Inception is a very very good film.

[-Swizzy-]

Nothing to it. There is two people who will discredit this move:

1) Dimwitted simpletons who couldn't keep up.

OR/AND

2. Elitist snobs who always have to go against a mainstream movie to stand out.

You hit the nail right there.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

There is no reason to think that this movie is trash. Usually the movies that get mixed reviews are more than likely trash (although not always). But the ones where the vast majority thinks that it was great, and others who take a bigger leap and overrate it and say that it's the greatest movie. Now to go from that to, "Nah it's garbage", is absurd. Who's wrong here, the fanboy overrating it OR the one underrating it calling it "Garbage".

You don't have to think of it as great, but yo should at least acknowledge that it was good. Otherwise it makes you look like a compete idiot or someone with an agenda, as outlined by those 2 categories.

It's poor film-making and falls short on a number of levels. Steep yourself in the annals of film, then see how good you think Inception is. You have a healthy attitude to boxing history, think of film the same way.



I don't believe the group to which I refer are the 'odd ones out'...they're just another group.

[Danny Gunz]

It's poor film-making and falls short on a number of levels. Steep yourself in the annals of film, then see how good you think Inception is. You have a healthy attitude to boxing history, think of film the same way.



I don't believe the group to which I refer are the 'odd ones out'...they're just another group.

I dont understand how is it poor film-making?

Im not trying to call you out im just curious as to what you mean.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

I dont understand how is it poor film-making?

Im not trying to call you out im just curious as to what you mean.

It's just a shiny, shallow hot mess.


Nolan is fixated on technique and plot, but has nothing to say. There is no emotional response to any of it, or even any real intellectual response. His plot quickly becomes pointlessly convoluted cerebral grandstanding for the sake of it. And his technique is cold and lacking in actual creativity/innovation.


There are plenty of inspired technicians in the history of film who can take you to far greater places, layers and levels above Inception.





I could easily divide fans of Inception into 2 generalized groups if I wished,


1. people who are easily awed by superficially impressive special-effects

2. pseudo-intellectuals who start threads on forums boasting about how they 'get' Inception -- when there's nothing of real substance to get -- to try and make themselves look smarter than they actually are





And, so...to The Video Trading Block to download and drop karma.

[Blooper]

It's poor film-making and falls short on a number of levels. Steep yourself in the annals of film, then see how good you think Inception is. You have a healthy attitude to boxing history, think of film the same way.



I don't believe the group to which I refer are the 'odd ones out'...they're just another group.

i honestly believe you're a pretty smart dude that's why i seriously doubt you meant that bold part.

i think you're just taking a stance and will debate it to the best of your abilities.

well this is an online forum so i guess there's really nothing wrong with that.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

i seriously doubt you meant that bold part.

You can look at it relatively, but, no, I pretty much mean exactly what I wrote. Good 'film-making' is about so much more than just presenting a superficially tidy product. So much more. It's a refined and incredibly multi-layered craft. And it's starting to be a forgotten one in many quarters.



Mediocrity is artistic poverty to me.



The Last House On The Left is technically shocking even in its time, but remains one of the greatest and most important movies of that decade. It's so damn rich on so many levels (the jarring emotional juxtapositions, the bizzare semi-accidental editing Genius on show), for all its surface of grindhouse cheapness.

[Blooper]

You can look at it relatively, but, no, I pretty much mean exactly what I wrote. Good 'film-making' is about so much more than just a presenting a superficially tidy product. So much more. It's a refined and incredibly multi-layered form.



Mediocrity is artistic poverty to me.



The Last House On The Left is technically shocking even its time, but remains one of the greatest and most important movies of that decade. It's so damn rich on so many levels, for all its surface of grindhouse cheapness.

i think the moment this film provoked much thought and became such a polarizing product, nolan succeeded in the category of good film making.

i bet you a lot of filmmakers would gladly claim this film as their own if it was offered to them.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

i think the moment this film provoked much thought and became such a polarizing product, nolan succeeded in the category of good film making.

i bet you a lot of filmmakers would gladly claim this film as their own if it was offered to them.

Yeah, but which film-makers? And why? Goes back to the true craft of film-making being a dying one anymore.


I disagree that something is good just because it causes a momentary furore.

It's just another mediocre movie from the turn of a decade as little as 5 years from now.





One spin on Inception is that it's a movie about movies.


Look at something like, say, Rear Window, truly a movie about movies, a tortured expression of the cruel, voyeuristic impulses for which such movies are made to be "entertainment"...and of male weakness/psychological-impotency in the face of powerful female ***uality.

In the guise of a neat murder-thriller viewed out of one guy's apartment for the entire movie.

That's deep.



What's Inception actually saying about anything? I don't even hear its advocates praising it for its entertainment value per se...all I hear is that it's, like, really, really clever and if you don't 'get' it you're dumb...or something.

[Blooper]

Yeah, but which film-makers? And why?


I disagree that something is good just because it causes a momentary furore.

It's just another mediocre movie from the turn of a decade as little as 5 years from now.





One spin on Inception is that it's a movie about movies.


Look at something like, say, Rear Window, truly a movie about movies, a tortured expression of the cruel, voyeuristic impulses for which such movies are made to be "entertainment"...and of man's weakness/psychological-impotency against the power of female ***uality.

In the guise of a neat murder-thriller viewed out of one guy's apartment for the entire movie.

That's deep.



What's Inception actually saying about anything? I don't even hear its advocates praising it for its entertainment value per se...all I hear is that it's, like, really, really clever and if you don't 'get' it you're dumb...or something.

but who decides whether it's really good film making or not?

i think 1 director's idea of good film making differs from the next one so it's all relative.



the momentary furor you refer to remains to be seen.

maybe ppl will be talking about this film for years to come.

who knows?



but i agree with you on the last part...

that ppl need to stop claiming others to be of inferior intellect if they apparently didn't "get" the movie.

[cupocity303]

It's just a shiny, shallow hot mess.


Nolan is fixated on technique and plot, but has nothing to say. There is no emotional response to any of it, or even any real intellectual response. His plot quickly becomes pointlessly convoluted cerebral grandstanding for the sake of it. And his technique is cold and lacking in actual creativity/innovation.


There are plenty of inspired technicians in the history of film who can take you to far greater places, layers and levels above Inception.





I could easily divide fans of Inception into 2 generalized groups if I wished,


1. people who are easily awed by superficially impressive special-effects

2. pseudo-intellectuals who start threads on forums boasting about how they 'get' Inception -- when there's nothing of real substance to get -- to try and make themselves look smarter than they actually are





.

Or 3, people like me who aren't harsh critics, aren't ready to give this movie all-time greatness praise, but still thought the movie was well worthy of the 10 bucks I paid to get in, and I was generally satisfied when I came out of the threater.

Like I said, there are elitists who like to microanalyze everything and then there are people who know when they saw a good movie, no need to break it down and compare to other movies. It's not a remake of anything, it has Matrix-esque tendencies but that's it.