Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)
-   Media Centre (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   [Movie] Inception (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=41212)

LZ Jul 18, 2010 10:50 AM

Inception
 
I want to talk to someone about this motherfuckin movie.

If you haven't seen it, you should. I'm certainly not saying it's the greatest movie ever, but I do think it's the most enjoyable and inventive movie so far this year (I haven't seen Toy Story 3 yet though.) I don't want to say much -- I went in pretty much blind and loved watching the movie unfold -- but it really is a treat.

If you have seen it: How'd you feel? Do you disagree/agree about how fucking awesome this movie is?
Spoiler:
And I know you've discussed this with everyone who's seen it -- IS HE DREAMING?? I think so. Remember when Alfred said, near the beginning of the film before introducing Juno, "come back to reality?" Yeah. Also, we can talk about the hallway fight because that was real cool too.

VitaminZinc Jul 18, 2010 11:04 AM

Spoiler:
The no gravity hallway stuff was some of the greatest stuff I've ever seen.


I really really really enjoyed this movie, and I'm glad I didn't bitch-out and skip it cause I was sick. I would have never forgiven myself for missing it.

Paco Jul 18, 2010 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LZ (Post 763100)
Spoiler:
And I know you've discussed this with everyone who's seen it -- IS HE DREAMING?? I think so.

Spoiler:
The ending with his "totem" spinning and straddling the line between balance and falling left that pretty much up to the viewer, I think.


So far, this is my favorite movie of 2010. I mean, it's not a perfect film but I can guarantee you've NEVER seen a heist film like this one. EVER. For all its potential of non-linearity, the film is incredibly straightforward. I like how the introduction and training of Ariadne kind of serves as a primer for the audience as well and, really, if you get lost at any point after that, you simply didn't pay enough attention. I also like how, even if you know how it will turn out in the end, (and most of you will, really; Cobb's story is actually rather formulaic) it's not really the outcome but the journey of HOW you arrived at the end that's important. You're always left guessing where everything goes, how you're getting there, who's actually taking a bullet to the chest and, goddamn, it's hard to keep track of all this when you think about each subsequent "dream level" they're in.

About my only gripe with the movie isn't really a gripe so much as it was me leaving the theater baffled at how they're keeping time in each dream level. Is the time, like, exponentially multiplied or what?

Additional Spam:
And, yes, considering that none of the gravity-shifting fight in the hallway was done in CGI, it makes it all the more impressive.

LZ Jul 18, 2010 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Encephalon (Post 763104)
Spoiler:
The ending with his "totem" spinning and straddling the line between balance and falling left that pretty much up to the viewer, I think.

Spoiler:
Oh that's definitely true. The whole movie is peppered with evidence for both arguments, so essentially people can essentially debate and discuss different takes on the film. I think that the last shot of Cobb simply not caring to look at the top lends itself to a version of the film where he's dreaming. The fact that he is ignoring the top seems kind of 'meh' to me if he's in the real world anyway. Other things, like the Micahel Caine line I mentioned, imply to me that a team (including perhaps Ariadne) are trying to inceive Cobb to wake up.


I agree with the points about linearity. To place a set of rigid, structured rules like that to something as chaotic as dreams is really amazing, especially since Nolan really pulled it off. I thought it might have been one of those films where you have to really bend your mind backwards to even know what is going on in the plot, but it really isn't.

Quote:

About my only gripe with the movie isn't really a gripe so much as it was me leaving the theater baffled at how they're keeping time in each dream level. Is the time, like, exponentially multiplied or what?
Yeah I think this is the case. So, if you're saying one real life minute = 12 dream minutes, then you'd do (number of real time minutes) = 12 ^(dream layer) dream minutes

Grundlefield Earth Jul 18, 2010 12:54 PM

Spoiler:
I originally thought he did return to reality before the ending with the top at the end. Then when i saw the top even with the wobble I thought he wasn't in reality, but had no clue why. Then I read the the whole 'he is still in Limbo theory,' and I am more inclined to believe that.

However, there likely is no correct answer. Christopher Nolan portrays this with the wobbling top at the end. At this point, he PLANTS AN IDEA in our minds to not only question what really happened, but about our existence in this here world. What if we are dreaming or on some other level of existence, but we don't know until we pass on.


And you are exactly right about the time element. Some retards in the theatre were chuckling next to me everytime they showed the van falling. Why was it funny to them, I do not know.


Great movie, probably give it 8/10. Could be even better with a second viewing trying to piece your way through, which theory you buy.

Mighty Tor Jul 18, 2010 11:37 PM

Based on what little I had seen before seeing the film I thought this might be Nolan's stumble. It just seemed like so much could go wrong, but happily I was quite blown away by it. The only minor criticism I can level at the film is that I'd have liked a little more background on Arthur but really I can see where it would've been difficult to keep the pace consistent while fiddling with more back story.

Spoiler:
As far as the was it all a dream element. On one hand the surface appears to be that Cobb is back to reality at the end, though a couple things bother me. The meanings of the names Ariadne and Eames. Respectively being the one who helped get Theseus out of the Minotaur's maze and Eames the name of an influential architect. Ariadne was the one who ostensibly led Cobb to his redemption with Mal, and given his architecture background not surprising an architect's name could crop up. This could just be Nolan bringing in plot irrelevant referential naming, but I think with 10 years of time to work on the story I don't think much will be plot irrelevant. Also stretching a bit, Mal being part of his mind always threatening him, grand mal seizure, again huge stretch but a thought. Also Saito getting his hand on Cobb's totem which also appears to have been critical to Mal concerns me. Plus the doubts Mal raised with everyone being out to get Cobb, and how easily it appears Saito could clear him once he made his peace with Mal. Also the fact that the kids look identical to how they were in his dream, same position and everything, not as if he never knew their faces, perhaps they've just been unlocked from his memory now. Still if it is a dream, filled with Cobb's subconscious, it it all his own dream or is he shared dreaming still. I could ramble on and on, but at the core it doesn't really matter. I like that the ending is unclear but not in such a way that negatively impacts the rest of the movie or feels like a cop out, since it really is about the journey and the journey is excellent.


Also with the snow level, gotta wonder what sort of awesome Nolan could pull off with a Bond film.

I poked it and it made a sad sound Jul 18, 2010 11:47 PM

Oh my god, guys, I loved this movie.

Spoiler:
The song that played to wake everyone up was "Non, je ne regrette rien {"No, I regret nothing} by Edith Piaf.

And when I just read "Ariadne" a few posts up, I thought "Oh yea, they only mentioned her name once," and recalled that I wanted to look it up. Turns out it's the Greek Goddess nick-named "Mistress of the Labyrinth." Just another little thing.

The no-gravity hallway scene was so great.

The one kick to get everyone through the dream state was incredible.

I was thinking that at the end there, he was going to see his wife waving for him, there to pick him up. I'm pretty convinced he wasn't dreaming then.


What an experience for $8. I was on the edge of my seat for the majority of the film, and I was so engrossed - it's something I haven't experienced in the movies for a long time.

I'm very glad we went to see it. One of the best movies I've seen in a long time.

Dopefish Jul 18, 2010 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Tor (Post 763183)
Also with the snow level, gotta wonder what sort of awesome Nolan could pull off with a Bond film.

I couldn't help but think of this:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PzbVEeP-ds4/0.jpg

Grundlefield Earth Jul 19, 2010 12:02 AM

Not gonna lie I thought the same thing Dope.

Ramenbetsu Jul 19, 2010 04:27 AM

All emotional hooks fell completely flat for me.

Spoiler:
All of the characters were extremely one dimensional save Cobb and again, his story didn't do anything for me. Fight scene in the hotel was awesome. It was a cool movie but I wouldn't put it at "great." I kinda surprised myself, I thought I would love this.

LZ Jul 19, 2010 10:29 AM

Spoiler:
That's true, but it didn't bother me at all because it was a heist movie. People aren't going to be expounded upon much more than their function in the group. So yeah if Cobb doesn't do anything for you then there's not much else. But I thought Leo played the role well.

Sousuke Jul 19, 2010 01:39 PM

I saw this last night, and absolutely loved it. And [as most have already said] despite it not being a perfect film, it's damn near close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dopefish (Post 763185)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mighty Tor (Post 763183)
Also with the snow level, gotta wonder what sort of awesome Nolan could pull off with a Bond film.

I couldn't help but think of this:

[image]

My initial thoughts were actually Metal Gear Solid', but then started to jump between the two.

makura Jul 19, 2010 06:04 PM

I saw the midnight showing on Thursday. It was probably a bad idea because I got a little sleepy. I started to get bored during the excessive action scenes on the Shadow Moses level. I'm disappointed that I didn't really enjoy Shutter Island 2 as much as everyone else did.

Spoiler:
Did anyone else make that connection? Dead wife haunting Leo.. Obsessive and can't let go..
I wish they developed the characters more, especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt's. He was pretty cool.
I wonder.. what kind of security training would you go through to dream up a whole army of soldiers to protect your secrets?
And how can a van, driven by a pussy-ass Indian guy with a pistol, get riddled with bullets and no one inside gets hit?

Anyone else thinks that Leo is still stuck?
Leo's totem. That wasn't really his totem to begin with right? So he shouldn't be able to tell if it's a dream or not.
And that whole thing with his kids still lookin the same with same clothes in the end points towards it still being a dream.

Fuck it. Trying to interpret things in this movie is like trying to interpret things in Lost.


Drakken Jul 24, 2010 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saru (Post 763308)
Spoiler:
Did anyone else make that connection? Dead wife haunting Leo.. Obsessive and can't let go..

It's funny, I just saw Shutter Island for the first time right after seeing Inception and the similarities between the two really stood out.
Spoiler:
Leo's dead wife haunting him, like you said. Working toward letting the past go. Caught in delusions/dreams. Probably other stuff I'm forgetting.

Put Balls Jul 24, 2010 05:26 PM

I completely lost track of time in the theater, ironically enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieSeLFueLeD (Post 763941)
This is a pretty insightful article:

NEVER WAKE UP: THE MEANING AND SECRET OF INCEPTION

Spoiler:
Also now that I've thought about it, it's plausible that the parts of the movie we assume as reality might not be. The totem is kind of red-herring if it's Cobb's own dream. He knows how it's supposed to work.

The funniest thing. I still kind of want that it WOULDN'T have been a
Spoiler:
dream.
What this tells about me in the light of Devo's linked article I'll leave undisclosed.

Oh, and I wouldn't even DREAM about comparing this movie to Shutter Island in any way. Nothing else really in common than arbitrary details, and DiCaprio on-screen.

Additionally, Fuck Zimmer.

Misogynyst Gynecologist Jul 24, 2010 05:47 PM

Already stuck my review of sorts on my journal. As to people's wondering if the movie is a dream or some level of dreaming or real...

Spoiler:
Its up to you.

As someone on YouTube pointed out, Hans Zimmer's "danger motif" music is simply the song "Non, je ne regrette rien" slowed down...

YouTube Video

So as the totem spins and wobbles in the last shot of the movie, you're being asked

1.) Is Cobb Awake or is he dreaming?
2.) Was Cobb *ever* awake? Did dreaming even have anything to do with the movie (insomniacs will fantasize about sleep after all)
3.) Are the viewers simply part of the film's scenario as being subjected to the "whole picture"? Think of it this way...

Spoiler:
The Audience
Spoiler:
The Real World(?) (The Plane)
Spoiler:
The Dream World #1 (The Van)
Spoiler:
The Dream World #2 (The Hotel)
Spoiler:
The Dream World #3 (Metal Gear Solid)
Spoiler:
The Subconscious / Dream World #4 (Ruined City)
Spoiler:
The Audience


What I'm interested in... was anyone here moved by the story of Cobb and his wife? A lot of people on other internet boards apparently got a really strong emotional reaction to the film's love plot while it struck me as exactly as pale and ankle deep as the one in the Matrix sequels.

LZ Jul 24, 2010 06:43 PM

Spoiler:
I wouldn't say I was moved by that story, but I was intrigued. I liked the idea of some bitch haunting his dreams, and the explanation of how he fucked up her life was very satisfying. Stubbornly taking things into his own hands, and then stubbornly telling his wife (unsuccessfully) to calm the fuck down -- and at the end he still is stubborn in his belief that he was right all along. It just tells us a bit more about how the guy is really like, and that's always good.

Put Balls Jul 25, 2010 08:10 AM

Spoiler:
Lehah, read the article by Faraci. There's not much to interpret in the ending, even if someone (like I) still would like to. The top is irrelevant to everything, because it was given to him by the wife, completely unlike how the totems were supposed to work. The casual viewers (read: the likes of Lost fans) would like to find meaning in everything in this movie [, but the details don't really matter (like you can't remember faces of people, just feelings you have about them) in a dream]. I guess the casual viewers might also draw silly comparisons to other "similar" movies like Shutter Island or The Matrix.

Well, there is one connection to The Matrix. The endless, exhaustive exposition by Morpheus/Cobb in the beginning (the whole first Matrix, actually) to set the tables straight. Not really that necessary...

I didn't really feel the love between Mal and Cobb. It was left pale on purpose.

Worm Jul 25, 2010 10:42 PM

Spoiler:
Ugh, where are people getting this "the whole movie was a dream" nonsense? Faraci is just making stuff up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devin Faraci
The film's 'reality' sequences are filled with moments that, on retrospect, seem strange or unlikely or unexplained.

He gives pretty poor evidence for this, and I haven't seen much better elsewhere online. "Hey why is his wife on the opposite ledge?" doesn't cut it (my answer: she walked along the ledge and followed the wall of the building).

There is only one question raised by the ending of the film: is Cobb still in limbo or not? That's it. You don't therefore get to question if everything was a dream; it simply doesn't follow.

I mean, sure, you can question everything, but without some basis for dream/not-dream comparison it's meaningless conjecture and can be applied to any movie (or reality, with similarly nonsensical results). This movie is great as a layered heist film and there's no need to project "deep" thoughts onto it.

Misogynyst Gynecologist Jul 28, 2010 06:49 PM

YouTube Video

makura Jul 28, 2010 10:44 PM

YouTube Video

Randi Jul 29, 2010 03:17 AM

I loved the movie but the whole thing was pretty cut and dry for me. There really wasn't anything that I felt was left open for interpretation other than the ending. I mean, sure, you could sit here and try to read deeper shit into the whole movie, but I didn't really feel like this was supposed to be a goddamned spiritual event. This wasn't Lost.

Additional Spam:
Not that Lost was a spiritual event.

No more spiritual than spending $350 on a date and not getting laid.

Ah! Amoeba Jul 29, 2010 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worm (Post 764205)
Spoiler:
Ugh, where are people getting this "the whole movie was a dream" nonsense? Faraci is just making stuff up.

He gives pretty poor evidence for this, and I haven't seen much better elsewhere online. "Hey why is his wife on the opposite ledge?" doesn't cut it (my answer: she walked along the ledge and followed the wall of the building).

There is only one question raised by the ending of the film: is Cobb still in limbo or not? That's it. You don't therefore get to question if everything was a dream; it simply doesn't follow.

I mean, sure, you can question everything, but without some basis for dream/not-dream comparison it's meaningless conjecture and can be applied to any movie (or reality, with similarly nonsensical results). This movie is great as a layered heist film and there's no need to project "deep" thoughts onto it.

Spoiler:
We are just sort of thrown into the middle of a "dream heist" already taking place when the movie starts, which fits with what is discussed in the movie about not knowing how a dream starts. Sure, this is a common way to start a movie, but perhaps it serves a purpose here?

Also, Mal straight up questions Cobb about the people out to get him, and how is that not just like a dream? Cobb could simply be dreaming about SOME CORPORATION out to find and kill him in the first place.


Point is, I don't agree that it is such an absurd stretch to view the movie this way.

Ah! Amoeba Jul 30, 2010 09:56 AM

LeHah: I started to care about Mal/Cobb after the hotel scene. Shit was sad.



Also, whether the movie is as deep as some make it out to be or not, there is nevertheless a lot of things to discuss, which is pretty fucking cool and fun. Take the theory that there is a second, HIDDEN INCEPTION taking place during the movie, for example.


Quote:

“Do you want to become an old man, filled with regret, waiting to die alone?” These words (or something close to them) are uttered three times in the film. The first time, the words are those of Saito (Ken Watanabe), in his helicopter in Kyoto, when he first approaches Cobb about the possibility of inception. The second time, it’s in the first level of Fischer’s dream, after Saito has been shot, and Cobb tries to tell him that he’s not going to die: “You’re gonna become an old man,” Cobb says, and Saito replies, “Filled with regret.” Cobb completes the thought: “Waiting to die alone.” Already, it’s clear that this dialogue has to do with more than this particular moment in the film. It’s also significant that this happens just as Eames (Tom Hardy), pretending to be Browning (Tom Berenger) is trying to plant the idea (“incept”?) into Fischer’s head that his father may have wanted to split up his company. Fischer’s and Cobb’s fates seem strangely intertwined through the film. (“The deeper we go into Fischer, the deeper we go into you,” Ariadne says to Cobb.)

The final utterance happens near the end of the film, in Limbo, as Cobb finds the aging Saito. This time, Saito begins the exchange: “I’m an old man,” he says. “Filled with regret,” Cobb replies. There’s something specially poignant about this scene, coming as it does on the heels of Cobb having told the shadow of his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) that they did grow old together in their dream together on Limbo, many years ago, and that he has to let her go.

This may well be the real “inception.” Cobb’s character has been consumed by regret — regret at what he’s done to his wife, regret at having abandoned his children, regret at not being able to return home. In his dreams he’s built an elevator (literally!) that stops at floors, each defined by a moment he regrets and that (as Cobb himself explains to Ariadne) he has to “change.” This elevator, and its forbidden Basement floor, which opens to the hotel room where his wife leaped to her death, could be seen as the vault in which Cobb keeps his innermost thoughts, much like the hospital/hangar where Fischer imagines his father’s deathbed, or the safe in Saito’s dream-fortress from the earlier scenes of the film. Interestingly, in Nolan’s first film, Following, one of the characters is a thief named Cobb who breaks into people’s homes and likes to say, “Everybody has their box,” referring to a box into which people always place seemingly random objects that are of sentimental value to them. In Inception, too, everybody has their box — be it a safe, a fortified hangar surrounded by armed guards on skis, or a stop on an elevator on which no one is allowed. In other words, the hotel room where Cobb last saw his wife, which is the forbidden floor on his Dream Elevator of Regret, is his “box.”

Regret is the idea that defines Cobb (which makes his recurrent use of the Edith Piaf song “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien” as a musical countdown to the end of a given dream rather ironic and touching), and in order for him to be free, he has to defeat it. The second part of the message that Cobb and Saito exchange in their final scene in Limbo — “Take a leap of faith. Come back, so we can be young men together again” — is in direct contrast to Mal’s desire to pull him further into his dream so that they can grow old together. Cobb defeats his regret by finally telling Mal that the two of them did grow old together in their shared dream. In other words, he fulfilled his wedding promise to her. This is, perhaps, the thing that Cobb once knew but had forgotten; it’s also a positive thought that trumps the negative feeling that he betrayed his wife. It seems like a realization on his part when he actually says it to her; but it’s been basically suggested to him through Saito’s repetition of the “old man, filled with regret, waiting to die alone” meme.

So, is Cobb being pulled back to reality by this thought, or is he being prodded further into his dream? That depends, perhaps, on how you view the very end of the film: At this point, Cobb seems to be finally freed of his regret and of his memory of Mal, and has been reunited with his children. The final shot seems to indicate that he may be still dreaming (because his totem keeps spinning). If so, then he has either lost himself in Limbo entirely, or Mal was right all along, and his world was always a dream.

But whether he's still dreaming may ultimately be irrelevant: The important thing is that Cobb has been freed of his demons, and can now be reunited with what to him appear to be his real children — be they a projection or reality. Or, as the old man in Mombassa puts it, referring to the opium den of dreamers in Yusuf’s basement: “They come here to be woken up. Their dream has become their reality. Who are you to say otherwise?”
Full article here

Zip Aug 4, 2010 06:07 PM

good stuff, good movie.
Spoiler:
Dont really know which way to lean, what i do know is that most of the movie seemed very choppy. Which i first thought was bad editing but later realized it might have been on purpose. that whole blury effect adds something too. The whole dreamreading itself is very vauge and barely touched upon.

But at the same time it would really be a cliché if it was all a dream, I told my brother early that it is one (but i expected a clear answer by the end). I really like the idea that it's a metaphore for movie making, but that's only the method used to read the dreams and the rest of the story is a seperate thing.
The last scene was weird too, how did Cobb end in the water like that? And why was the dialouge so choppy (and didnt Saiko say the line "from someone in a dream long time ago" (something like that) in the begining of the movie? Cobb said it in the last scene..), was that supposed to represent "bad acting" and that gets used as a kick?


Better then i expected.

Congle line of abuse. Or is that conga-line. Or congaline. Aug 5, 2010 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieSeLFueLeD (Post 763941)
This is a pretty insightful article:

NEVER WAKE UP: THE MEANING AND SECRET OF INCEPTION

Spoiler:
Also now that I've thought about it, it's plausible that the parts of the movie we assume as reality might not be. The totem is kind of red-herring if it's Cobb's own dream. He knows how it's supposed to work.

Spoiler:

Great article, first of all. I really like this theory and I'm almost half convinced by it. When a theory becomes ultra meta like that it becomes really hard to prove anything. All clues point to yes, but it's still a bunch of clues. I like that.

Either way, I really appreciate the open ending now. A person can leave having seen a great action flick or a super meta alegory, or anything in between. A good movie needs to catch a wide audience, right? So when you catch people who love action and those who love deeper meanings I think you've done something interesting.

Unfortunately you always end up with a group of people that feel like it's self indulgent or trite. Too bad for them. After a second viewing, A fucking +.

WolfDemon Aug 5, 2010 04:10 AM

I thought the movie was great, but I kinda wish it gave some sort of explanation about
Spoiler:
how they were all able to link up in the same dream. I know those machines have something to do with it, but I'd like to know what exactly happens to cause that.

Unless it was in there and I just completely didn't catch it.

Edit: So I just read that article, and I can kind of see now why it wasn't explained more. Or at least a possibility of why, if the movie is meant to be taken that way.

Congle line of abuse. Or is that conga-line. Or congaline. Aug 6, 2010 10:40 PM

Spoiler:
I appreciated them cutting that explanation. The movie was long enough and a half-baked reasoning behind what you're talking about would have been dangerous. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far and it would have, perhaps, taken the viewer out of it.

Just know that it works, that's all. Plus the lack of explanation does lend a tremendous hand to the previously mentioned meta-theory.


In other news, I'm going to go see this movie for the THIRD TIME this week, tonight.

Dark Nation Aug 6, 2010 11:31 PM

I saw this last Friday, was going to go see it again tonight but my friend wasn't feeling well. Perhaps tomorrow night. At any rate, I LOVED the movie.

Misogynyst Gynecologist Aug 7, 2010 10:20 AM

Spoiler:
Anyone start wondering if the whole thing isn't just a sloppy "turtles all the way down" explaination? I've only seen the movie once so maybe I missed something critical but when you build a movie based on "Is this a dream or isnt it" and then remove the narrative structure that the question sits on - doesn't that become an utterly meaningless exercise?

Again, I'm just throwing that out there. I'm not sure if it holds much water but I still get the feeling that theres something to it.

CloudNine Aug 18, 2010 07:00 PM

Say it ain't so: 'Inception' rips off Scrooge McDuck

Ramenbetsu Aug 20, 2010 11:54 AM

http://i.imgur.com/JiPqw.jpg

slessman Aug 20, 2010 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfDemon (Post 765310)
I thought the movie was great, but I kinda wish it gave some sort of explanation about
Spoiler:
how they were all able to link up in the same dream. I know those machines have something to do with it, but I'd like to know what exactly happens to cause that.

Unless it was in there and I just completely didn't catch it.

Edit: So I just read that article, and I can kind of see now why it wasn't explained more. Or at least a possibility of why, if the movie is meant to be taken that way.

I dunno, if you think you missed it then they didn't do a good enough job of explaining in my opinion. I think that a lot of us feel as though there wasn't adequate enough explanation in the film. I definitely could have used more. But it was enjoyable regardless. Just left me kinda stumped as far as answers to some very valid questions are concerned.

quazi Aug 21, 2010 05:42 PM

The movie didn't advertise itself as a documentary on the technology. It was explained well enough to support the plot and the bullshit science involved was glossed over. I don't think Nolan was that interested in explaining how a completely implausible machine was able to work its magic.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.