What bothered you about its inaccuracies? Minding, of course, that it is a work of fiction and is entitled to the benefit of artistic license.


This isn’t about a character surviving an un-survivable event, in the interest of style or simplification, or moving the story along. Basically all the main scenes in the movie were completely incorrect, distractingly so. For a while I thought I was nit-picking, but it’s hard to empathize with the people the movie represents irl if all the events are portrayed wrong.

It’s akin to the criticism of Crash 2005’s depiction of race relations in LA (complete fantasy). The main message is still there, the technical aspects of the production are still there to analyze, but the events that are supposed to support the movie’s message are just divorced from reality. Makes it hard to take a movie intended to realistically dramatize current events seriously.

EDIT: Or what Wikipedia says


Gonna try watch Zero Dark Thirty tonight if I can pull myself away from CoD.


I won’t see ZDT for a very simple reason, it’s not my kind of movie. I didn’t see HL for the same reasons. I feel I’ve reached the point in my life where I can pretty accurately judge what my kind of movie is, and ZDT is not it. It’s just not in my cinematic wheelhouse…


I am horribly guilty of that very thing. I will just call a movie I don’t like shitty. I will recant and admit latter on that the movie is not my kind of thing, but I do have a bad habit of making my opinion fact.


Sounds like you are describing gamers


No one here watched gangster squad?


I rewatched Inception. Some thoughts:

Sometimes, you see a movie that other people are raving about and you just don’t get it. Inception was one of those for me back in its theatrical run.

When I first saw it, I thought the idea was cool, but the clunky implementation turned me off. The exposition was so dialogue-heavy that the characters often seemed to be narrating plot summary to one another for the audience’s benefit. The various scenarios presented throughout the story were called dreams, but they bore little resemblance to actual dream logic. Plus, being a high-energy thriller, Inception’s visually confusing action sequences were a poor choice. They were impossible to read from shot to shot.

I think those objections still hold up. And yet, when I rewatched Inception last night, I came away thinking that maybe I underrated it just a little bit, that maybe its good marks hold a little more weight.

It really is a cool idea, and if you ignore all the stuff about dreams and rethink the movie as a narrative about shared storytelling or shared fantasy, it starts to make more sense. When the film does get visually imaginative, the results are stunning and surreal, especially in the standout sequence with Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the hotel. There are bits of foreshadowing that are more clever upon retrospect–entertainingly clever, not obnoxiously clever. And while the visual style falls apart from shot to shot, it does keep us oriented when transitioning between the nested worlds.

Even taking its flaws into account, Inception is well worth seeing. I’ve said it before: I’d rather see a movie whose reach exceeds its grasp than a movie that doesn’t reach at all. Inception is similar to The Matrix in that regard. But while the Matrix explains itself and dramatizes its internal logic more cinematically, it doesn’t pursue its ideas very far. The Matrix opts instead for a relatively conventional action narrative once the first act is over. Inception wrings an action-packed heist yarn from its ideas, but unlike with the Matrix, Inception’s ideas retain their integral role in the film right up to the end. Take away the nested worlds and anthropomorphic anxieties, and the movie goes with them.

One thing I don’t think I weighed in on before is the ending. I don’t know that I have a strong opinion either way regarding the famous insoluble dilemma. All the same, I will suggest invoking the Tethercat Principle. To wit: we never see Dom wake up and we never see the top fall down.


I don’t agree with most of what you said but I just wanted to point out the jarring change in visuals most notably color palette from dream to dream is intentional and serves a somewhat hidden narrative purpose. Inception is one of my favorites for many reasons, one of those reasons being that it displays the strengths of my favorite sub genre “mind fuck” films better than most if not all others I’ve seen. I’m a sucker for films that require the viewer to put some effort into fully appreciating them and Inception does require a good deal of note taking and multiple viewing to fully appreciate similar to Nolan’s best work Memento.

The ending is awesome but everyone who focuses on that is akin to admiring the mona lisa for it’s frame.


I was just discussing Inception at lunch with a friend. Now he loves the movie. I am closer to GM in my opinion of the film. I think I may like it slightly better than him, but it’s debatable. Anyways, GM’s point about the Matrix is pretty apt because both movies did about the same thing to me. Blew me the fuck away in the theater then started to fall apart more on repeat viewings. However, I feel Inception will hold up better over time because it does not crutch itself purely on visual spectacles as Matrix did. Oddly, I liked Dark Knight better on my second viewing, though I still don’t hold it in the regard that most do.


I’m trying to think of another movie that was crazy enough to weave 5 different timelines together, like Inception’s ‘plane ride.’ Drawing blanks. And it wasn’t even half of the movie.


^ cloud atlas. movie of the year.


Inglourious Basterds dives in and out of nested narratives with multiple layers, but it does it so casually that people rarely talk about it.


no comments on the gang squad?


Watched Zero Dark Thirty, it’s great film. I thought it was going to be one of those movies told in a documentary format but it’s not.
Regarding the much talked about torture scenes, it’s all been rather hyped up. I suppose they could have showed some of the less exciting avenues taken instead of opening the movie with a torture scene, I certainly didn’t walk away thinking hurray for torture but I see why some say the less informed could believe it’s the sole reason why we got Bin Laden.

Scott Adkins makes an appearance but no terrorists were punched or kicked in the head :shake:

Great performances, it’s a long film but the pacing is great, some great humour thrown in there as well and the final act is intense spoiler warning they kill Bin Laden.

Chastain will win an Oscar for this, and Begelow should direct Metal Gear Solid the movie.


To be clear, the rewatch upgraded my opinion from “flawed and didn’t really like it” to “flawed and liked it enough to think on it a good deal”. I’d say that’s real praise.
Legitimately crummy movies don’t improve with a second viewing.

Christopher Nolan’s heart is in the right place. He’s not my bag in terms of craftsmanship, but he’s an ambitious guy and he seems like he’d be awesome to get hammered with and talk about mindfuckery.


How about no MGS movie, period?

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2


I just wanna fuck the FUCK out of jodie foster :eek: and make her straight :love:


Well, she got Keenu Reeves to actually act. I like her direction, everyone else seems to be making movies that have to have these giant spectacles, her movies aren’t pretentious either.


Yeah, it was different turn for him, I forgot he was Ethan in Lost…living in a doghouse, kidnapping Charlie and Claire and all that…

Near Dark is still great, glad they killed the remake. Strange Days was fun too.