Inception

[Lancemc]

Wasn't he the guest on the Slash-filmcast this week? I'm guessing they're discussing Inception, right? I might have to listen to that.

 

[LMP]

Yeah, I read David Chen's follow-up article on that, and White's views on film criticism are exactly as I'd expect. I'd listen to both the review episode and the After Dark.

 

[lazarus]

Guy should be put out of his misery.

 

[LMP]

Armond White: “I Do Think It Is Fair To Say That Roger Ebert Destroyed Film Criticism” | /Film

"I’ll answer you this way: If there were a whole bunch of critics who I thought were doing a good job, then I would stop."

 

[No spoken words]

I don't care what any of you guys thought of it or your over analyzation of it. I liked it, plain and simple. I walked out thinking wtf just happened and how did they pull that off. And I'd see it again, and probably will, someday. Just my two cents.

\backs out of thread.

A lot of us liked it.

 

[Jive Turkey]

A lot of us liked it.

Include me in that list. I think I'll see it again this week

 

[No spoken words]

Include me in that list. I think I'll see it again this week

I don't think anyone in here has out and out disliked it yet, actually. Lance disliked many elements but still pointed other aspects he liked.....

I've seen it twice now, saw it for a 2nd time yesterday.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Armond White: “I Do Think It Is Fair To Say That Roger Ebert Destroyed Film Criticism” | /Film

"I’ll answer you this way: If there were a whole bunch of critics who I thought were doing a good job, then I would stop."

Personally, I think that Ebert's position lets him be much more honest than a lot of critics. He doesnt have to worry about losing cred for liking a movie that does what it sets out to do, even if it's not 'art', as some might see it. His reviews are never pretentious and I appreciate that.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I've seen it twice now, saw it for a 2nd time yesterday.

How did it hold up? Still feel the same way about the ending?

 

[No spoken words]

How did it hold up? Still feel the same way about the ending?

I cannot claim to have liked it as much....some of the tension I felt was of course dissolved. It did let me focus on certain scenes that I had discussed with Lance, and that helped answer/clarify a few things for me.

As far as the ending, yes, I still have the same interpretation that I did after the first viewing....but I'm still wide open to any theories/arguments about the ending that contradict how I viewed it.

I've enjoyed discussing it, it's a nice change of pace.

So, I still liked it, most definitely, but there was a slight drop-off.

 

[Jive Turkey]

ya, I guess a lot of the excitement for me was the 'what are they going to do next??" factor, which obviously would be gone the second time around. Still looking forward to it again though.
All the theories are what makes it fun, imo. There aren't too many movies out there that aren't cut and dried by the end.

 

[No spoken words]

ya, I guess a lot of the excitement for me was the 'what are they going to do next??" factor, which obviously would be gone the second time around. Still looking forward to it again though.
All the theories are what makes it fun, imo. There aren't too many movies out there that aren't cut and dried by the end.

Agreed...and it's not just the theories, I've enjoyed clarifying/debating the rules of the dream world and their consistency, their logic, etc.....

 

[Lila64]

Mike - I know most people in the thread liked it. I had read the whole thread before I posted and as soon as I got home from the theater on Tuesday. It's just when everyone gets into certain details and tries to tear it apart that bugs me. But to each his/her own. I had no idea what the movie was about going in, except that it was Chris Nolan and Leo D. as the starring role.

deep - I'll pass on the offer to drive to the O.C. to see the movie with you.

thanks for the offer

I'll see it again someday. I'd like to see some of the details I may have missed the first time. Plus the overall experience.

\

 

[lazarus]

deep - I'll pass on the offer to drive to the O.C. to see the movie with you.

no big deal

I'll just see it alone

I'm used to it by now

 

[No spoken words]

Mike - I know most people in the thread liked it. I had read the whole thread before I posted and as soon as I got home from the theater on Tuesday. It's just when everyone gets into certain details and tries to tear it apart that bugs me. But to each his/her own. I had no idea what the movie was about going in, except that it was Chris Nolan and Leo D. as the starring role.

deep - I'll pass on the offer to drive to the O.C. to see the movie with you.

thanks for the offer

I'll see it again someday. I'd like to see some of the details I may have missed the first time. Plus the overall experience.

\

I'm not really seeing your point about people tearing it down, I guess, but that's ok. Glad you liked it, like I said, we more or less all did in here.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I'm not really seeing your point about people tearing it down, I guess, but that's ok. Glad you liked it, like I said, we more or less all did in here.

Look dude, if you're just going to keep trashing the movie, gtfo

 

[No spoken words]

Look dude, if you're just going to keep trashing the movie, gtfo

Lila's a friend and not a Canadian, so...........watch where you skate, Sally*.






* I want "watch where you skate, Sally" to be a 21st Century slang sort of threat.

 

[Jive Turkey]

it's the only way

 

[No spoken words]

it's the only way

You know, it made me smile the first time, but this time it cracked me up.



No one wants to be defeated.

 

[lazarus]

Lila's a friend and not a Canadian, so...........watch where you skate, Sally*.






* I want "watch where you skate, Sally" to be a 21st Century slang sort of threat.

Oversold it.

 

[No spoken words]

Oversold it.

Watch where you sk.......eh, fuck it.

 

[Imperor]

You're so not streets ahead.

 

[LMP]

Personally, I think that Ebert's position lets him be much more honest than a lot of critics. He doesnt have to worry about losing cred for liking a movie that does what it sets out to do, even if it's not 'art', as some might see it. His reviews are never pretentious and I appreciate that.

It's how I believe anyone should look at a movie. Judge it for what it is and what it presents and what you bring to it. Ebert's got it right.

Oh man, now I remember why I stopped listening to the /Filmcast. Lila, these are the types of shits you should get on for digging into elements of a movie unnecessarily. They don't add any insight, at all. Fuckin' fanboys.

 

[Lila64]

I don't read fanboy reviews before I see a movie. I don't need someone else to judge it for me.

And thanks Mike.

 

[LMP]

I understand. Sorry if I came off as too harsh last night, that word kind of sets me off sometimes.

I like experiencing something fresh, then picking it apart afterward to figure out how it works and forget that other people have a different approach.

Lance, that /Film interview with White is not worth it.

 

[No spoken words]

I usually do my best to avoid reviews before seeing a film, but will check some reviews out after seeing it.

 

[LMP]

Indeed. Speaking of which, this is an interesting bit of criticism:

NEVER WAKE UP: THE MEANING AND SECRET OF INCEPTION

 

[No spoken words]

Indeed. Speaking of which, this is an interesting bit of criticism:

NEVER WAKE UP: THE MEANING AND SECRET OF INCEPTION

Thanks for posting....

 

[Jive Turkey]

One thing that I really appreciated about the movie is that it never went out of its way to explain some of its elements. We really have no idea how the dream machines work, where they came from, how long they've been around, etc. There isn't even a single mention about the technology. It's just accepted that they exist. Without them, there would be no movie, but beyond that, they really play no role; The film isnt about the machines, it's about the experiences they make possible. It's strange to think that we know so little about such an important plot device, but in a way, it's refreshing.
Also, when does the movie take place? Are we ever told? It it the future? Doesnt really look like it. Alternate present? Possibly, but I dunno. Nolan could have easily given us a back story, but that would've taken so much away from the mystery of the world of Inception. Its interesting that we're trying to dissect a world we know so little about

/rambling

 

[No spoken words]

Well, I agree with what you say, JT, but that's balanced out a bit by a shit-ton of exposition as the film progresses. Not saying that I had major issues with that, and in some respects a lot of it is necessary....but, a lot of the dialogue is dedicated to explaining the mechanics of how dream extraction and inception work, etc.

As a more global statement, I'll say that I do always like when a book or film drops you into its world and does not immediately explain every single thing....I like when events unfold, be it slowly or otherwise, and you begin to fill in some or all of the blanks of the world you're thrust into. And I guess that sort of points to why I always have and likely always like the sci-fi/fantasy genres, because they are both rife for world building/exploring.

/deigning to address JT