Hey guys, not sure if this has been posted yet, but some interesting theories here. SPOILER ALERT
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Inception-Explained-Unraveling-The-Dream-Within-The-Dream-19615.html
Cool, thanks for the link Akuma.
[quote]Stength4life wrote:
I didn’t fully understand why Ellen Page’s character was in it. She’s an architect that needed to design some kind of maze?? Why??
[/quote]
She is one of the three most important characters in the movie. In Greek mythology, ‘Ariadne’ helps Theseus to find his way out of the Minotaur’s labyrinth by giving him a reel of twine. But she didn’t create the maze - she just gives him the means to escape it.
Kind of peculiar for someone who is referred to as an architect and creator…but not coincidental. The entire movie is a red herring…and Fischer is not the true ‘mark’.
I went to see this blazed off my ass…
And man was it awesome. It was like a 2.5 hour mind orgasm of awesomeness and what-the-fuck-is-going-on at the same time.
[quote]four60 wrote:
And yet he travels coach on a train unguarded. [/quote]
The whole opening bit was him testing them. He even said so himself.
_>
Methinks a lot of people need to see the movie again and actually watch it instead of jacking off to the special effects. A lot of the so called flaws in this movie are explained.
Mak, I saw the movie in IMAX.
It was mean oi.
Go the All Blacks!
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
And yet he travels coach on a train unguarded. [/quote]
The whole opening bit was him testing them. He even said so himself.
_>
Methinks a lot of people need to see the movie again and actually watch it instead of jacking off to the special effects. A lot of the so called flaws in this movie are explained.[/quote]
Flaws? I didn’t see it as a flaw and really still don’t. I see it as another way the director put a tibit of information into the movie that will be picked up by some and tossed aside by others.
Yes I caught the part in the movie where they stated “His Corparate training” was taking over and when he said he was testing them for a job. I enjoyed the move and I saved my jerk off for anything with Angalina Jolie in it.
Watched it yesterday with a few mates, thought the movie was awesome 
Dig chrisopher nolan’s style of directing, you could see immediately Dark Night type of music, shots and cinematography!
And I gotta say again this movie has to solidify Dicaprio as one of the best actors ever. PERIOD!
[quote]dylan10507 wrote:
[quote]Stength4life wrote:
And how the hell can someone go into another person’s dream? They didn’t really explain how that little machine worked. And was the end a dream or reality? I’ll be honest with you guys, I think some of you are just pretending to understand it. Can we just say that this movie is more of a frustrating mind bender than a Suspenseful thriller?
[/quote]
Most of this was not explained. And I agree. I think the movie might have some cool thoughts to ponder but ain’t that great I think some people just love anything thats meant to be confusing.
Also as soon as I saw him pick the gun up a bit and saw him spin the top I knew what it was for and that he’d kill himself to wake himself up.
Here are some of the cool things to ponder…bout the top
-
He told the girl about how the top works, which you are not supposed to do because you wouldn’t be able to tell if your in there dream, could he have ever been in her dream and not known.
-
If you know the reality of the top in the real world, it will act as it does in the real world within your dream, so anytime the top falls you know dicaprio is not in someone elses dream but he can always be in his dream, I think nolan may have made a mistake here, at the end it’s supposed to leave it open, if it is a dream it will not fall or if not it will, but if it was dicaprios dream it would still fall.
Dicaprio says himself it will not stop spinning if he’s in SOMEONE ELSE’s dream, seems like a hitch in the movie to me cuz it makes it meaningless for a lot of scenes (just restating this)
-
Back to point one he told the girl bout the thing so in her dream the top would now fall and seem real, so at any point after this that the top shows is real could dicaprio have been in her dream?
-
I didn;t pay attention to what the top did (if anything) before the gun scene where he is kind of bringing the gun to his head did any of this give away that he was or wasn’t dreaming at anytime.
[/quote]
Actually, people who practice lucid dreaming do “reality checks” precisely because common events often don’t play out in dreams the way they would in reality. For instance, one common reality check is to look at your hands. Even though you’ve seen your own hands thousands of times, they’ll rarely appear normal in a dream.
Loved the movie here is a interview he did with Wired that Collider posted on there site. Interesting to say the least.
http://www.collider.com/2010/11/24/inception-christopher-nolan-explains/
Michael Caine let slip that the totem falls at the end.
I finally saw Inception last Sunday and was thankfully just barely able to keep up with it.
I thank holodeck episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation for getting me warmed up.
Overrated movie.
Acting, visuals, audio?
-Fine.
Story?
-Neither intelligent, nor complex. Very predictable. Nothing special.
A movie doesn’t have to be intelligent (by the way, I hate ascribing intelligence to inanimate objects) to be good. It’s funny, though, how a flick tailored to appeal to the masses (and thus to make good money) is hyped as being oh so intelligent and complex and multi-layered.
Ever had sex with someone you’d thought would be a good lay and then getting bored during the act? That’s what this movie felt like to me.
Loved The Dark Knight, though.
Wanna see an ‘intelligent’ movie? Go watch Primer ( Primer (2004) - IMDb ). It’s a good film, but I seriously doubt that most people would find entertainment in that.
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
Overrated movie.
Acting, visuals, audio?
-Fine.
Story?
-Neither intelligent, nor complex. Very predictable. Nothing special.
A movie doesn’t have to be intelligent (by the way, I hate ascribing intelligence to inanimate objects) to be good. It’s funny, though, how a flick tailored to appeal to the masses (and thus to make good money) is hyped as being oh so intelligent and complex and multi-layered.
Ever had sex with someone you’d thought would be a good lay and then getting bored during the act? That’s what this movie felt like to me.
Loved The Dark Knight, though.
Wanna see an ‘intelligent’ movie? Go watch Primer ( Primer (2004) - IMDb ). It’s a good film, but I seriously doubt that most people would find entertainment in that.
[/quote]
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
Overrated movie.
Acting, visuals, audio?
-Fine.
Story?
-Neither intelligent, nor complex. Very predictable. Nothing special.
A movie doesn’t have to be intelligent (by the way, I hate ascribing intelligence to inanimate objects) to be good. It’s funny, though, how a flick tailored to appeal to the masses (and thus to make good money) is hyped as being oh so intelligent and complex and multi-layered.
Ever had sex with someone you’d thought would be a good lay and then getting bored during the act? That’s what this movie felt like to me.
Loved The Dark Knight, though.
Wanna see an ‘intelligent’ movie? Go watch Primer ( Primer (2004) - IMDb ). It’s a good film, but I seriously doubt that most people would find entertainment in that.
[/quote]
Primer is ridiculous. I think i’ve seen it 3 times now and still have no clue.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Yadda yadda…I’ve crooked teeth but can’t afford dental bling-bling.
[/quote]
I like you.
Gotta work on your teeth, though.
[quote]kothreat wrote:
Primer is ridiculous. I think i’ve seen it 3 times now and still have no clue.
[/quote]
See? Same effects as Inception claims to have on most of its audience, but:
-shorter
-cheaper (budget was about 7.000 USD)
Maybe you may need to get someone to understand it for you. Cast’n crew can only take it so far.
Good day.
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
Overrated movie.
Acting, visuals, audio?
-Fine.
Story?
-Neither intelligent, nor complex. Very predictable. Nothing special.
A movie doesn’t have to be intelligent (by the way, I hate ascribing intelligence to inanimate objects) to be good. It’s funny, though, how a flick tailored to appeal to the masses (and thus to make good money) is hyped as being oh so intelligent and complex and multi-layered.
Ever had sex with someone you’d thought would be a good lay and then getting bored during the act? That’s what this movie felt like to me.
Loved The Dark Knight, though.
Wanna see an ‘intelligent’ movie? Go watch Primer ( Primer (2004) - IMDb ). It’s a good film, but I seriously doubt that most people would find entertainment in that.
[/quote]
So you didn’t like it cause of the hype, some people saying it was “hard to understand” and was popular?
Why dont you review the movie based on its merits alone? Not how others perceived it but how you thought it was as a film.
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
[quote]kothreat wrote:
Primer is ridiculous. I think i’ve seen it 3 times now and still have no clue.
[/quote]
See? Same effects as Inception claims to have on most of its audience, but:
-shorter
-cheaper (budget was about 7.000 USD)
Maybe you may need to get someone to understand it for you. Cast’n crew can only take it so far.
Good day.
[/quote]
Shouldn’t have said I have no clue. Understand what’s going on, just can’t follow the timeline for shit.
Get in the machine then get out, but hurry up because alternate you’s are coming to get in the machine from the previous day after going back and buying stocks from two days ago, but those two have to hurry up because if they don’t get out in time they will be found by the two that are coming to use it to go back to the present from 7 days ago to clean up a mess their alternates made 8.34 days ago from finding another two in the machines and killing them…
obviously not really what happened, but it could be.