Support NeoGAF

[Inferno313]

Christian Bale and Amy Adams elevate it above mediocrity. The film lacks engagement without the performances and is laughably predictable to anyone who's ever seen a sports movie. There is truly nothing remarkable about David O. Russel's directing in it, either. DGA and BAFTA had the directing noms right.

Umm, DGA nominated O. Russel...

 

[Blader]

Christian Bale and Amy Adams elevate it above mediocrity. The film lacks engagement without the performances and is laughably predictable to anyone who's ever seen a sports movie. There is truly nothing remarkable about David O. Russel's directing in it, either. DGA and BAFTA had the directing noms right.

This is basically how I feel about The King's Speech.


(Though I would argue, if nothing else, that O. Russell did a good job of directing the actual fights, and nicely avoided making them look Hollywood-ish)

 

[Zeliard]

Umm, DGA nominated O. Russel...

That's true, my mistake! I knew DGA had nominated Nolan, so I thought they had dropped Russell in his favor like BAFTA, but it's Boyle that got the cut. Both BAFTA and DGA nominated Nolan, who I thought should have gotten the Oscar nod over Russell. Some thought Danny Boyle was overly flashy but he had little choice given the location of the story.

This is basically how I feel about The King's Speech.


(Though I would argue, if nothing else, that O. Russell did a good job of directing the actual fights, and nicely avoided making them look Hollywood-ish)

The fights were filmed and staged like actual HBO fights, complete with HBO camera crew and announcers, which I thought was a cool little touch.

 

[Speevy]

The Social Network will win best picture because it is such a "new" thing, but I submit that this film resonates with me less than any Oscar contender in history. It's almost impossible to have an emotional connection to this film or its characters, and especially its subject matter.

I realize that's the most common criticism leveled at The Social Network, but it is entirely possible for a film to be hip, smart, well-acted, well-scored, well-directed, and still weigh absolutely nothing when you reflect back on it.

 

[Discotheque]

Inception doesn't really deserve anything. The action scenes in that movie are so poorly shot and edited, I'm not shocked it didn't get nominations in those categories at all.

Kinda. But the editing during the 3 dream-layers (as the van is falling) earned that nomination. It could have been butchered if they edited that poorly. But they pulled it off.

Anyways The Fighter is great, but I still prefer Ali over it. Ali's kind of a boring mess at times. But the opening montage, Will Smith's performance and the final fight really puts it forward for me. God-damn.

Apples to Oranges though because fights in The Fighter were less cinematic and much more...televised (or real).

 

[W Hudson]

As I am making may way through viewing the BP nominees (have only seen King's Speech, Inception, True Grit, and Black Swan), I pose the question "Just what makes film the BEST picture?" I guess the standard is 'the outstanding achievement in film', which I take it is just a way of saying the best combination of acting, directing, cinematography, and other production values.

I personally lean heavily towards how the actors preformed when judging a movie, and based on that think that King's Speech is the best movie I've seen so far (bolstered by two tremendous performances). But one other thing I value highly is replayability, and it didn't quite have that 'pull' for me. I liked the movie a lot, but didn't walk out thinking "Boy, I really need to see that again." Inception and Black Swan both gave me that feeling.

 

[brianjones]

The fights were filmed and staged like actual HBO fights, complete with HBO camera crew and announcers, which I thought was a cool little touch.

yeah i was impressed with this.

the ESPN fight too was spot on to an ESPN2 boxing match

 

[Discotheque]

Yeah that was a good way to differentiate itself from other boxing movies.

 

[Zeliard]

Out of curiosity, what issues do people have with Nolan's directing in Inception in particular? I know the film's gotten a bit of a backlash (understandable, since it's removed from the hype), and I also have my fair share of criticisms.

But most of my criticisms, and from what I gather most others, lie with the screenplay (which had great vision but a creaky foundation). Nolan also wrote the screenplay, and he certainly deserves criticism for its issues, but I also think he directed it as best he could with what he...well, gave himself.

Hypothetically, if the film ended up identical but it was another director taking on Nolan's screenplay, I think we'd be focusing criticism on the screenplay and probably praising the director. Certainly, Nolan should have a better grasp as a director/writer of his own work than an outside party, but he ultimately does have to direct from a screenplay even if it is his own. I don't know how it could have been done that much better. It's a very aggressively directed film, in some views a negative, but it had to be to bring that screenplay to life. I thought the action scenes in Inception, while still not exactly ideal, were a big step for Nolan from Batman and the like (though the snow fortress dragged a bit).

Nolan went on to get the screenplay Oscar nod, but not director. Should have been vice versa. I'm also not throwing this out as a challenge - I've seen the screenplay railed plenty but not as much the direction, specifically, so I'm curious as to what the views are.

 

[brianjones]

i'm of the opposite opinion. i think inceptions ideas were more interesting than the execution.

i think the academy got it right

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Christian Bale and Amy Adams elevate it above mediocrity. The film lacks engagement without the performances and is laughably predictable to anyone who's ever seen a sports movie. There is truly nothing remarkable about David O. Russel's directing in it, either. DGA and BAFTA had the directing noms right.

The film gets quite predictable in the second half, but the first half, where Ward is basically a loser and a wannabe and the film is set up seemingly by the documentary about his brother, is quite fresh and not particularly predictable. Russell's directing was quite nice, as well, for he really tapped into that sort of pseudo-documentary style and, as a friend from Boston told me, really captured the feel of those tiny Massachusetts towns. The directing was subtle and effective, which is, to my mind, more commendable than the more bombastic choices that Nolan makes in Inception.

 

[BertramCooper]

Okay, so I've finally seen all 10 Best Picture nominees. Here's my ranking.

Note: This is not my top 10 of the year. It's just a ranking of the films nominated.

The King's Speech
Toy Story 3
Black Swan
Winter's Bone
True Grit
Inception
The Social Network
The Fighter
127 Hours
The Kids are All Right

127 Hours and The Kids are All Right have no business being nominated, quite frankly.

 

[nilbog21]

haha i cannot believe the kids are alright is nominated. didn't up in the air get nominated last year? fuck my life.

 

[Tricky I Shadow]

I’ve said it before, but it needs to be said again. How the hell did Tangled not get nominated for best animated feature? It’s borderline offensive!

 

[(._.)]

The Kids are All Right was overall a good movie. Really just a matter of friends voting for each others movies as to why it got nominated for best picture. Have to say I'm glad Winter's Bone got a nod. It was snubbed by BAFTA but I'm guessing it wasn't even relevant there so I understand why.

 

[JGS]

Out of curiosity, what issues do people have with Nolan's directing in Inception in particular? I know the film's gotten a bit of a backlash (understandable, since it's removed from the hype), and I also have my fair share of criticisms.

But most of my criticisms, and from what I gather most others, lie with the screenplay (which had great vision but a creaky foundation). Nolan also wrote the screenplay, and he certainly deserves criticism for its issues, but I also think he directed it as best he could with what he...well, gave himself.

Hypothetically, if the film ended up identical but it was another director taking on Nolan's screenplay, I think we'd be focusing criticism on the screenplay and probably praising the director. Certainly, Nolan should have a better grasp as a director/writer of his own work than an outside party, but he ultimately does have to direct from a screenplay even if it is his own. I don't know how it could have been done that much better. It's a very aggressively directed film, in some views a negative, but it had to be to bring that screenplay to life. I thought the action scenes in Inception, while still not exactly ideal, were a big step for Nolan from Batman and the like (though the snow fortress dragged a bit).

Nolan went on to get the screenplay Oscar nod, but not director. Should have been vice versa. I'm also not throwing this out as a challenge - I've seen the screenplay railed plenty but not as much the direction, specifically, so I'm curious as to what the views are.

I don't even lnow what the problem is with the screenplay which was one of the tightest in the whole field of nominess. Inception deserved every one of it's nomination and is still the best directed movie this year from the ones I've seen. Easily.

TBH, there is nothing wrong with Inception beyond the possibility that some just didn't like it which I get. However, the official thread is full of complaints that suggest one thing or another that is easily explained awayin the movie which is a sign of disinterest of you miss it. Nolan checked and double checked stuff like a bank auditor for that movie.

On the other hand, the love for Scott Pilgrim is totally unexplainable from writing, directing, acting, or editing (Just saw it so it's on my mind).

 

[Davey Cakes]

I really don't really agree with The Fighter's nominations.

It was a decent and heartfelt movie. It definitely had character. Amy Adams performed well but I never thought "this is Oscar-worthy" while watching her. And I really enjoy watching Bale in pretty much any of his roles, and this wasn't necessarily an exception with The Fighter, but at times it just seemed like his portrayal felt forced. It's as if Bale went too far into the imitation, thus seeming less convincing.

But maybe it's just me.

 

[big ander]

Best Picture:
Prediction - The King's Speech. The momentum this has now is ridiculous.
Personal - I'd be fine with King's Speech, Social Network, Black Swan and Toy Story 3 all winning. Those were my four favorites of the BP noms. And, gun to my head, I'd choose Social Network.

Best Actor:
Prediction - Colin Firth for The King's Speech.
Personal - Colin Firth for The King's Speech. Haven't seen Biutiful, however, so I guess I don't have the most informed say on this category.

Best Supporting Actor:
Prediction - Christian Bale for The Fighter.
Personal - Christian Bale for The Fighter.

Best Actress:
Prediction - Natalie Portman for Black Swan.
Personal - I'd rather have Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole. Kidman took a character premise that could have been played with very little depth and made it feel real and painful. My 2nd pick would be Portman though.

Best Supporting Actress:
Prediction - Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit.
Personal - This category is stacked. I'd be jumping for joy if Steinfeld, Leo, or Weaver wins. My number 1 personal pick would be Weaver.

Animated Feature Film:
Prediction - Toy Story 3.
Personal - Haven't seen The Illusionist. And I really want to see it. But TS3 is just too good.

Art Direction: The King's Speech
Cinematography: Black Swan
Directing: David Fincher, Social Network
Documentary: Exit Through The Gift Shop
Editing: Black Swan
Original Score: The Social Network
Original Song: "We Belong Together" for Toy Story 3
Sound Editing: Inception
Sound Mixing: The Social Network
VFX: Inception (I really don't want this to be Alice)
Adapted Screenplay: Coen Brothers for True Grit
Original Screenplay: Seidler for The King's Speech

 

[DMczaf]

I'm setting up the GAF Oscar Pool now on the same site as last year. Should I make a seperate thread, and when?

 

[Ridley327]

I’ve said it before, but it needs to be said again. How the hell did Tangled not get nominated for best animated feature? It’s borderline offensive!

It's one of the Academy's weirder rules; in order for the field of Animated Feature to be expanded to five nominations, there needs to be at least 16 films submitted in that year. If not, it drops to three nominations. For 2010, there were only 15 films submitted.

Generally speaking, you can always count on a Pixar feature and a Dreamworks feature being nominated. More than likely, The Illusionist made the cut over other films due to the creators previous work on The Triplets of Belleville, which was an critically well-received film.

 

[ClivePwned]

The King's Speech is the only best pic nominee I've seen so far this year (looking to do True Grit and Social Network before the Oscars though). I loved TKS.

anyhoo- my puerile sense of humour kind of forced me to make this:

The King's Flatulence

 

[Puddles]

The only people who take the Golden Globes seriously are the Golden Globes.

That's like saying Avatar won the MTV Movie Award, and then THL won everything else.

Golden Globes were the only ones to get that shit right.

My Predictions:

Best Picture:
Prediction - The King's Speech (aka The English Patient 2011)
Personal - Black Swan or Inception

Best Actor:
Prediction - Michael Cera for The Social Network
Personal - I'd give it to Leo for either of his roles this year.

Best Supporting Actor:
Prediction - Christian Bale for The Fighter.
Personal - Any win for Bale puts a smile on my face.

Best Actress:
Prediction - Natalie Portman for Black Swan.
Personal - Hell yeah Natalie Portman for Black Swan.

Best Supporting Actress:
Prediction - Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit.
Personal - Can't argue with Steinfeld.

Animated Feature Film:
Prediction - Toy Story 3.
Personal - I thought How to Train Your Dragon was better.

Art Direction: Black Swan

Cinematography: Black Swan

Directing: Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan, though Fincher will probably steal this the way Bigelow stole Cameron's Oscar last year.

Editing: Black Swan

Original Score: The Social Network

Original Screenplay: Inception

 

[Tricky I Shadow]

It's one of the Academy's weirder rules; in order for the field of Animated Feature to be expanded to five nominations, there needs to be at least 16 films submitted in that year. If not, it drops to three nominations. For 2010, there were only 15 films submitted.

Generally speaking, you can always count on a Pixar feature and a Dreamworks feature being nominated. More than likely, The Illusionist made the cut over other films due to the creators previous work on The Triplets of Belleville, which was an critically well-received film.

Well I suppose it's better to know that and not think that it wasn't nominated because they simply didn't think it was good enough. Still, it is indeed a stupid rule!

 

[DMczaf]

 

[Discotheque]

Holy moly look at that dude's beard (the guy just below Trent Reznor on the far right...our right)

What is he a wizard or something?

 

[Blader]

One of the Coen brothers is not amused.

 

[Guzim]

I love how Nolan isn't next to his wife.

 

[DMczaf]

I love how Nolan isn't next to his wife.

But she's next to Wally.

Hmmm....

 

[Pinzer]

Best Actor:
Prediction - Michael Cera for The Social Network
Personal - I'd give it to Leo for either of his roles this year.

LOL

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

But she's next to Wally.

Hmmm....

Now we know what the deal is with all the wife killing.

 

[AniHawk]

Holy moly look at that dude's beard (the guy just below Trent Reznor on the far right...our right)

What is he a wizard or something?

kinda

 

[Discotheque]

kinda

lolol I bet Aronofsky is a stonecutter too. His douche-stache is kinda giveaway.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I don't even lnow what the problem is with the screenplay which was one of the tightest in the whole field of nominess. Inception deserved every one of it's nomination and is still the best directed movie this year from the ones I've seen. Easily.

TBH, there is nothing wrong with Inception beyond the possibility that some just didn't like it which I get. However, the official thread is full of complaints that suggest one thing or another that is easily explained awayin the movie which is a sign of disinterest of you miss it. Nolan checked and double checked stuff like a bank auditor for that movie.

On the other hand, the love for Scott Pilgrim is totally unexplainable from writing, directing, acting, or editing (Just saw it so it's on my mind).

Dude, we'll say it till we're blue in the face because it's true: poorly developed secondary characters (its biggest sin), inconsistent application of its rules, TONS of exposition, dream rules that aren't really comparable to how dreams actually work, etc.

The film is saved by the sometimes very good directing and the soundtrack. Outside of that, it's a mess.

Edit: Wally loves the ladies. They don't call him Pfister for nothing.

Double Edit: That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. I freely admit that my opinion of the movie revised sharply downward, but it had nothing to do with GAF and everything to do with an honest-to-god reappraisal of my original evaluation. Seriously, respond to the complaints: prove to me that the secondary characters are well-developed and that its rules are comparable to that of an actual dream, rather than some random system that Nolan made up to work in his machine.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

It' a mess right now, wait til we get 6 months down the road in terms of GAF over criticzing and it'll be completely unwatchable.

 

[Blader]

Dude, we'll say it till we're blue in the face because it's true: poorly developed secondary characters (its biggest sin), inconsistent application of its rules, TONS of exposition, dream rules that aren't really comparable to how dreams actually work, etc.

The film is saved by the sometimes very good directing and the soundtrack. Outside of that, it's a mess.

Please educate me as to how real dreams actually work. :lol

Spoiler

It also helps that the dreaming in Inception is all facilitated by a machine and not done naturally. Applying a set of rules to it works fine because there's no such thing as dreamsharing.

 

[(._.)]

Jeff Bridges in the middle, lmao

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Please educate me as to how real dreams actually work. :lol

Spoiler

It also helps that the dreaming in Inception is all facilitated by a machine and not done naturally. Applying a set of rules to it works fine because there's no such thing as dreamsharing.

They do not make that much sense/are not that consistent. Hell, the movie itself talked about how things can be slightly 'off' without the dreamer even noticing, so the argument that they had to make it so realistic in order to fool the dreamer does not hold water. I'd say the best expression of how dreams feel are the intermittent bits in Werner Herzog's The Enigma of Kasper Hauser.

 

[JGS]

Dude, we'll say it till we're blue in the face because it's true: poorly developed secondary characters (its biggest sin), inconsistent application of its rules, TONS of exposition, dream rules that aren't really comparable to how dreams actually work, etc.

The film is saved by the sometimes very good directing and the soundtrack. Outside of that, it's a mess.

Edit: Wally loves the ladies. They don't call him Pfister for nothing.

I'll say it til I'm...err purple in the face.

The secondary characters were secondary and used primarily as a reaction to the main character- like all secondary characters that don't steal the show, there was no inconsistency in application of the rules, exposition is a good thing and worse movies should have used some of it, dreams do work that way especially when someone is controlling their setup, etc...

 

[D4Danger]

Joel Coen looks like he's being held against his will

 

[Pinzer]

Seriously, respond to the complaints: prove to me that the secondary characters are well-developed and that its rules are comparable to that of an actual dream, rather than some random system that Nolan made up to work in his machine.

There is limited time in a movie and Inception is packed full of content. It's not as if there are long stretches of no plot or character development, every scene is vital to the understanding of the movie. There is no room and no need for the secondary characters to be developed.

Nolan's work on Inception is noteworthy considering the concept he was trying to pull off. I can't see many other directors executing that idea as well as Nolan was able to.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I'll say it til I'm...err purple in the face.

The secondary characters were secondary and used primarily as a reaction to the main character- like all secondary characters that don't steal the show, there was no inconsistency in application of the rules, exposition is a good thing and worse movies should have used some of it, dreams do work that way especially when someone is controlling their setup, etc...

Exposition is a good thing? Okaaaaaaaay. Granted, I'm not of the "show, don't tell" gestapo, but when you have to spend 45 minutes of your movie explaining the rules to the audience, there's something seriously wrong.

Also, your thing about secondary characters is a rationalization of bad writing. You can develop a secondary character without having them steal the show. As it stands now, absolutely nobody but Leo and maybe Ellen Page has any stake at all in the heist, emotionally speaking. Look at something like Stanley Kubrick's The Killing; there's a main character, but every participant in the heist has a back story and an emotional stake in the heist that makes you actually give a shit about them. When your people do not feel like people but like giant cogs in a machine, your writing is bad.

Dreams do not work that way. If you're just going to stick to rote reality, you might as well not even have it be dreams; you'd do as well to just go the full Matrix and have it be a computer program.

Edit: There is always a need to develop character, unless it's like a minor walk-on role. If you're going to put a character in any sort of spotlight, there's no reason that they can't be a real person and not a sharply dressed video game character. Simplify the rules and give JGL and Tom Hardy five minutes of backstory and/or emotional stake apiece, for starters. There ARE long stretches where nothing of real consequence is happening; explaining the 'gameplay' does not count as either character or plot development.

 

[Pinzer]

Dreams do not work that way. If you're just going to stick to rote reality, you might as well not even have it be dreams; you'd do as well to just go the full Matrix and have it be a computer program.

That's the point. If the dreams were unrealistic it would be easier for the dreamer to realize he's dreaming.

Regarding the science of dreaming, yes it's wrong but the explanation of how dreams "feel" makes sense in the movie.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

I don't remember their emotional motives.

 

[DMczaf]

I think Bernie Mac wanted the money to buy things.

 

[JGS]

Exposition is a good thing? Okaaaaaaaay. Granted, I'm not of the "show, don't tell" gestapo, but when you have to spend 45 minutes of your movie explaining the rules to the audience, there's something seriously wrong.

Wasn't 45 minutes. There were a handful of times things were explained and was necessary and was done in a very appropriate way (& neat to boot).

Also, your thing about secondary characters is a rationalization of bad writing. You can develop a secondary character without having them steal the show. As it stands now, absolutely nobody but Leo and maybe Ellen Page has any stake at all in the heist, emotionally speaking. Look at something like Stanley Kubrick's The Killing; there's a main character, but every participant in the heist has a back story and an emotional stake in the heist that makes you actually give a shit about them. When your people do not feel like people but like giant cogs in a machine, your writing is bad.

Sure you can flesh out secondary characters, but that doesn't mean it's a requirement or that you even should. I never understood this reasoning anyway. There was no fleshing out of any character in Social Network either but the performances were fine.

Quite frankly, I would have hated the movie more if a side story concerning Ellen Page's story developed beyond what Nolan did. An Arthur/Eames sidequest would have been interesting for a sequel but out of place here. It's padding. Basically there was no reason whatsoever for the secondary characters to be fleshed out beyond their job (After all, it's a hesit flick which is only focused on roles) and their particular personality which each of them had. The whole plot squarely focuses on Cobb. Any fleshing out of the secondary characters would have been a waste of time away from Cobb's demons.

Now this is certainly a problem if you don't care about Cobb, but that's hardly a writing error and more akin to a viewer preference. It goes back to what i said. Some people just didn't like the movie which is fine.

Any number of "flaws" can be found to explain a dislike. I do it with District 9 & Hurt Locker all the time. However, it is not fine to say the reason the main character is the focus of the movie is because of sloppy writing when that's actually what a writer is supposed to do.

Dreams do not work that way. If you're just going to stick to rote reality, you might as well not even have it be dreams; you'd do as well to just go the full Matrix and have it be a computer program.

First, the too much exposition made it clear that Matrix like was exactly what it was. Also during all that pointless exposition, they explained how important the role of the designer was in making sure the dreams turned out that way rather than with pink clouds and chocolate pudding waterfalls.

Second, dreams do work that way. Until you, I haven't known a person who hasn't had a reality based dream before.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I'll just quote myself from the last time we had this little debate in another thread.

My gripe about characters comes more in their distinction. You can try to tell me that Cobb, Arthur, Ariadne and Eames are all completely different characters, yet if you give them all the same voice and turn the picture off it would be hard to tell who is talking.

The characters in Inception all seem to want to help Cobb JUST CAUSE. None of them have motivations that define their character. Its essentially just a thinly veiled monetary gain if anything. But that's okay, because its a heist film. But then you can't complain if I don't find the characters in the film engaging.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24082887&postcount=797

 

[BertramCooper]

Every freaking movie thread turns into an Inception debate.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Wasn't 45 minutes. There were a handful of times things were explained and was necessary and was done in a very appropriate way (& neat to boot).


Sure you can flesh out secondary characters, but that doesn't mean it's a requirement or that you even should. I never understood this reasoning anyway. There was no fleshing out of any character in Social Network either but the performances were fine.

Quite frankly, I would have hated the movie more if a side story concerning Ellen Page's story developed beyond what Nolan did. An Arthur/Eames sidequest would have been interesting for a sequel but out of place here. It's padding. Basically there was no reason whatsoever for the secondary characters to be fleshed out beyond their job (After all, it's a hesit flick which is only focused on roles) and their particular personality which each of them had. The whole plot squarely focuses on Cobb. Any fleshing out of the secondary characters would have been a waste of time away from Cobb's demons.

Now this is certainly a problem if you don't care about Cobb, but that's hardly a writing error and more akin to a viewer preference. It goes back to what i said. Some people just didn't like the movie which is fine.

Any number of "flaws" can be found to explain a dislike. I do it with District 9 & Hurt Locker all the time. However, it is not fine to say the reason the main character is the focus of the movie is because of sloppy writing when that's actually what a writer is supposed to do.

First, the too much exposition made it clear that Matrix like was exactly what it was. Also during all that pointless exposition, they explained how important the role of the designer was in making sure the dreams turned out that way rather than with pink clouds and chocolate pudding waterfalls.

Second, dreams do work that way. Until you, I haven't known a person who hasn't had a reality based dream before.

It has nothing to do with "like" and everything to do with objective flaws of the film. Indeed, I am quite pre-disposed to strongly like things having to do with dreams and did, in fact, "like" much of what Inception did while simultaneously acknowledging that it did it in a very shitty and unconvincing way, artistically speaking.

I never said that film shouldn't focus on the main character; I said that a film SHOULD work to develop its side characters, a heist film especially, and provided an example of a heist film that does JUST THAT and is the better for it (and far better than Inception). The thing about a heist film is that it can't be just about the heist, or else it's just a giant breakfast machine: a big set-up to what can only be a disappointing punchline; the trick to a heist film is to make us actually give a shit about the characters, to give each cog in the machine an emotional stake in the outcome besides basic monetary gain. Barring that, you're left with an all-style, no-substance piece of freshly polished plastic.

I will grant that Cobb is fleshed out, but even the writing of his character is not of any particular depth. He's given a basic goal and a fairly basic backstory, but we only learn of how his job makes him a distinctive person, rather than some particular personality quirk. It's like Plinkett's test in his Phantom Menace review: if a character is decently drawn, you should be able to say something about them other than their occupation or what they look like, and outside of "he was tortured and depressed," there's not much there for Leo's character. That's the movie's main problem: none of these people feel like real people; they wear nice suits and spout off one-liners, but outside of MAYBE Eames (and even that is due more to Tom Hardy's performance than any particular thing that Nolan did), there is nothing to differentiate the characters from one another, nothing to make them distinct and memorable. The performances of them are fine, but the actors are given nothing to work with.

And I will actually grant that there are SOME reality-based dreams (though even reality-based dreams feel 'off' upon waking, in my and many other experiences, because we DO accept unreality in dreams, which the movie acknowledges but then proceeds to ignore in favor of a rote realism), but to stick with that and, well, just that is to deny the whole fucking point of making it a dream sequence. If you want a world where the "rules" of the dream preclude the very possibility of exploiting the fact that it's a dream outside of the "tutorial" section where they do the folding city thing, that's fine, but don't act as if it doesn't toss aside a fair number of possibilities and render much of the movie's philosophy and cinematic pretensions obsolete.

 

[Puddles]

It has nothing to do with "like" and everything to do with objective flaws of the film. Indeed, I am quite pre-disposed to strongly like things having to do with dreams and did, in fact, "like" much of what Inception did while simultaneously acknowledging that it did it in a very shitty and unconvincing way, artistically speaking.

I never said that film shouldn't focus on the main character; I said that a film SHOULD work to develop its side characters, a heist film especially, and provided an example of a heist film that does JUST THAT and is the better for it (and far better than Inception). The thing about a heist film is that it can't be just about the heist, or else it's just a giant breakfast machine: a big set-up to what can only be a disappointing punchline; the trick to a heist film is to make us actually give a shit about the characters, to give each cog in the machine an emotional stake in the outcome besides basic monetary gain. Barring that, you're left with an all-style, no-substance piece of freshly polished plastic.

I will grant that Cobb is fleshed out, but even the writing of his character is not of any particular depth. He's given a basic goal and a fairly basic backstory, but we only learn of how his job makes him a distinctive person, rather than some particular personality quirk. It's like Plinkett's test in his Phantom Menace review: if a character is decently drawn, you should be able to say something about them other than their occupation or what they look like, and outside of "he was tortured and depressed," there's not much there for Leo's character. That's the movie's main problem: none of these people feel like real people; they wear nice suits and spout off one-liners, but outside of MAYBE Eames (and even that is due more to Tom Hardy's performance than any particular thing that Nolan did), there is nothing to differentiate the characters from one another, nothing to make them distinct and memorable. The performances of them are fine, but the actors are given nothing to work with.

And I will actually grant that there are SOME reality-based dreams (though even reality-based dreams feel 'off' upon waking, in my and many other experiences, because we DO accept unreality in dreams, which the movie acknowledges but then proceeds to ignore in favor of a rote realism), but to stick with that and, well, just that is to deny the whole fucking point of making it a dream sequence. If you want a world where the "rules" of the dream preclude the very possibility of exploiting the fact that it's a dream outside of the "tutorial" section where they do the folding city thing, that's fine, but don't act as if it doesn't toss aside a fair number of possibilities and render much of the movie's philosophy and cinematic pretensions obsolete.

Haven't seen so much fail since Bachmann's SOTU rebuttal.

 

[Devolution]

Every thread about movies, someone, somewhere will be buttburt about inception and have to make it known.