daigo
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2009
- Posts
- 1,235
- Likes
- 29
I really enjoyed Inception. An engaging and active movie with an excellent cast. Whether or not it's the best film of the year, the latter half of 2010 will have to decide that.
Okay, it's a heist film encapsulated in a metaphysical, pseudo-intellectual, and thrilling sci-fi wrapper.
Two thumbs up
Anyone notice the amazing soundtrack?
WARNING, SO MANY SPOILERS YOU'LL KILL ME
Well, I hate to miss a good opportunity for a rant, so i'll post at Headfi what I posted elsewhere.
Well, I just saw Inception - at least most of it. I walked out without a 15 minutes to go. I just couldn't take the pointlessness of the film at all. I absolutely hated it.
The film just strained any credibility or logic. The filmmakers (and writers) obviously became so entranced with their concept of these "dream raiders" that they didn't bother to work at selling the idea to the audience on a core level. Instead, they apparently thought the idea of "shared dreaming" was so obvious and plausible, that they became more worried about creating a cool team of characters to give the story appeal. "It's like the "Mission Impossible: II" meets "The Collected Works of C.G. Jung Vol.6, get it?) We're just supposed to swallow the plausibility of all these rules that get spewed out at us at 60 mph through snappy patter. HELLO, would you mind selling me on the primary concept first?
Not for one instance did I believe in the concept of group of people being connected to share dreams through whatever scant science they barely bothered to pitch. I think there was some minor reference to it being "military." Right, isn't it always? Hey, medical professionals, get rid of those all those bulky magnetic resonance imaging scanners. What you need is are IV tubes connected to Zero Haliburton suitcase with a big rubber button in its middle! Eeeech.
But besides not even bothering to linger for a moment of basic plausibility, the writers then went on to complicate the idea even further: What if there are a couple levels of dreaming that our rescue team can descend through like shoppers on a Macy's escalator. Hell, I don't think Freud even dared to go there. "Yeah, you gotta watch out for those super-ego pedestrians, they're really mean sonofabitches." I just sat there incredulous that I was supposed to be swallowing all this tripe as the hunky actors zipped metaphysical fastballs past me. "You mean we can drop into the limbo state of the unconsciousness, rescue your ex-wife from the dream prison you keep her in, then grab the McGuffin and kick our way back out simultaneously through four psyche levels at once -- because time is relative?" What the @$#?!
There's was just so much psychological/metaphysical/Sci-fi mumbo jumbo twisted up in this ludacrist action flick wrapper that I couldn't stand it. It was like something the Wachowski brothers would have written after getting out of Psych 101, smoking some herb and watching "Sneakers." Some people have tried to pass this off as "thinking man's" cinema. If you want to give me thinking man's cinema, then please don't insult me with the other 75% of the film being endless gun battles and car chases.
And, oh yeah, and DID I mention there were a whole bunch of cool scenes of guys on skis fighting bad guys in at a winter fortress. Great action! What were they fighting about? Well, they want to get into a safe on the 2nd dream level where a character might finds a psychological clue as to why he really should like his father so the team could implant the idea in his brain than he should break up..... Arrrrrrrrrrrrrraggggggh!
Still trying to understand why people think this is science fiction...?Just because it's different than the status-quo doesn't mean it's science fiction. It's a fantasy thriller, nothing more.
Still trying to understand why people think this is science fiction...?Just because it's different than the status-quo doesn't mean it's science fiction. It's a fantasy thriller, nothing more.
Quote:
The difference between fantasy and sci-fi is plausibility. Sci-fi explains events with technology, whereas fantasy either explains with magic or doesn't at all. Example: if the shared dreaming in Inception was not explained by the mysterious technology, but was instead due to a "psychological" breakthrough, it would be fantasy.
Quote:
The difference between fantasy and sci-fi is plausibility. Sci-fi explains events with technology, whereas fantasy either explains with magic or doesn't at all. Example: if the shared dreaming in Inception was not explained by the mysterious technology, but was instead due to a "psychological" breakthrough, it would be fantasy.