where you think "now what was the point of anything in this movie when the ending is like that!"Lothar wrote: I quite enjoyed eXistenZ. It wasn't so much "dreams" as "video game simulations", but the basic idea was the same.
Movies that are all dreamy with confused reality can be good but there needs to be SOMETHING planted on solid ground or there is no point in anything that goes on.
eXistenz was a great idea done horribly wrong IMHO.
Why doesn't it work?