M
Monica4316
Guest
Has anyone else seen the new movie “Inception”? What did you think of it? I just saw it today 
Haven’t seen it yet, either, so please let me emphasize something loud and clear - this for emphasis, not because I’m yelling - IF YOU SAW THE MOVIE, PLEASE DON’T SPOIL THE MOVIE BY DIVULGING IMPORTANT PLOT DETAILS. Those of us who haven’t seen it yet thank you.Has anyone else seen the new movie “Inception”? What did you think of it? I just saw it today![]()
I’ll try to not spoil the movieHaven’t seen it yet, either, so please let me emphasize something loud and clear - this for emphasis, not because I’m yelling - IF YOU SAW THE MOVIE, PLEASE DON’T SPOIL THE MOVIE BY DIVULGING IMPORTANT PLOT DETAILS. Those of us who haven’t seen it yet thank you.
What I notice about Christopher Nolan, who directed it, is that none of his movies (including “Memento”) have much swearing in them. They’re PG-13 for violence, not for profanity or for anything sleazy. Is that the still case with “Inception”?
Amazing, Clever, Thought-Provoking, Deep, are the words i would use to describe it.Very good value for money as the film is 2hrs 28mins.Good story plot that slowly unravels.Hubby and I are going to see it today.Im looking forward to it!!
Will let you know my thoughts when we have viewed it!!
I walked out of the movie because I didn’t think it was “complex” at all. On the contrary, I thought everything was explained if you were paying attention. I do think there were way too many characters - the dad, the chemist, the CEO, the rival CEO, the rival CEO’s inner circle, and so on. I did like the running joke throughout the movie with the Edith Piaf song playing, and how Leo’s wife was played by the lady who played Edith Piaf in “Ma Vie en Rose.” I wonder how many people picked up on that…I also absolutely loved it. There was absolutely no sexual sleaziness. The only profanity I remember (trying not to spoil it here) was in a context that makes me think the character wasn’t taking God’s name in vain at all–he was asking for help.
It is a complex plot, and I heard a lot of people coming out of the theater complaining that they didn’t get it . . . but it was awesome.
I don’t know what movie you were watching! It was SO much more complex than ESotSM (and I really like that movie). Did you not realize HIGHLIGHT FOR SPOILER: that the whole movie was about Cobb trying to perform inception on himself? to make himself believe that the final scene with his children was real? because that’s what I got from it. all of the characters and everything that happened were projections. why else would the kids be the same age/wearing the same clothes as his last memory of them? AWESOME MOVIE!I walked out of the movie because I didn’t think it was “complex” at all. On the contrary, I thought everything was explained if you were paying attention. I do think there were way too many characters - the dad, the chemist, the CEO, the rival CEO, the rival CEO’s inner circle, and so on. I did like the running joke throughout the movie with the Edith Piaf song playing, and how Leo’s wife was played by the lady who played Edith Piaf in “Ma Vie en Rose.” I wonder how many people picked up on that…
Without spoiling anything, I thought “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” told the same story with only two characters and it really was more “complex.” That movie’s still ahead of its time, whereas I can see “Inception” getting stale real quickly.
I actually missed “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”–I really, really, really need to see it.I walked out of the movie because I didn’t think it was “complex” at all. On the contrary, I thought everything was explained if you were paying attention. I do think there were way too many characters - the dad, the chemist, the CEO, the rival CEO, the rival CEO’s inner circle, and so on. I did like the running joke throughout the movie with the Edith Piaf song playing, and how Leo’s wife was played by the lady who played Edith Piaf in “Ma Vie en Rose.” I wonder how many people picked up on that…
Without spoiling anything, I thought “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” told the same story with only two characters and it really was more “complex.” That movie’s still ahead of its time, whereas I can see “Inception” getting stale real quickly.
I thought it was absurd. Here were the main points I gathered from it:Has anyone else seen the new movie “Inception”? What did you think of it? I just saw it today![]()
Every movie has it’s skeptics, and every movie will have at least one person here who will go out of their way to find that it’s somehow anti-Catholic. Also, it’s an action movie, hence the plot.I thought it was absurd. Here were the main points I gathered from it:
Below is more dependent on how you interpret the film:
- Faith and doubt are discussed, but the conclusion is that having faith doesn’t matter because you can’t know what’s real anyways. (What did the Japanese businessman’s non-faith avail him or di Caprio’s character’s faith avail him?)
- Skepticism is the only valid approach to life. (Top remains spinning at end, or does it eventually topple? Was it dream or reality? Who knows?)
Also, artistically, it could’ve done without most of the car chase and shooting scenes and confronted more head-on the philosophical issue it was raising, i.e., “What is real? What is being, existence? Etc,” rather than focusing on a silly plot involving “kicks,” “inception,” and other Freudian, postmodern rubbish. It could’ve been about 1 hour shorter and been the same.
- Existentialism, which, inter alios, Pope Pius XII condemned
- Subjectivism / idealism / Cartesianism, i.e., ideas are all that are real. This is contrary to the Aristotelean-Thomistic teaching.
- Objective reality, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Every subject just makes up his or her own reality. This leads to solipsism and ultimately nihilism. Hence it is even more obvious that this movie is a product of our culture of death.
I thought it was absurdity at its best.I thought Inception was brilliant.
If you didn’t stay to see the ending, then I’m pretty sure you didn’t catch what was actually happening in the story.I walked out of the movie because I didn’t think it was “complex” at all. On the contrary, I thought everything was explained if you were paying attention.
My initial assessment as I left the theater was: “The first two hours are very good, the final 45 minutes is great”. This movie required a lot of setup for the payoff in the final third.I walked out at 1:55, when it just felt too laborious.
I couldn’t disagree more.I thought it was absurd. Here were the main points I gathered from it:
Below is more dependent on how you interpret the film:
- Faith and doubt are discussed, but the conclusion is that having faith doesn’t matter because you can’t know what’s real anyways. (What did the Japanese businessman’s non-faith avail him or di Caprio’s character’s faith avail him?)
- Skepticism is the only valid approach to life. (Top remains spinning at end, or does it eventually topple? Was it dream or reality? Who knows?)
Also, artistically, it could’ve done without most of the car chase and shooting scenes and confronted more head-on the philosophical issue it was raising, i.e., “What is real? What is being, existence? Etc,” rather than focusing on a silly plot involving “kicks,” “inception,” and other Freudian, postmodern rubbish. It could’ve been about 1 hour shorter and been the same.
- Existentialism, which, inter alios, Pope Pius XII condemned
- Subjectivism / idealism / Cartesianism, i.e., ideas are all that are real. This is contrary to the Aristotelean-Thomistic teaching.
- Objective reality, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Every subject just makes up his or her own reality. This leads to solipsism and ultimately nihilism. Hence it is even more obvious that this movie is a product of our culture of death.
Thank you. :clapping:I thought it was absurd. Here were the main points I gathered from it:
Below is more dependent on how you interpret the film:
- Faith and doubt are discussed, but the conclusion is that having faith doesn’t matter because you can’t know what’s real anyways. (What did the Japanese businessman’s non-faith avail him or di Caprio’s character’s faith avail him?)
- Skepticism is the only valid approach to life. (Top remains spinning at end, or does it eventually topple? Was it dream or reality? Who knows?)
Also, artistically, it could’ve done without most of the car chase and shooting scenes and confronted more head-on the philosophical issue it was raising, i.e., “What is real? What is being, existence? Etc,” rather than focusing on a silly plot involving “kicks,” “inception,” and other Freudian, postmodern rubbish. It could’ve been about 1 hour shorter and been the same.
- Existentialism, which, inter alios, Pope Pius XII condemned
- Subjectivism / idealism / Cartesianism, i.e., ideas are all that are real. This is contrary to the Aristotelean-Thomistic teaching.
- Objective reality, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Every subject just makes up his or her own reality. This leads to solipsism and ultimately nihilism. Hence it is even more obvious that this movie is a product of our culture of death.
It has nothing to do with what’s threatening or not. The chemist designed his sedative that way. It was an extremely powerful sedative that would cause the dreamers to sleep through anything. The only reason they’d respond to a kick was because the chemist designed it to stop functioning if the brain received that unique, particular sensation.Thank you. :clapping:
This always happens whenever one good (not excellent and outstanding, but merely good) movie shows up alongside the terribly and trashy ones: people go out of their way to praise and over-hype it. It was absurd, and you’re right: How can someone be woken up with a “kick,” but not by a car chase or gunfire? Um…hello? Wouldn’t the latter be a wee bit more threatening to the psyche than a nudge?
So did you walk out before their recruited chemist explained that, or were you just not paying attention to the parts you did see?I walked out of the movie because I didn’t think it was “complex” at all.