What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Oh I don't hate it or anything.

I just think Inception is pretentious, convoluted rubbish.

Wow. Something the Englishman and I agree on! (Although I wouldn't go as far as calling Inception "rubbish", but still. "Pretentious" is OK in my book). Rejoice ! Rejoice !

Might have something to do with planets alignement. Or is there a full moon tonight ?

It is a great day in JWFan history. We should all celebrate. (NOT with Augie's Great Municipal Band, though).

[crocodile 8,000]

I can't agree it's "pretentious" for one simple reason: it was never serious. It's a Bond meets s-f meets Nolan. Oceans 11 and The Matrix at the same time. That's all it is. It's a fun flick and that's how I see it. I can't understand why you guys take it so seriously?

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Because as far as I could tell Nolan took it very, very seriously. The movie took itself so seriously that it just ended up being dreadfully dull, I thought.

[crocodile 8,000]

So what do you expect: gags, slapstick comedy? It's a film where people prepare a heist inside a dream. Come on!

And for the record: Nolan said only he wanted to make a Bond-like film. Hence the fortress and some action scenes in the third act. Blade Runner parallels were made up by early reviews.

I would say it's the lightest of his films (not counting BB). It's just not typically "Hollywood light".

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

It's a film where people prepare a heist inside a dream. Come on!

If only that's all there was to it!

[steb74 53]

My biggest problem with it was the score and I don't mean in any kind of Zimmer hating way.

I just found it so obnoxious, full of classless Barryisms, it's been a very long time since a score has actually ruined a movie for me.

All the way through it, I felt like there was someone clinging on my back and screaming 'Pretend I'm not here!!!'.

[crocodile 8,000]

That's true and I agree. Nolan doesn't have a clue what to do with music in a film. And that's exactly why his films seem more self-important than they actually are. That's the case in all his films.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

For me Inception was a very fun film with some great ideas. My best experience at the theater since WALL·E and easily among the best of the last few years.

I also liked surprised that Nolan restrained himself of going overboard with empty special effects.

This made me expect more of the next original Nolan than the new Batman, honestly.

[Quintus 5,399]

Oh I don't hate it or anything.

I just think Inception is pretentious, convoluted rubbish.

Wow. Something the Englishman and I agree on! (Although I wouldn't go as far as calling Inception "rubbish", but still. "Pretentious" is OK in my book). Rejoice ! Rejoice !

Might have something to do with planets alignement. Or is there a full moon tonight ?

It is a great day in JWFan history. We should all celebrate. (NOT with Augie's Great Municipal Band, though).

The Emperor's theme would work. The arrangement you hear after Vader lashes his lightsabre at Luke, collapsing the structure beneath him.

That's true and I agree. Nolan doesn't have a clue what to do with music in a film. And that's exactly why his films seem more self-important than they actually are.

You might have a point there.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

I also liked surprised that Nolan restrained himself of going overboard with empty special effects.

Surprised? Nolan has never been a big fan of unnecessary special effects. Unfortunately, this philosophy led him to reduce the human subconscious' visual potential to videogame-like imagery.

[Quintus 5,399]

Absolutely correct. And boring video games at that.

[crocodile 8,000]

I'm curious what he's going to do after TDKR. I hope for something smaller. This big budget baloon has to explode at some point.

Karol

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Because as far as I could tell Nolan took it very, very seriously. The movie took itself so seriously that it just ended up being dreadfully dull, I thought.

+1.

Another thing is they didn't use the dream idea to it's full potential. When you're doing a movie about dreams, you shouldn't put boundaries, you should unleash your imagination. But there, all you've got are a regular car chase, something flying guys in a hotel, and an attack on a fortress. We've already seen that a million times in action films. Inception didn't have anything new to offer. And that's a shame, because the premise of the film is great.

And I find the cast to be overall quite good, but underused.

The Emperor's theme would work. The arrangement you hear after Vader lashes his lightsabre at Luke, collapsing the structure beneath him.

Playing it as we speak.

[Quintus 5,399]

I've spoken a lot about the actual dreams in the past.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

And... ??

[Quintus 5,399]

Meaning I have shared my thoughts on them already and can't be bothered getting into a debate about them again.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Well don't tease us like that, you... you... mean person !

[Datameister 2,041]

I, too, was enormously disappointed at the fact that the incredible boundary-less reality afforded by lucid dreaming was rarely explored in Inception, and that Nolan actively concocted a way to avoid showing those sorts of things, what with the dream characters turning on you if you start changing things. Real dreams are a lot more fun and a lot more interesting - you can change things all you want, and the dream characters rarely care.

[Romão 2,274]

The dreams were designed beforehand. They were suposed to look real and grounded

[crocodile 8,000]

I think these kinds of matters are very subjective. I, for one, had a similar kind of experiences as presented in the film.

Karol

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The dreams were designed beforehand. They were suposed to look real and grounded

Then what's the point ?

I think these kinds of matters are very subjective. I, for one, had a similar kind of experiences as presented in the film.

Karol

Your dreams must be boring, then, mate.

[Brónach 1,302]

I've also had dreams like the ones in the film.

Also, the logic of the dreamworlds has to be understood by the audience. You can't suddenly shoot a laser with a banana and expect the audience to understand that it means it's going to rain.

And the dream characters turning against the protagonist was prety freaky and clever.

Besides, I bet that if I make a list of all the dreamy stuff seen in the film it gets pretty long.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Also, the logic of the dreamworlds has to be understood by the audience.

The problem is: dreams aren't supposed to be logical ! That's what so cool about them. Make them logical, and they become boring.

[Brónach 1,302]

Also, the logic of the dreamworlds has to be understood by the audience.

The problem is: dreams aren't supposed to be logical ! That's what so cool about them. Make them logical, and they become boring.

But then the story wouldn't make any sense. It's supposed to be about dreams camouflaged as reality.

[Romão 2,274]

The dreams were designed beforehand. They were suposed to look real and grounded

Then what's the point ?

The point was not to make the subject suspicious that they were dreaming.

[Quintus 5,399]

A convenient and cost-effective way of demonstrating little to no imagination at all.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Also, the logic of the dreamworlds has to be understood by the audience.

The problem is: dreams aren't supposed to be logical ! That's what so cool about them. Make them logical, and they become boring.

But then the story wouldn't make any sense. It's supposed to be about dreams camouflaged as reality.

And that's precisely why I didn't like the story. "It's a film about infiltrating other people's dreams, but we won't show those dreams. We'll just show people shooting at each other. And from time to time, they'll fly a bit, because, well, you know, that's a dream, and we need to remind that to the audience".

The dreams were designed beforehand. They were suposed to look real and grounded

Then what's the point ?

The point was not to make the subject suspicious that they were dreaming.

That's not what I meant. What I meant was "What's the point of making a film about dreams in which dreams look real and grounded ?"

[Brónach 1,302]

A convenient and cost-effective way of demonstrating little to no imagination at all.

Wrong.

It's brilliant.

I love when Cobb makes Fischer believe that the first dream is reality and that he has been kidnapped

[Neimoidian 14]

I think these kinds of matters are very subjective. I, for one, had a similar kind of experiences as presented in the film.

Karol

Most of my dreams when I was a kid used to be realistic in their setting. The only difference was the plot which consisted of action & excitement-filled events - preety much like in Inception. I rarely had psychodelic dreams, like ones you could see in Gilliam's or Lynch's pictures.

[crocodile 8,000]

See? You and I are boring.

BTW you're not around much these days. Not here and not on Soundtracks.pl.

Karol

[Ollie 1,059]

Batman Begin sucks ass, its a shit film compared to the Dark Knight. ray ghoul is the worst villain and the scarecrow is a ripoff from a Disney Hero, don't know why they didn't sue. It also shows how weak Chris Nolan is as a director of action.

While I wouldn't word it that way I do think BB is a snooze fest. TDK was far superior.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

See? You and I are boring.

You guys are not boring. Your dreams are.

[Neimoidian 14]

See? You and I are boring.

BTW you're not around much these days. Not here and not on Soundtracks.pl.

Karol

That's just a side effect of having two jobs Fortunatelly (or not) I have recently quitted one, so I expect to have more time soon.

See? You and I are boring.

You guys are not boring. Your dreams are.

Oh, you gotta believe me that my real life is way more boring than my dreams.

[Wojo 2,453]

Batman Begin sucks ass, its a shit film compared to the Dark Knight. ray ghoul is the worst villain and the scarecrow is a ripoff from a Disney Hero, don't know why they didn't sue. It also shows how weak Chris Nolan is as a director of action.

That's not entirely accurate.

Disney's "Scarecrow" is based on the Reverend Doctor Christopher Syn, the smuggler hero of a series of novels by British author Russell Thorndike, first published in 1915.

In 1960, American author William Buchanan used the character in his novel Christopher Syn, which reworked Further Adventures of Doctor Syn (Thorndike's fourth Syn book) with a different conclusion and handling of the supporting characters. Christopher Syn became the basis for the 1963 Disney movie The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh, which has had various other names over the years. I own Vic Crume's book adaptation of the Disney movie, entitled Doctor Syn, Alias the Scarecrow.

But that is using the relatively common element of a scarecrow as a Robin Hood-like masked hero.

DC's Scarecrow villain first appeared in World's Finest Comics #3 in Fall 1941, long before Disney's film adaptation of someone else's earlier work that uses a scarecrow for something else entirely. The character as presented by DC and Warner Brothers in The Dark Knight is basically grandfathered by all the decades, and a lawsuit brought about by Disney for any copyright infringement would have been in extremely poor taste.

There's a scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz. Should MGM start suing both of them for defouling L. Frank Baum's vision, when the ideas of masked men dressed as scarecrows have nothing to do with each other?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

thanks for the detailed research

[Wojo 2,453]

I couldn't find one singular worthless article this time, I had to pull from several.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

that much is clear.

[Wojo 2,453]

Changing gears for a moment, I watched Captain America on Friday and Harry Potter Part 7B yesterday.

I preferred Captain America.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I loved them both, hands down the two best films of this summer by far.

[Wojo 2,453]

Since I've otherwise only Pirates 4 and First Class, I probably have to agree with you. I don't look for Cowboys and Aliens to surpass either.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

A convenient and cost-effective way of demonstrating little to no imagination at all.

You think because they didn't explore dreams more, Inception had no imagination? That is one of the dumbest things I've heard all day. I bet people said similarly misguided things when 2001 or Citizen Kane came out. Not suggesting this is on their level, but I do think it will be looked well upon by history.

And I highly enjoy Zimmer's score. I found it to be very effective. The awards circuit agrees with me, I guess.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

really, I don't recall zimmer winning any awards for that forgettable film.

[Jeff 10]

Inception was one of my favorite movies of the last several years. I'm glad Nolan made it exactly the way it is - wouldn't change a thing.

[Faleel 5,346]

Star Trek The Motion Picture:

[publicist 4,643]

Star Trek The Motion Picture:

This should never run without a good dose of caffeine drops in place.

As for INCEPTION: people need to realize that the concept hasn't much to do with dreams. It's an old-fashioned OCEAN'S ELEVEN movie with a hip twist.

[A24 4,331]

I, too, was enormously disappointed at the fact that the incredible boundary-less reality afforded by lucid dreaming was rarely explored in Inception, and that Nolan actively concocted a way to avoid showing those sorts of things, what with the dream characters turning on you if you start changing things. Real dreams are a lot more fun and a lot more interesting - you can change things all you want, and the dream characters rarely care.

Realism is one of the things Nolan is loved for the most. Even the dream world depicted in Inception looks realistic. If it was more dreamy, abstract or nonsensical but still treated realistically (for that's how we dream) then people would call it vague, bizarre or Lynchy and then they would look elsewhere for their favorite director.

Actually, the only reason why it looks realistic and not dreamy is because the film doesn't want to tip you (and the characters, of course) off by saying: "Hey, he's dreaming now!"

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

A convenient and cost-effective way of demonstrating little to no imagination at all.

You think because they didn't explore dreams more, Inception had no imagination? That is one of the dumbest things I've heard all day. I bet people said similarly misguided things when 2001 or Citizen Kane came out. Not suggesting this is on their level, but I do think it will be looked well upon by history.

I don't. I think it'll be largely forgotten.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

A convenient and cost-effective way of demonstrating little to no imagination at all.

You think because they didn't explore dreams more, Inception had no imagination? That is one of the dumbest things I've heard all day. I bet people said similarly misguided things when 2001 or Citizen Kane came out. Not suggesting this is on their level, but I do think it will be looked well upon by history.

I don't. I think it'll be largely forgotten.

But in dreams

I can hear its title

And in dreams

We will see it again

When the seas and mountains fall

And we come, to end of days

In the dark I see a film

Calling me there,

I will go there

And watch again

[crocodile 8,000]

It's a good thing the film at least sparks some debate.

Karol

[A24 4,331]

Hmm, but in this case, the debate seems to go on endlessly about Nolan's questionable presentation for the concept of 'dreaming'. On the one hand, it supposed to be a dream world. On the other hand, it's a deliberate contrived presentation of a dream world. Making the twists work was more important to Nolan than creating a dream world.

Alex