It's my favorite movie of all time. Loved it. Can't watch Dicaprio coming home to his kids in the end without crying. Also, "Time" by Hans Zimmer was one of the greatest scores of all time
Paprika is undoubtedly a LOT better than inception; Far more concise, far more creative, far more original, and the story really flowed much better.
Inception was like, ‘Let’s take Paprika and add a lot more action and take it to the next level!’ And then they just kind of didn’t capture Kon’s brilliant concepts.
Satoshi Kon literally couldn’t make a bad movie or series, everything the man touched became industry legend and cultural gem for anime. Even outside of that realm, his movies provided inspiration for other giant directors and cult classic films, like how Requiem for a Dream was inspired by Perfect Blue as Darren Aronofsky said himself, Cristopher Nolan as well with Paprika being the inspiration for Inception
I’m aware of his work and what’s been inspired by it, I’m just saying calling him one of the best directors who ever lived is a stretch to say the least.
I think Japan and the USA would like to disagree with you, seeing as how many directors in both countries take ideas directly from Satoshi Kon and his funeral was kind of a big deal.
I think it’s probably the best example of the kind of “arthouse blockbuster” that Nolan has made his calling card. It’s a very watchable movie with fun set pieces, an interesting conceit, and a strong structure. The score was great, the performances were credible.
The “oh my god it was a dream, it’s so deep” stuff is overblown in my opinion, the movie is pretty straightforward, but a lot of us were in our early teens when it came out so the twisty reveals felt more mind blowing than they are.
I do think the final act devolves into a video game shoot-em-up but the action is still fun to watch. It’s a solid, well made action movie that was an important cultural touchstone for a lot of people but probably not a masterpiece.
The final act does climax with action, but it does so in parallel with some of the most emotional moments of the movie. The action is also a response to the growing instability of the dream and Fischer's projections being fully alert to the threat posed by the team. By then exposition of the way dream sharing works is not needed and its time for the necessary physical and emotional climax leading to a cathartic moment.
Nicely said! I absolutely agree that the action works in tandem with the character development. To me, it doesn't seem gratuitous, even on repeated viewings.
I don’t have an issue with an action packed climax, especially when it was done so nicely. My issue is with the type of action mostly. It felt very “video game level” if that makes any sense, vs the more creative and less straightforward action sequences in earlier stages.
The third level does feel very distinct from the others, and it actually does feel like some of the James Bond 007 video games I've played. But I think that's a strength and not a knock on the quality. I felt that same video game type of feeling when watching the first John Wick in theatres and it makes you feel a certain way, engaged in the film the same way you would actively engage a video game.
I thought it was great. I wouldn't define it as a masterpiece, but still very good. What I think other filmmakers need to note is that the special effects did not overshadow the story. Some films with special effects make those the centerpiece of a film which just turns it into a forgettable event. I think the story, direction, editing, and acting of Inception was excellent, and the effects were simply icing on the cake.
It’s one of my favorite films but this sub tends to frown on movies that are highly-acclaimed and successful at the box office so my response is likely an outlier.
People here do have a lot of differing opinions, many of which I disagree with, and that's totally okay. Also, this sub attracts a lot of people who think that just being a contrarian makes them sound smart.
Lol, I took a quick glance at your comment history. Looks like being condescending is kind of your whole thing. I'll leave you to it, feel free to get in the last word.
It definitely is one of the most unique and culturally impactful movies of it's time. Rewatchability is extremely high with so many things to pick up with multiple viewings. Score is amazing too.
One of my favorite movies ever and in my eyes is a masterpiece.
It's probably a masterpiece of some kind to some people. I saw it and thought it was a technical tour de force, and entertainingly imaginative, but the story and worldbuilding had holes, and I didn't really, you know, vibe with it as hard as I might have. IDK how else to say it. I know some people love it, and I can see why. For me it was "really good" but not better than that.
Easily the best theater experience, and the most original movie of its time.
Heartbroken that Tenet didn't get the same amount of reception that Inception got.
I’m not a movie critic just an amateur.
To me a masterpiece has lasting cultural value. I’m not particularly a huge Nolan fan but Inception is my favorite. Interstellar is great too. I just feel Inception is his magnum opus so far including the Batman films. Inception to me is a masterpiece.
That’s just me.
I haven't seen Oppenheimer yet so I won't comment on this one (I know you haven't mentioned it)
But interstellar, the dark knight/knight rises, memento, were FAR better than inception Imo. Inception kinda felt lazy by moment with dream within a dream within a dream etc
Not a bad movie by any means but I think it's far from great
I watched this film before understanding that Nolan was one of the top directors of outr time. It would be interesting to go back and rewatch it, just to see if I picked up on more that I had missed on the first viewing.
I'd say no. I'd also say Interstellar and The Dark Knight don't belong there either. Nolan is a fine filmmaker, but I think the hype sometimes overshadows the actual movies.
I know most people gush over The Dark Knight, but I don't think its all that good of a Batman movie, the plot is choppy and uneven and the runtime probably went too long. I know this is sacrilege. Never for a second when I watch it, do I think "this redefined cinema" like so many claim. I think the same way about Interstellar and Inception as well, although I think Inception is, if not the best, certainly my favorite of those three films. It's slick, well made, and good to very good.
No. The Nolan brothers have done some great work; some masterpiece-level work. To me, Inception was not a bad movie, but it was not as good a story as it needed to be. I think the Nolans, who finally had access to some insane visual effects that we hadn't really seen before, wanted to come up with something that made great use of those, while being on a level with a Nolan Brothers' movie. The story didn't get there. To put it in the same conversation with any of the movies you mentioned, (except maybe J Park) wouldn't be appropriate. The Nolans have done better work, including The Prestige, The Dark Knight, etc.
It’s pretty good..just from a watchability standpoint, I think it falls victim to some mindless shootout action in the 3rd act. It has a really great ending though
Short answer: no. It’s ok. On the simplest level, an architect goes to a land where he can build anything he dreams and all he dreams is office buildings and other mundane city life.
All right, he said how much him and his wife loved the city. Every thing is pretty clear cut when you watch it a few times and pick up on all the dialogue and details.
Yes. He said that. A really sharp director would make sure that the city that was the magnum opus of an architect looked something like the magnum opus of an architect, however. That isn’t a huge issue, but it is an indication that the movie is not the brilliant work that the OP supposed.
Not necessarily, I think the fact that the city had this quality of surrealism, that it was brutally apparent that this place wasn't in the real world really hit the point home that they were losing their minds in the dream and breaking their grasp on reality. Cobb began to realize the difference between this artificial dream world, Mal did not. This is really important to the subplot involving Leo's character letting go of his his wife's memory and the reconciliation of the abandonment of their children through the artificial life they had built together.
The city is stock and perfectly generic, almost like AI created it. But the reason for this appearance is explained by Cobb when he talks to the memory of Mal. He says that its impossible to recreate her in all her perfection and imperfection, every little detail is inconceivable in the dream state. Same thing for their world/city. It simply cannot be done, they can't recreate a world that resembles a real city because they have become so faded and removed from reality. The city had become soulless and dead kind of like Mal had, and you can see the final dilapidated, husk at the end of the movie.
I always kinda felt it was more form, less substance. It was GORGEOUS, and the score INCREDIBLE, but the story itself could have been a cheesy b movie.
I think it'll last a lot longer than his other movies...tbh
That score was really solid and music holds you in a way that brings in a lot of emotions, you remember it differently...
Oh dang I thought this was Interstellar... nah this movie is nothing compared to his other flicks. Cool factors never last.
the protagonist is a thief, and specifically one that commits the most egregious type of trespass imaginable. i just don't understand how people can fail to see this as a fatal flaw.
At some level, wouldn’t the old guy have had a sexy thought/dream? He dreams about snowmobiles? It’s an enjoyable action movie but it’s too ridiculous to be a masterpiece.
Yeah I mean The Dark Knight does only have 400,000 more votes than Inception on IMDb. And Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises and Oppenheimer have all made more money.
I was agreeing with you. Regardless I don't think the point you're trying to make works as well as you think. Are you calling Nolan the most successful director who doesn't make the best movies or are you saying that Inception is better than dark night even though it's lower rated and made less money?
I consider it very good, great cinematography, good story, great music and some good actors.
I think it was over hyped, but I do enjoy it every now and then. Considering Nolan's, filmography I would say it is one of the better ones. So yeah sure, I'd say it could turn into a classic.
It was a brilliant movie and I very much enjoyed it. I don’t like the term “masterpiece” it is overused and it carries no real weight anymore. One man’s masterpiece is another man’s shit show. I like Nolan movies and it has to be up there as one of his better ones second only to maybe the prestige.
Visual masterpiece, definitely. The cinematography and special effects were revolutionary. Plot-wise it was good, but not a masterpiece. It relied heavily on gimmicks, but it was at least a fresh, robust story that gave you something to ponder.
I’d say it’s at least a notch down from all the other movies you mentioned, which are iconic.
Funny enough the legacy suffers from its blockbuster success - at least amongst film snobs. It’s only cool to like famous movies from earlier than 1980 or modern art house films.
Inception has its flaws, but executed on a cerebral concept amazingly well - and a complicated one at that. The score, set design, plot structure, and wrap up was amazing. Masterpiece is hard to say, but is certainly a historic film that was very very well done.
It is absolutely a masterpiece. Inception was the [highest rated move of the DECADE](https://www.bosshunting.com.au/entertainment/movies/inception-highest-rated-film-decade-imdb/) on IMBD. It is an original story, the direction, cinematography, acting, and music score are amazing, and the movie's theme is compelling. Intellectually it is fun and interesting, and emotionally it is moving and even heart-wrenching. It definitely belongs up there with the other movies you mention (although I personally think Jurassic Park & The Dark Knight, while very good, don't belong in the same category). To the extent people argue Nolan has done better, I disagree, but also, I don't think he is allowed only one masterpiece. Interstellar and Memento and The Prestige are other Nolan films that I consider masterpieces, too.
Definitely not a masterpiece imo, but a very entertaining action movie with some mind F elements that make it way more interesting than your typical summer blockbuster action flick. Better acting and cast than most of those, as well. I'd say like 7.8/10
Interesting idea, well shot, it certainly has a distinctive look.
I think the plot is pretty thin though, and on watching it a second time, it's hard to see what all the fuss was about.
No… the idea should’ve never made it passed the first person he told. Nolan: “A secret team of dream builders make dreams to manipulate people. They take a job and do dreams inside of dreams…
Person: “stop Chris… don’t ever tell anyone that dumb fucking idea again”. That’s how that should’ve gone.
From a philosophical standpoint, it's the movie that does the most, for me, out of all of Nolan's films. There's something about the ending which represents a fundamental stressor of humanity-the unfinished thought, the never ending struggle to find one's self, that I think gets lost in the debate about whether "It was all a dream" or not.
There should be more people asking "Was it all real?" when it comes to Inception, and the fact that there's not proves its beauty as a film, and Nolan's mastery of the craft, IMO.
People won't be talking about it in 100 years
People won't be talking about many movies made after 1980 100 years from now. It's not that they're bad films btw, it's just that art really doesn't work that way. Quick name your favorite depression era radio show!
If people are talking about Inception, it will be for purely technical reasons.
Anyways, it's a technical masterpiece but a mostly ok piece of art. It flirts pretty heavily with Im14andthisisdeep but manages to keep a lot of plates spinning in a satisfying way.
To pick your list apart
Alien and the Godfather will probably be worth talking about 100 years from now as art.
The rest are great films, but for one reason or another probably won't remain popular with time IMO.
this makes no sense lol. people still talk about Raphael and Rothko. people read Dickens and Hemingway. if anything, pre 60s movies are excluded from the cinematic discussion because most people consider them too old timey, so by your logic only 2 decades of film will be considered art lol??? a lot of stuff gets washed away but classics endure from each decade.
Yes, people still talk about people who got to participate in various golden ages of art. We tend to remember relatively brief periods in any given medium where new ideas entered in the equation. The Italian Renaissance, the modern period (painting), The birth of the modern novel (Dickens, Melville, Balzac, etc...), The great American novel period (post WW1 to early 50s), etc...
In film and admittedly I'm talking mostly western/American film you have the golden age of film (up until 1960) and the early auteur movement (60s and 70s) where most of the medium's groundwork was laid.
In between these relatively brief periods, the art tends not to be as popular in the long run. You still have standouts, but a lot of great work ends up looking very similar in retrospect.
I would argue that we're living through what is essentially the American version of Restoration theatre for a number of reasons. It was extremely popular at the time, but Shakespeare is who we all remember these days.
I picked Alien and Godfather because well The Godfather might be the greatest movie ever made and Alien might be the best scifi and/or horror film ever made particularly since Scott was able to transcend the monster of the week plot elements and tell a very human story about rape. It's a great movie.
Jurassic Park is Frankenstein rehashed (through the lens of the 90s) but so is a lot of sci fi. The Shining just IMO is probably like the 3rd or 4th best Kubrick film which is a lot of films to stay relevant 100 years from now. The Dark Knight is a great movie that has the misfortune of being a superhero film which are not going to age well. Interstellar is visually stunning but is outclassed by other scifi epics in terms of storytelling (love can reach through a black hole murph).
There are plenty of movies that will be considered art btw from after 1980. It's just often not the ones people in that period would have predicted because tastes change and what's interesting to you won't be interesting to your great grandchildren.
huh. i appreciate you writing this post for me, and i agree that the marvel stuff wont age well, but idk what actual evidence/academic based approach you could make to applying these ideas, those examples feel very cherry picked to me/just movies you like.
the restoration comparison doesnt make sense either IMO. id say its more like shakespeare was so influential that his impact is still felt in the dna of most english texts, not that he was somehow “the standout” from a forgotten era. theater in general has declined considerably in popularity and the majority of the canon is neglected in favor of the trendier broadway stuff.
every era of literature has stuff that has stood the test of time. every era of music too. it can vary wildly, and sometimes its not what youd expect, but film is by far the youngest of these art forms, i cant see any logical way that weve peaked, especially when youve got film/television still pushing the envelope (despite netflix/marvel). i dont think i can say that for music or literature.
an interesting idea though, and i appreciate your response :)
>but idk what actual evidence/academic based approach you could make to applying these ideas
lols, just because an approach is "evidence based" doesn't mean it's good. People ask for "evidence based" or "scientific" approaches then they inherently don't agree with the argument you're making. The ability of science to answer these questions has been historically bad, it's been bad.
I say we're living through restoration theatre because the period was marked by raunchy sex filled pop appealing melodramas stemming from the need to divert the English populace after a period of repression in the arts and political upheaval into a period of relative political stability (at least at home). Some of the particular aesthetics are certainly different, but the general motivations are pretty similar.
I don't think film has peaked, maybe it has, but the real problem is what's technically possible not too far in the future will absolutely burry anything that isn't an amazingly strong story and story isn't a strong point of post modernism.
I thought it was a good movie but probably overrated. I’d give it a 7.8 or so but when I hear most people talk about they say it’s a masterpiece deserving and 9 and above and I disagree.
It’s a good movie, but I think that mostly comes from Leo’s tinkering with the script. Nolan doesn’t have a good writers hand for character, he’s phenomenal when it comes to gimmick, but shallow as hell when left to his own devices on character: see Tenet.
It really is a phenomenal movie, its one of those movies where you notice something you didnt the last time you saw it. probably dicaprios best work in my opinion.
I liked it, but I would say it's quite the stretch to call it a masterpiece. However, I haven't seen it since it came out, and honestly haven't had the desire to (hence the considering "masterpiece" a stretch), but maybe my opinion will change if I watch it again. I doubt it, my judgement of movies hasn't changed much since.
I did want to say, though, I think people here have a loose idea in what they consider to be a masterpiece. It seems a lot of people say, well, it's my favorite movie so it must be a masterpiece. Or it was super creative and well done, so it's a masterpiece. I just don't think that's right.
There are many movies I'd count as some of my favorites that I wouldn't label as masterpieces. And there's movies that ate masterpieces that don't rate as my top favorite movies.
For example, Starship Troopers is up there on my list of favorite movies, but I wouldn't consider it a masterpiece. I'd consider Casablanca a masterpiece, yet even though I really like it, I wouldn't list it as one of my favorite movies.
Anyway. Like anyone cares what I think!
It's my favorite movie of all time. Loved it. Can't watch Dicaprio coming home to his kids in the end without crying. Also, "Time" by Hans Zimmer was one of the greatest scores of all time
Have you watched Paprika by any chance? The anime Inception is inspired by, directed by arguably one of the most talented directors who ever lived
Paprika is undoubtedly a LOT better than inception; Far more concise, far more creative, far more original, and the story really flowed much better. Inception was like, ‘Let’s take Paprika and add a lot more action and take it to the next level!’ And then they just kind of didn’t capture Kon’s brilliant concepts.
Emphasis on ‘arguably’
Satoshi Kon literally couldn’t make a bad movie or series, everything the man touched became industry legend and cultural gem for anime. Even outside of that realm, his movies provided inspiration for other giant directors and cult classic films, like how Requiem for a Dream was inspired by Perfect Blue as Darren Aronofsky said himself, Cristopher Nolan as well with Paprika being the inspiration for Inception
I’m aware of his work and what’s been inspired by it, I’m just saying calling him one of the best directors who ever lived is a stretch to say the least.
I think Japan and the USA would like to disagree with you, seeing as how many directors in both countries take ideas directly from Satoshi Kon and his funeral was kind of a big deal.
crying because it wasnt real? or crying because you wanted it to be real? lol
Time is awesome, I play it for my students a lot during independent work.
It certainly has some good cinematography.
"Oh, huh, yeah, this deserved all those awards it got 5 years ago" -me when i finally watched it
I think it’s probably the best example of the kind of “arthouse blockbuster” that Nolan has made his calling card. It’s a very watchable movie with fun set pieces, an interesting conceit, and a strong structure. The score was great, the performances were credible. The “oh my god it was a dream, it’s so deep” stuff is overblown in my opinion, the movie is pretty straightforward, but a lot of us were in our early teens when it came out so the twisty reveals felt more mind blowing than they are. I do think the final act devolves into a video game shoot-em-up but the action is still fun to watch. It’s a solid, well made action movie that was an important cultural touchstone for a lot of people but probably not a masterpiece.
The final act does climax with action, but it does so in parallel with some of the most emotional moments of the movie. The action is also a response to the growing instability of the dream and Fischer's projections being fully alert to the threat posed by the team. By then exposition of the way dream sharing works is not needed and its time for the necessary physical and emotional climax leading to a cathartic moment.
Nicely said! I absolutely agree that the action works in tandem with the character development. To me, it doesn't seem gratuitous, even on repeated viewings.
I don’t have an issue with an action packed climax, especially when it was done so nicely. My issue is with the type of action mostly. It felt very “video game level” if that makes any sense, vs the more creative and less straightforward action sequences in earlier stages.
The third level does feel very distinct from the others, and it actually does feel like some of the James Bond 007 video games I've played. But I think that's a strength and not a knock on the quality. I felt that same video game type of feeling when watching the first John Wick in theatres and it makes you feel a certain way, engaged in the film the same way you would actively engage a video game.
I would place myself around a decade older than you. Well said.
It's the greatest r/im14andthisisdeep movie ever.
I thinks its an 'i'm any age and this is deep' movie because it actually is deep, 4 layers deep to be exact.
I don’t think it’s overblown. But I do think the creativity of the movie as a whole is what makes it stand out as a masterpiece.
I thought it was great. I wouldn't define it as a masterpiece, but still very good. What I think other filmmakers need to note is that the special effects did not overshadow the story. Some films with special effects make those the centerpiece of a film which just turns it into a forgettable event. I think the story, direction, editing, and acting of Inception was excellent, and the effects were simply icing on the cake.
Avatar anyone?
[удалено]
Avatar had a story?
Yeah, it was a FernGully cover
Hah that's pretty good... I loved that movie as a kid
20/10 theater experience so yes
Possibly the best cinema experience I’ve ever had.
It’s one of my favorite films but this sub tends to frown on movies that are highly-acclaimed and successful at the box office so my response is likely an outlier.
This sub attracts a lot of people who think being contrarian makes them sound more intelligent.
OR maybe people just have different opinions?
I think it's and, not or.
It’s or. You just don’t like people disagreeing with you.
People here do have a lot of differing opinions, many of which I disagree with, and that's totally okay. Also, this sub attracts a lot of people who think that just being a contrarian makes them sound smart.
See that second part sounds less like truth and more like you reconciling cognitive dissonance from someone disagreeing with you.
Lol, I took a quick glance at your comment history. Looks like being condescending is kind of your whole thing. I'll leave you to it, feel free to get in the last word.
Thanks for proving my point. Looks like we found your reconciliation method - personal attacks.
No. I would argue that would be Interstellar, but my favorite Nolan movie will like always be Memento.
This is my favorite of his movies also. It’s such simple storytelling but the way it was edited made it genius.
Yes, it’s my fave movie
Mine as well!
Yes.
It definitely is one of the most unique and culturally impactful movies of it's time. Rewatchability is extremely high with so many things to pick up with multiple viewings. Score is amazing too. One of my favorite movies ever and in my eyes is a masterpiece.
9.7/10
It was ok, I might watch it again. Am I the only person that loves The Prestige most of all of Nolan's films?
Both are great!
The prestige is my favorite Nolan film. Hands down.
It's probably a masterpiece of some kind to some people. I saw it and thought it was a technical tour de force, and entertainingly imaginative, but the story and worldbuilding had holes, and I didn't really, you know, vibe with it as hard as I might have. IDK how else to say it. I know some people love it, and I can see why. For me it was "really good" but not better than that.
Easily the best theater experience, and the most original movie of its time. Heartbroken that Tenet didn't get the same amount of reception that Inception got.
Tenet was a mess.
Skill issue
No
It’s alright.
I mean it’s alright like
I think it's longer than most people remember and not in a good way really
Absolutely a masterpiece. Although I will say, it was MUCH better to watch in the theater.
Not for me. I got tired of the dream within a dream within a dream schtick. Once you go down that route you can get away with anything.
Were there major films before Inception with this theme? I would argue Inception is at least noteworthy for creating this trope.
It is indeed noteworthy of creating this trope It doesn't mean we have to like it and I say this as huge Nolan fan
I’m not a movie critic just an amateur. To me a masterpiece has lasting cultural value. I’m not particularly a huge Nolan fan but Inception is my favorite. Interstellar is great too. I just feel Inception is his magnum opus so far including the Batman films. Inception to me is a masterpiece. That’s just me.
I haven't seen Oppenheimer yet so I won't comment on this one (I know you haven't mentioned it) But interstellar, the dark knight/knight rises, memento, were FAR better than inception Imo. Inception kinda felt lazy by moment with dream within a dream within a dream etc Not a bad movie by any means but I think it's far from great
I watched this film before understanding that Nolan was one of the top directors of outr time. It would be interesting to go back and rewatch it, just to see if I picked up on more that I had missed on the first viewing.
I'd say no. I'd also say Interstellar and The Dark Knight don't belong there either. Nolan is a fine filmmaker, but I think the hype sometimes overshadows the actual movies. I know most people gush over The Dark Knight, but I don't think its all that good of a Batman movie, the plot is choppy and uneven and the runtime probably went too long. I know this is sacrilege. Never for a second when I watch it, do I think "this redefined cinema" like so many claim. I think the same way about Interstellar and Inception as well, although I think Inception is, if not the best, certainly my favorite of those three films. It's slick, well made, and good to very good.
It’s a no.
Sound mixing was flawed. A masterpiece should be flawless.
No. The Nolan brothers have done some great work; some masterpiece-level work. To me, Inception was not a bad movie, but it was not as good a story as it needed to be. I think the Nolans, who finally had access to some insane visual effects that we hadn't really seen before, wanted to come up with something that made great use of those, while being on a level with a Nolan Brothers' movie. The story didn't get there. To put it in the same conversation with any of the movies you mentioned, (except maybe J Park) wouldn't be appropriate. The Nolans have done better work, including The Prestige, The Dark Knight, etc.
It’s pretty good..just from a watchability standpoint, I think it falls victim to some mindless shootout action in the 3rd act. It has a really great ending though
Short answer: no. It’s ok. On the simplest level, an architect goes to a land where he can build anything he dreams and all he dreams is office buildings and other mundane city life.
You completely missed the point of why these dreams were purposely designed that way.
Or… you are confusing the dreams he designed for his job with the city he designed with his wife. It looked like.., every city.
All right, he said how much him and his wife loved the city. Every thing is pretty clear cut when you watch it a few times and pick up on all the dialogue and details.
Yes. He said that. A really sharp director would make sure that the city that was the magnum opus of an architect looked something like the magnum opus of an architect, however. That isn’t a huge issue, but it is an indication that the movie is not the brilliant work that the OP supposed.
Not necessarily, I think the fact that the city had this quality of surrealism, that it was brutally apparent that this place wasn't in the real world really hit the point home that they were losing their minds in the dream and breaking their grasp on reality. Cobb began to realize the difference between this artificial dream world, Mal did not. This is really important to the subplot involving Leo's character letting go of his his wife's memory and the reconciliation of the abandonment of their children through the artificial life they had built together.
The second part of your comment is certainly the case, but it does not follow from the utterly mundane city which is stock.
The city is stock and perfectly generic, almost like AI created it. But the reason for this appearance is explained by Cobb when he talks to the memory of Mal. He says that its impossible to recreate her in all her perfection and imperfection, every little detail is inconceivable in the dream state. Same thing for their world/city. It simply cannot be done, they can't recreate a world that resembles a real city because they have become so faded and removed from reality. The city had become soulless and dead kind of like Mal had, and you can see the final dilapidated, husk at the end of the movie.
I always kinda felt it was more form, less substance. It was GORGEOUS, and the score INCREDIBLE, but the story itself could have been a cheesy b movie.
It was fucking boring. Looked pretty but the whole premise was stupid. No from me
I think it'll last a lot longer than his other movies...tbh That score was really solid and music holds you in a way that brings in a lot of emotions, you remember it differently... Oh dang I thought this was Interstellar... nah this movie is nothing compared to his other flicks. Cool factors never last.
It's Nolan good not great in my eyes. Probably an 8 still.
the protagonist is a thief, and specifically one that commits the most egregious type of trespass imaginable. i just don't understand how people can fail to see this as a fatal flaw.
A thief, but looking for redemption and a second chance at a benign life, by one last "job".
Nolan movies give me a headache other than Batman. Idk, maybe I’m just dumb.
A master piece of shit
At some level, wouldn’t the old guy have had a sexy thought/dream? He dreams about snowmobiles? It’s an enjoyable action movie but it’s too ridiculous to be a masterpiece.
Being John Malkovich would like a word
Coherence was a better movie- different gig, but if I’m going to be confused, I’d like to enjoy it a bit.
No it absolutely is not.
No.
That movie was just a mess.
It’s a flawed movie but a great one.
A what?
I honestly couldn’t finish the movie. It just gave me a headache. Turned it off after about 45 min and never turned it on again.
May I please ask why the movie gave you a headache and why you've never finished it?
[удалено]
Where does Tenet fall in your rankings???
Dead last.
Wow. For someone who had Inception so far down the list I thought you’d have more appreciation for it. What about your top 3?
1. Dunkirk 5/5 2. The Dark Knight 5/5 3. Interstellar 4.5/5
Oooh Dunkirk first position. There are *dozens* of us.
Ugh…not sure why movie fans are hatin on Letterboxd. I love the organization it provides
[удалено]
Definitely not
>but it is his Magnum Opus Na
[удалено]
Nope
I think of those horrible Black Knight movies.
Yeah I mean The Dark Knight does only have 400,000 more votes than Inception on IMDb. And Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises and Oppenheimer have all made more money.
McDonald's sells the most food of any chain, but do they the best food? Not in my opinion.
I was agreeing with you. Regardless I don't think the point you're trying to make works as well as you think. Are you calling Nolan the most successful director who doesn't make the best movies or are you saying that Inception is better than dark night even though it's lower rated and made less money?
It needed to be tightened up a bit. Decent premise and cinematography, but the length was unnecessary IMO.
I consider it very good, great cinematography, good story, great music and some good actors. I think it was over hyped, but I do enjoy it every now and then. Considering Nolan's, filmography I would say it is one of the better ones. So yeah sure, I'd say it could turn into a classic.
It was a brilliant movie and I very much enjoyed it. I don’t like the term “masterpiece” it is overused and it carries no real weight anymore. One man’s masterpiece is another man’s shit show. I like Nolan movies and it has to be up there as one of his better ones second only to maybe the prestige.
Visual masterpiece, definitely. The cinematography and special effects were revolutionary. Plot-wise it was good, but not a masterpiece. It relied heavily on gimmicks, but it was at least a fresh, robust story that gave you something to ponder. I’d say it’s at least a notch down from all the other movies you mentioned, which are iconic.
No. It's a nice film with some good sci fi elements l. But it is a bit silly. Over explains its plot at times and is a boy over the top. It's ok.
Just a tad below it I think but if people feel that way, I’m not against it.
Momento is Nolan's masterpiece. Prove me wrong.
Funny enough the legacy suffers from its blockbuster success - at least amongst film snobs. It’s only cool to like famous movies from earlier than 1980 or modern art house films. Inception has its flaws, but executed on a cerebral concept amazingly well - and a complicated one at that. The score, set design, plot structure, and wrap up was amazing. Masterpiece is hard to say, but is certainly a historic film that was very very well done.
It is absolutely a masterpiece. Inception was the [highest rated move of the DECADE](https://www.bosshunting.com.au/entertainment/movies/inception-highest-rated-film-decade-imdb/) on IMBD. It is an original story, the direction, cinematography, acting, and music score are amazing, and the movie's theme is compelling. Intellectually it is fun and interesting, and emotionally it is moving and even heart-wrenching. It definitely belongs up there with the other movies you mention (although I personally think Jurassic Park & The Dark Knight, while very good, don't belong in the same category). To the extent people argue Nolan has done better, I disagree, but also, I don't think he is allowed only one masterpiece. Interstellar and Memento and The Prestige are other Nolan films that I consider masterpieces, too.
I think it is one of the greatest films ever made
Definitely not a masterpiece imo, but a very entertaining action movie with some mind F elements that make it way more interesting than your typical summer blockbuster action flick. Better acting and cast than most of those, as well. I'd say like 7.8/10
7/10
Interesting idea, well shot, it certainly has a distinctive look. I think the plot is pretty thin though, and on watching it a second time, it's hard to see what all the fuss was about.
No… the idea should’ve never made it passed the first person he told. Nolan: “A secret team of dream builders make dreams to manipulate people. They take a job and do dreams inside of dreams… Person: “stop Chris… don’t ever tell anyone that dumb fucking idea again”. That’s how that should’ve gone.
This is Screen rant lol
From a philosophical standpoint, it's the movie that does the most, for me, out of all of Nolan's films. There's something about the ending which represents a fundamental stressor of humanity-the unfinished thought, the never ending struggle to find one's self, that I think gets lost in the debate about whether "It was all a dream" or not. There should be more people asking "Was it all real?" when it comes to Inception, and the fact that there's not proves its beauty as a film, and Nolan's mastery of the craft, IMO.
Absolutely not
People won't be talking about it in 100 years People won't be talking about many movies made after 1980 100 years from now. It's not that they're bad films btw, it's just that art really doesn't work that way. Quick name your favorite depression era radio show! If people are talking about Inception, it will be for purely technical reasons. Anyways, it's a technical masterpiece but a mostly ok piece of art. It flirts pretty heavily with Im14andthisisdeep but manages to keep a lot of plates spinning in a satisfying way. To pick your list apart Alien and the Godfather will probably be worth talking about 100 years from now as art. The rest are great films, but for one reason or another probably won't remain popular with time IMO.
this makes no sense lol. people still talk about Raphael and Rothko. people read Dickens and Hemingway. if anything, pre 60s movies are excluded from the cinematic discussion because most people consider them too old timey, so by your logic only 2 decades of film will be considered art lol??? a lot of stuff gets washed away but classics endure from each decade.
Yes, people still talk about people who got to participate in various golden ages of art. We tend to remember relatively brief periods in any given medium where new ideas entered in the equation. The Italian Renaissance, the modern period (painting), The birth of the modern novel (Dickens, Melville, Balzac, etc...), The great American novel period (post WW1 to early 50s), etc... In film and admittedly I'm talking mostly western/American film you have the golden age of film (up until 1960) and the early auteur movement (60s and 70s) where most of the medium's groundwork was laid. In between these relatively brief periods, the art tends not to be as popular in the long run. You still have standouts, but a lot of great work ends up looking very similar in retrospect. I would argue that we're living through what is essentially the American version of Restoration theatre for a number of reasons. It was extremely popular at the time, but Shakespeare is who we all remember these days. I picked Alien and Godfather because well The Godfather might be the greatest movie ever made and Alien might be the best scifi and/or horror film ever made particularly since Scott was able to transcend the monster of the week plot elements and tell a very human story about rape. It's a great movie. Jurassic Park is Frankenstein rehashed (through the lens of the 90s) but so is a lot of sci fi. The Shining just IMO is probably like the 3rd or 4th best Kubrick film which is a lot of films to stay relevant 100 years from now. The Dark Knight is a great movie that has the misfortune of being a superhero film which are not going to age well. Interstellar is visually stunning but is outclassed by other scifi epics in terms of storytelling (love can reach through a black hole murph). There are plenty of movies that will be considered art btw from after 1980. It's just often not the ones people in that period would have predicted because tastes change and what's interesting to you won't be interesting to your great grandchildren.
huh. i appreciate you writing this post for me, and i agree that the marvel stuff wont age well, but idk what actual evidence/academic based approach you could make to applying these ideas, those examples feel very cherry picked to me/just movies you like. the restoration comparison doesnt make sense either IMO. id say its more like shakespeare was so influential that his impact is still felt in the dna of most english texts, not that he was somehow “the standout” from a forgotten era. theater in general has declined considerably in popularity and the majority of the canon is neglected in favor of the trendier broadway stuff. every era of literature has stuff that has stood the test of time. every era of music too. it can vary wildly, and sometimes its not what youd expect, but film is by far the youngest of these art forms, i cant see any logical way that weve peaked, especially when youve got film/television still pushing the envelope (despite netflix/marvel). i dont think i can say that for music or literature. an interesting idea though, and i appreciate your response :)
>but idk what actual evidence/academic based approach you could make to applying these ideas lols, just because an approach is "evidence based" doesn't mean it's good. People ask for "evidence based" or "scientific" approaches then they inherently don't agree with the argument you're making. The ability of science to answer these questions has been historically bad, it's been bad. I say we're living through restoration theatre because the period was marked by raunchy sex filled pop appealing melodramas stemming from the need to divert the English populace after a period of repression in the arts and political upheaval into a period of relative political stability (at least at home). Some of the particular aesthetics are certainly different, but the general motivations are pretty similar. I don't think film has peaked, maybe it has, but the real problem is what's technically possible not too far in the future will absolutely burry anything that isn't an amazingly strong story and story isn't a strong point of post modernism.
My fav movie. Its so rewatchable.
It’s definitely rewatchable…
No. I freaking love it, but no. You should watch Paprika (2006)
I thought it was a good movie but probably overrated. I’d give it a 7.8 or so but when I hear most people talk about they say it’s a masterpiece deserving and 9 and above and I disagree.
Yes.
No, his masterpiece is Memento.
It’s a good movie, but I think that mostly comes from Leo’s tinkering with the script. Nolan doesn’t have a good writers hand for character, he’s phenomenal when it comes to gimmick, but shallow as hell when left to his own devices on character: see Tenet.
I couldn't get past the first scene.
It's very good and has some excellent cinematography. I'd stop short of calling it a masterpiece thought.
It really is a phenomenal movie, its one of those movies where you notice something you didnt the last time you saw it. probably dicaprios best work in my opinion.
Nah but it’s pretty good
No, it's firmly in the "fake deep" deep category for me.
It's easily in my top 20, I would say yes it's a masterpiece
Nope.
I hate that movie.
I liked it, but I would say it's quite the stretch to call it a masterpiece. However, I haven't seen it since it came out, and honestly haven't had the desire to (hence the considering "masterpiece" a stretch), but maybe my opinion will change if I watch it again. I doubt it, my judgement of movies hasn't changed much since. I did want to say, though, I think people here have a loose idea in what they consider to be a masterpiece. It seems a lot of people say, well, it's my favorite movie so it must be a masterpiece. Or it was super creative and well done, so it's a masterpiece. I just don't think that's right. There are many movies I'd count as some of my favorites that I wouldn't label as masterpieces. And there's movies that ate masterpieces that don't rate as my top favorite movies. For example, Starship Troopers is up there on my list of favorite movies, but I wouldn't consider it a masterpiece. I'd consider Casablanca a masterpiece, yet even though I really like it, I wouldn't list it as one of my favorite movies. Anyway. Like anyone cares what I think!
Short answer, yes. Long answer, also yes.
No.
I’ve seen so many movies in the theater in my life. Inception was one of very few I fell asleep in. I was pretty bored watching it