It's suppose to make you re watch the movie and examine some of the details. I wouldn't say I was confused about the movie's plot, but I couldn't make my mind up at the end whether or not he was dreaming or not. After watching the movie a second time, I came to the conclusion that he was dreaming because through out the movie he keeps seeing his children in the same clothing. And at the end of the movie his children are wearing the exact same clothes as his previous dreams.
Doesn't logically make sense to me that his children would be wearing the same clothes after all these years. Don't be discouraged. It's a well thought out movie with an open ending. Nolan knew what he was doing by making the top topple just a little bit.
He wanted people to debate whether it was real or not. I have my reasons on why I think it is a dream but the truth is there is valid points for both view points. The film leaves a lot to the imagination, and that's what I love about it.
I totally agree with this. You want a reality-bending action movie with emotional depth, true intelligence and memorable characters, go with Dark City. Still the best movie of that genre, and one of the best movies of all time. It's not as bad as The Adjustment Bureau, but then again, that's not saying anything.
I feel like there were parts of Inception that were smart, but the whole movie felt cold and emotionless. I felt like it was made by a super computer that knew everything about how to make a movie smart but not how to make it emotionally investing or developed. Dark City WAS extremely intelligent while also being emotional. Inception wasnt even close to being confusing. You wanna see a confusing Nolan movie? Try Memento. Guy Pierce is phenomenal in that movie, and ending is just..
Firstly, hardly anyone even realize it exists because its his first major film. Q: Inception is being touted as the savior to a very bad summer movie season. Well, is it? A: Inception is very good. But living up to the hype will be difficult for a few reasons. A: Oh, O. Yeah, that's reasonable. I would say that's certainly true. A: Um, I'm not so sure about that one. Though, I can't personally disprove that watching Inception cures cancer.
Q: I heard that when we finally make first contact with aliens, we will show them Inception to prove our superior intelligence as a species. I heard that we fully expect the aliens to surrender to us because of our brilliance. Q: If you are going to be blurbed during the commercials for Inception, what do you think it will be? A: "I can't personally disprove that watching Inception cures cancer! A: Let's just say that any Christopher Nolan film that doesn't end with drowning clones is a satisfying ending.
Photo by Stephen Vaughan, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. Q: Is it just me, or has Warner Bros. To achieve this, they would often travel between multiple levels of dreams, risking being left behind in a limbo forever. To keep themselves calibrated between the real world and the dreams, each would carry a totem. At the end of the film, when the heist proved to be a success and Cobb is finally reunited with his kids, he spins the top one last time.
But before we could see if the top rests or keeps spinning, the screen fades to black. Fans have, for years, wanted to know if Cobb did finally meet his family or was he forever trapped in the limbo. Now because Caine did feature in the final scene featuring Cobb and his kids, it means the scene was reality and not a dream. Here is what he said:. I want you to chase your reality. Congratulations, you're smart.
Do you want a cookie? Inception's plot was certainly straight forward. But just about every movie that exists is packed with layers of meaning and open to wide spectrum of interpretation. Inception may seem deeper than the average movie only because talk about dreams is a fairly reliable way to trigger philosophical thought in people. The -confusion- around Inception is probably just because the narrative is fairly dense. You're not alone, as others have pointed out, but I'll add my name to the list.
I came out of Inception with my fiance and we almost simultaneously said, in different words of course, "That seemed a fairly straight forward twist on a heist movie, to me. It's a very cool heist movie with very cool effects and a clever plot. It does lend itself well to interpretation and general musing, but sometimes I feel people are reaching too far for allegory and symbolism.
It's good to find those things, and to take art and run with it, to let it seed ideas and interpretation, but some are a little over zealous. Joel Spolsky says that some individuals appear to have been born without the part of the brain that understands pointers and recursion.
Maybe that's the case here? It might just be that some people tune out when the rules are explained. Sci-fi geeks won't because we know they are important. If you expected Inception to be an action flick, you might tune out during the techo-babble since it's often just an excuse for blowing stuff up and not be able to unravel it.
Joel Spolsky is as fallible as the rest of us. Androsynth on March 21, parent prev next [—]. I haven't seen the movie, but reading this reminded me more of a state machine. It seems like it would be tough to keep track of 4 states at once and jump back and forth between them. Dunno about "without", but certainly not well used. Once explained recursion to someone using a simple programming example; we stepped thru it for two hours before he got it. I would have thought everyone learned that concept in grade school.
Is it legal to graduate someone before they understand mathematical induction? I get it but the fact that some don't neither offends nor concerns me and I certainly don't feel the need to belittle them or bemoan their existence. Seriously, get off your high horse. Am I the only one who gets annoyed when people get annoyed at my annoyances? Edit: Am I the only one who sees the irony of the annoyed pot calling the annoyed kettle black? Splines on March 21, prev next [—]. I'll agree that the "follow-the-plot" infographics are too common we don't need more than one , but the meta-issues are particularly interesting and I think have all been discussed before.
At first watch it's clear apart from the ending sequence what parts of the movie are dreams and what parts are reality, but when you watch it again you may start to consider that it's a little more fuzzy than that.
I read a review once where someone said it was "stupid and unrealistic" citing the van "falling through the air for half the movie". I agree that the concept of the movie is not hard to understand. But then I read trevelyan's post above and I feel stupid. I agree. I recently re-watched David Lynch's Lost Highway. That is a wonderful and complex film that on the surface seems nonsensical and surreal, but - once you make certain revelations - reveals its beautiful and elegant construction.
All of Inception is a dream except the final scene. It's a movie about a father Michael Caine trying to rescue his son. Here is something that most people missed: Reality was a dream the whole time.
There are hints throughout the movie, but the entire thing was a dream. Most people point to the wedding ring theory as evidence that it wasn't, but that just shows the lead's state of mind, not reality. Word of God is that this is not true and that the top level of reality was indeed reality.
The camera panning away from the spinning top before it fell down was supposed to represent that Cobb is now dedicated to his children and no longer worried about whether it's reality, not a low-class cheap mindscrew about whether it's all a dream or not. Note that having the whole thing be a dream completely drains it of all interesting dramatic tension, turning an interesting movie into one in which nothing or very little is at stake and nothing really happens for any particular reason.
Remember, if the whole movie is a dream there's no longer any reason to believe his wife is waiting one level up. It's an awfully stiff price to pay for a painfully dull, obvious twist. This seems to be an overly simplified take. If Nolan had intended to make it clear that the final scene was indeed reality then he could have just as well shown the totem falling while Cobb walked away. It seems pretty clear that Nolan explicitly intended to leave it up to the viewer to decide what was "real" and what as not.
This ambiguity between dream and reality is one of the most important themes in the film - Cobb spends the entire movie preoccupied with keeping track of reality, to the point that one could argue that Cobb's had been incepted to remain obsessed with identifying reality to the same degree that Mal had been incepted to perpetually believe that she was dreaming. When Cobb sees Mal in limbo at the end, she also makes point explicit - pointing out that Cobb has simply chosen to believe that his children "up there" are what is real and that Mal "down there" is not.
The final scene preserves this ambiguity, while underscoring the fact that the obsession with reality is no longer important to Cobb - he is finally at peace with where he is - real or not.
People who have kids definitely read it differently than those who don't".
0コメント