Hey now....I HAD to go see Twilight for my Wife's sake  . You can't blame a man for that....that's like blaming a man for liking oral sex. It just doesn't make sense

As for the rest...*sigh* you're right, and well said.

P.S. I WAS there!!! Didn't you know? I'm secretly Merlin in disguise and I age backwards...really really slowly j/k

Had to see it for your wife's sake???  You could have gone and closed your eyes.

As for the other (oral sex)... dunno, I don't talk about sex anymore...

Back to topic: Maybe not the best movie ever as I'm more a fantasy guy, but yep, worth the money spend for the cinema. The only thing which was a bit astonishing myself was that the quality - even it was a digital cinema - was par to my blue-ray / DTS system at home, at least what I see from my BR films I have at home ..

And hence the birth of this: 

The movie was a good idea and unique narrative/visual construction, but it failed a crucial test of all potentially great films...namely, that the audience never identifies or develops a rapport with the main character (Leo's).

In INCEPTION, the goal to get back to the kids isn't fully fleshed out until the third act...and by then it is far too late.

When one realizes this is actually just a bad heist genre film, plot/character-wise, you'll understand why so many people fall asleep at the end of the first act.

A film that demands this much mental energy MUST connect to the audience, so they will go along with the ride willingly.   If you were watching INCEPTION on your TV for the first time late at night, you'd most likely fall asleep or turn it off within the first 1/2 hour.

Contrast this to THE MATRIX (the first, classic one, not the knock off sequel crapolas).  We learn very quickly that the fate of the whole human race is at stake...and almost more importantly, the meaning of life/existence is hinted at right from the outset.  We all identify with those questions, etc. so we're hooked on wanting to know more BEFORE the big twist is dropped on us.

Simply put, INCEPTION is a very visually stylistic OCEANS 11, but without the strong character connection of even that lessor effort.  

In 10 years, you will be still be watching THE MATRIX from time to time.  Is there really any reason, even now, to watch INCEPTION more than once?  Think about it.  

That's the difference between truly great movies and movies that only pretend to be great.

 

 

 

You're calling THE MATRIX a truly great movie?  You're argument is entirely invalid.  It's child-like philosophical undertones are given a concrete resolution before the end of the first film - why yes, the world is a computer generate dream world and yes, people subconsciously know that the world around them isn't real.  Discussion destroyed.
The film was made famous due to it's then-inventive special effects and action scenes.  Ignoring that it's also responsible for the entirely over-used 'wire fu' that infests movies these days, every aspect of the film - every. single. one - is borrowed from better films and books such as Dark City and Alice in Wonderland and the entire Hong Kong film industry.  Tinting the picture green and blue, making Keanu Reeves say 'Woah' and asking 'is the world real' doesn't make for a 'truly great' movie, I'm afraid.  It's still a good action film, and isn't as dumb as most others, but if THE MATRIX is your idea of a great film, then I fear to ask for your definition of a bad one.

Personally, I thought Inception was brilliant, a five star movie.  Instead of borrowing ideas from better films and stealing action scenes, Nolan created a film that relies on the audiences abilitiy to comprehend it's intricate nature and subject matter.  By sheer definition it requires more than one viewing to truly understand.  The film leaves with an open resolution that is then appropriated by the audience member; it means whatever you want it to mean.
Unlike THE MATRIX, which hands you generalised questions of a silver plater ('Is the world real?  How do you know?') and then almost as quickly answers them by the resolution of the film (and don't get me started on the pathetically bloated sequels) Inception asks actual philosophical questions through it's resolution; if the world around you was really all a dream, would you care to know?

Nor it seems any less.

 

INCEPTION actually asks of you nothing and does not pose the question you seem to wish it poses.  You are projecting your desire to make the movie more meaningful than it actually is.  Taken at face value, it is inventive as a narrative/visual exercise, yes, but a rather poor bit of character driven storytelling presented with a patently linear plot.  

INCEPTION is a generic heist film in an inventive setting (recursive dreams).  There is actually no "purpose" or "meaning" to these dream layers beyond being new staging areas for stock action 101 moments.  Yawn.

And no, the movie doesn't even take one sitting to understand it.  Its plot was linear, cookie cutter and obvious, even before the end of the first act.  Notice how there are no twists or turns in the plotting or character development?  Disagree?  Name one.  And no, deus ex machinas (i.e. the van is hit by a car) don't count. 

Much better films that cover similar concepts and still hold up on repeat viewings decades later include THE TRUMAN SHOW, the first MATRIX film, and even to a lesser extent DARK CITY.  These films are both narratively inventive AND emotionally engaging.

Agree with Excalpius to a lesser extent about the characters and plot being somewhat lacking. I think he is being a little cynical in his whole approach to critiquing such a movie. I would say that based merely on its concept and execution of the dream world, I am sufficiently impressed to say this is my favorite exploration into the dream state. To me this movie is less about the characters and their minute internal conflicts and more about the exploration of humanity's ability to create. Creation is the ultimate goal of life in the universe. If a dream can be controlled and the dream is better than or equal to reality, does it matter if its real? This is the great question this movie asks as many others have done before. This one asks it uniquely and without some of the sidetracking plots that I find fault in, such as "The Matrix." If you disagree that is fine, but knit-picking the explicitly if the main character's drive is a somewhat subjective argument to make.

His internal conflict, the guilt of his inception of his wife and his paternal instincts, was sufficient for the depth of his character, as it was. I was more enraptured by the prospects of the architects and the question of knowing if you are dreaming. This is something the Matrix refused to elaborate on, using the tome of being chosen to skirt the very question. Dreams are not easily defined as the deeper we dream, the less we are self-aware. My imagination is still racing at the visual and emotional displays of the dreams we saw and what could be, were this technology to exist.

I wasn't thrilled by the trailers, but a friend talked me into seeing it, and I ended up being amazed.  It's so rare that a movie actually makes you think.  Plus, the hallway fight scene was f*cking incredible.

I definitely think that Memento is superior to Inception.  In Memento, you really can't understand the movie until the very end (err, beginning). And it works both as a story and as a film about narrative construction.

Agree with the point that Inception, once the concept is presented, is pretty straightforward.  You're just along for the ride.

Great ride though.

I just saw this movie, and I must say that the acting was great, but the directing was horrible, and the script probably was too.

 

There's no character development. There's no suspension of disbelief. The director/screenplay just keeps throwing shit on you with absolutely no story. I mean the only time they mentioned the dream thing was "the government did it". You don't get any deep character revelation until the very end. There's no deep intercharacter dialogue. There's a lot of unnecessary action sequences, the movie was about 45 minutes too long, and worse of all it ends with a cliff hanger like a bad episode of LOST.

 

The only good thing in this movie was some nifty special effects and acting. Everything else was cliche, borrowed, and uninspired.

How bizarre. Tastes do differ, thank God.

Inception was entertaining, if bogged down by gratuitous gunfights and special effects. The lapses in logic were much greater than in Nolan's original masterpiece of 10 years ago: Memento, which had a similar theme but was much more coherent, dramatic, and consistent. Inception got the job done, although I would have liked to see it about 40 minutes shorter and with a bit more narrative stringency. Besides the superfluous battles, spex-orgies, and poor logic, I only found two things dissapointing: the fairly standard Hollywood dime-a-dozen hoodlums, all machine-gun wielding, who cannot hit the side of a barn -- but in Inception, these goons actually DID hit the cars aplenty, but they merely failed to cause any harm -- and the lack of imagination involved in the dreams (in which everything behaved like it does "in reality", at least in reality portrayed by Hollywood, in which 40 goons with machine guns are unable to penetrate a van door with a bullet).

Otherwise, it was an entertaining Hollywood film that didn't make you regret spending 8 Euros for 2 hours. But the best film you've seen in 25 years? My condolences.