Quote:
Originally Posted by travisjb
Not trying to stir the pot, but... why is it that when a "mainstream" movie is well received by the public, with a clever plot, beautiful sets, good acting, well directed, etc, the Indi types come out of the woodwork to talk about how much better it could have been if blah blah blah... directed by the guy who made "The Fly" in 198something blah blah blah 
... so back on the film, why is it that 'Saito' is so old in the deep level dream but 'Cobb' seems relatively young?
... also, if there is going to be a sequel, really hoping this doesn't go the way of the matrix 2/3... there's plenty more that can be done with with the idea of inception and possibility of architecting worlds / scenes barely limited by reality... and possibly introducing characters that have unique capabilities within the dreams, as with Mal and Cobb |
I'm not an 'indy' type. There's plenty of Indy cack out there, too. I cited Cronenberg because he did a movie exploring similar themes a few years ago called Existenz, although a lot of people out there will only know him from the fly remake. He's making more mainstream movies now. Eastern promises is a good example of him retaining his trademark atmosphere while exploring a less offensive, more friendly theme.
Back to Inception.
The directing and editing were sloppy. Too much fluff. Not enough darlings killed. I think that the director should have been kept out of the edit room.
Constant exposition. This is unforgivable. You can 'hide' some exposition if you're clever about it. A little bit is often needed if there are some 'rules' need explaining to the audience often represented by a less clued in character asking lots of questions. But, it was CONSTANT in this film. There was so much that they should have just explained it all in the beginning and not tried to hide it. Do it during the establishing of the world. Not every five minutes and then, after realizing there's so much of it, making a post-modern joke about it.
The acting. It's alright, but seeing past all that exposition makes it difficult to truly judge doesn't it?
The characters are two dimensional. Even the 'troubled' main character didn't have any real genuine depth to make us wonder about him, yet wasn't defined in that cheesy manipulative Hollywood way to make us give a damn about him. Uncanny valley.
The art direction, bland, mass market, in that 'safe' zone that tries to offend the least amount of people. Afraid to stick its neck out. Easy to 'get' if you're a sports fan. Easy to 'understand' for those without much imagination or those easy to alienate with anything other grey blocks and some CG eye candy. If this is how most people dream, it's a little boring isn't it?
I know there's the conceit of 'what is a dream and what is reality' which might be why they played safe with wacky dream visuals, but when we know absolutely that we're in a dream, why not do something interesting visually with it?
If crumbling buildings and domiciles from a character's past lined up neatly over some water counts as imaginative in your world, I'm pretty sorry for you.
And the plot isn't actually that clever, is it?
It (rather brilliantly) walks the line by making people used to more simplistic films believe it was a brain bender. Too much thought would have upset people and made them think it was faggy and arthaus. They wouldn't 'get it' and get all mad and call it pretentious because they weren't gratified at the end with an obvious manipulative arc and resolution. He was dreaming by the way. An obvious clue during the apparent suicide scene is clear as day. Anybody who didn't get it doesn't deserve to wipe my arse.
It's one of those films that makes the audience have to think just enough to think that it's a smart movie. It's designed to make people think they're a bit smarter than they actually are. Big win. It makes people leave the theatre feeling good.
Getting them to engage their brain for 30 seconds after the movie to wonder why one character sent to limbo is so, so old and if the ending was a dream or not.