Jun 19, 2015

I got this idea from a podcast. Seeing as how my listening and viewing clubs have flopped, here's another go.
The idea is to induct (or reject) films into the SxN80 Canon of great films. First up, Inception:

Spoiler

@Youngshady @Zep @Flacko @Old_Parr @Narsh @Koolo @Sheriff Skippy @FilmAndWhisky @Five Star @KingDrizz @j94ose @Nuredin B @Soldier @Raziel @The Product @Pinhead

 

Jun 19, 2015

yes

 

Jun 19, 2015

h--- yes

 

Jun 19, 2015

Yes

 

Jun 19, 2015

Yes.

 

Jun 19, 2015

Riveting discussion.

 

Jun 19, 2015

Absolutely

And if you think otherwise, you're a film hipster and I hate you

 

Jun 19, 2015

Nah. Have a lot of nostalgia for this movie, struggle with it now. The cast is wasted, and the nature of the concept forced Nolan to become even more explanatory in the script than he usually is. There's just too much in too little time (poorly paced on top of that) and when watching it now I feel like my hand is being held almost the entire way through. Between those things and the ending, I have a really hard time calling it great despite how entertaining and nice to look at it is.

Really makes me wonder how this would have turned out if Jonathan co-wrote with Chris. The Prestige is convoluted as f--- and that still works for the most part. Same with Interstellar.

 

Jun 19, 2015

well you asked for a yes or no, didnt list any points you want discussed

 

Jun 19, 2015

The girl in this podcast and @WPG should get married and live unhappily ever after

 

Jun 19, 2015

I don't like editorializing the OP. Best to save that for later on. @Koolo

I think the pacing is excellent. It's a 2 1/2 hour film that barrels forward despite having a heady meta to it and being rather complex in regards to world building. It never gets bogged down in its own complexity (ie Primer). The "filmmaker theory" that the film is symbolic for the various elements responsible for making a film really exists imo, even if it does feel a little pretentious. It's arthouse masquerading as thriller.

 

Jun 19, 2015

pass

 

Jun 19, 2015

Don't disagree with this. It is a fun watch. I'm referring to the opening 30 minutes or so which are almost entirely comprised of us being introduced to totally uninteresting characters, and the last half hour. 2nd act is fine. Again, there's far too much going on in this movie for me so the stretched out introductions and finishes maybe bother me more than they should.

Don't disagree with this either, but Nolan is no stranger to working arthouse into his films. Need more than that.

 

Jun 19, 2015

The movie doesn't aim to make them interesting, instead it succeeds in using them to explore an interesting world. Seeing them them work is a pleasure in itself. It's not about their humanity. If the filmmaker theory is correct, which you agree that it is, it would make sense that the team is not a source of humanity or characters that we can invest ourselves into. The opening 30 minutes sets up the 2nd act you love. It's a necessary evil. I don't see exposition as the weakness that a lot of people do. It's about the execution imo.

Not to this extent. The entire film is untethered, indulgence. It's like if The Dark Knight Rises had a higher purpose than to entertain and amaze us. He succeeds in balancing the two extremes to an impressive degree

 

Jun 19, 2015

Isn't it though? I remember a good portion of the film being spent on Leo's relationship with his wife, and the plot is of course based around him getting back to his kids. If this was a straight up action film that doesn't let up like Fury Road, I could forgive the lack of depth or "humanity", it's just that there are too many character moments clearly grasping for an emotional reaction from the viewer for me to look at it in a similar way.

If you don't want to make interesting characters with depth or humanity, you shouldn't try to give them depth or humanity.

Nolan spends half the movie trying to find humanity in these characters.

Well the second act is so action packed that I don't really think the story or buildup is relevant to why I'm a fan of that section of the film. That's the only time when the dramatics are kept at bay and the character's exploration of the world that you speak about actually comes to fruition, and it's great.

 

Jun 19, 2015

@CharlieWork really confused @ the humanity comment, explain?

 

Jun 19, 2015

I agree with Cobb's part failing. He's the only other character besides Fischer that's supposed to be emotional. Cobb's fails and Fischer's works pretty well. Cobb's might work better if Leo thought there was more to dramatic acting than yelling. The scene with Mal in the honeymoon suite is almost hilarious with the way he howls. So I'll give you that one, but I don't think it applies to most characters nor does it sink the film.

Does he? I don't see him even attempting that with most of the supporting characters. Like I said, Cobb and Fischer sure. You could maybe argue for Saito?

Do you not find learning about the world intriguing?
Also, though you can divide the movie into 3 acts, I don't think that works time wise. A lot of the movie is the action packed stuff you like. Between the opening heist and the beginning of the main heist is the only part without that and it's full of getting the team together and exposition. It really flew by when I watched it last night.

 

Jun 19, 2015

wow

 

Jun 19, 2015

He does it in most of his movies. Doesn't exactly work in all of them.
Just watch the scene with Mal jumping and tell me he couldn't have handled the scene differently.
Scorsese and Tarantino utilized his limitations a lot better than Nolan.

 

Jun 19, 2015

I'm not saying anything about it sinking the film. Still a fan overall.

This discussion has inspired me to watch it again, so I'll get back to you about the rest.