Kevin's Watch

Saw it opening day at 10:00AM in IMAX. WOW!

Excellent movie. Still busy thinking about it and the implications. I'll wait for someone else who has seen it to begin discussion.

Really good movie; not disappointing one bit as most hyped flicks can be. Amazing mind at writing something like this. It will probably be listed as one of the smartest scifi flicks made. However, I think it's about at the limit of what the avg movie goer can keep up with: I was with two pretty smart chaps and they got lost in at last one part; yours truely never got lost. Only thing: I wish Leo's voice would drop; he looks 30ish, does a great job in this, but still has the voice of a teen. It also has some good humor here and there and the ending

Spoiler

had everyone chuckling.

Definitely one to see again on the big screen.

I had no idea what Inception was going to be about when I watched it, but I really enjoyed it. Like Kil Tyme, I didn't get lost but I was required to maintain concentration throughout. I like films that require thought without becoming pretentious or impenetrable (Donnie Darko). I did wonder at one point how many people in the cinema had failed to follow it. There must have been one or two.

I thought Di Caprio was fine, if nothing special, but I do agree with KT that at times he still seemed a little too youthful thanks to his voice. A phone conversation with his young children, for instance, jarred a little at first because he sounded too young to have children.

Overall, a very good film that I'd recommend and will certainly watch again.

Ok. Sounds like both of you are pretty confident in your understanding of the film. My first question is why the top would keep spinning if Leo was in another's dream? Additionally, if he were in his own dream how would he know it?

I don't know; I didn't get that part.

j/k

From what I recall, once he selected that token (or whatever they called it) he then set it in his mind that if the top should never stop, then that was an indicator that he was dreaming. That is why there is that one scene of him staring at the top with the gun to his head; it looked like he was prepared to 'wake himself up" if the top kept on spinning.

I suppose it is a condition the dreamer (Inceptor) can set up for themselves as a fail-safe that the audiance has to take for granted that it would work.

KT wrote:I don't know; I didn't get that part.

My contention is that the top was not even Leo's totem. It was actually Mal's. Not sure how that fits in but as far as I know we never see Leo's totem unless he has simply adopted Mal's totem as his own.

According to Leo, everyone needs a totem that is unique. Only they know the properties, characteristics, look, feel of the thing. This is so they will know that they are in reality and not in someone else's dream. If someone else puts you in their dream they will be unable to replicate the exact look, feel, behavior of your totem as they don't know the details of it. That is why nobody can touch or handle your totem. This brings two questions to mind; One, possessing your totem does not preclude you from being in your own dream as you know the characteristics of your own totem. You can only ever be sure that you are not in someone else's dream. Two, how does the top spinning unceasingly signify to Leo that he is in a dream? Let me explain. I'm an architect (like Ellen Page) and I know that Leo has a top for a totem. If I'm designing a dream for him I would automatically assume that all tops stop spinning eventually and would therefore incorporate those physics into the dream world. Why would I design a dream world where Leo's top just spins forever? Thus, how does the fact that the top stops spinning indicate he is in reality?

Seems to me it would make more sense that Leo would know the weight and balance of the top and thus would know how long it should spin (depending on how hard he spins it) and thus by spinning it in a dream and observing the spin, he would be able to determine if he was in another's dream as the architect of the dream would not know the exact spin characteristics of the top and thus would not be able to replicate it exactly.

Does that make any sense?

Saw it. Loved it. Great movie.

-jay

Brinn wrote: My contention is that the top was not even Leo's totem. It was actually Mal's. Not sure how that fits in but as far as I know we never see Leo's totem unless he has simply adopted Mal's totem as his own.

Leo said that he took her Totem as his own after her death. Don't think we ever learned of his orig totem.

Brinn wrote: This brings two questions to mind; One, possessing your totem does not preclude you from being in your own dream as you know the characteristics of your own totem. You can only ever be sure that you are not in someone else's dream.

That is the reason for the Totems, yes. I didn't see a question, but am agreeing.

Brinn wrote: Two, how does the top spinning unceasingly signify to Leo that he is in a dream? ... Why would I design a dream world where Leo's top just spins forever? Thus, how does the fact that the top stops spinning indicate he is in reality?

I think the Inceptors may allow others to see the Totem since they need to trust eachother in the dream, but not to touch the totem for exactally that reason; not get an inate sense of it's substantial characteristics. We saw "Third Rock from the Sun" guy show his Totem to Ellen Page (I can't recall soul's name in the flick dispite it being a great movie), but she couldn't touch it and his explaination escapes me, but it made sense at the time and I think it's basically what you say below.

Brinn wrote: Seems to me it would make more sense that Leo would know the weight and balance of the top and thus would know how long it should spin (depending on how hard he spins it) and thus by spinning it in a dream and observing the spin, he would be able to determine if he was in another's dream as the architect of the dream would not know the exact spin characteristics of the top and thus would not be able to replicate it exactly.

I can only guess that there is some Dream Rule for Tops: that they spin forever in a dream. That or you found a flaw in the writing! Hmm now I think the movie isn't so good now since you found that damning flaw.

Nah. I still contend they really didn't explain the more intricate workings of the necessity of Totems beyond the basics that is a "fail-safe" and for the audiance to take the rest at face value.

Saw it tonight. I'm still digesting. My sleep should be interesting this evening.

Kil Tyme wrote:

Brinn wrote: This brings two questions to mind; One, possessing your totem does not preclude you from being in your own dream as you know the characteristics of your own totem. You can only ever be sure that you are not in someone else's dream.

That is the reason for the Totems, yes. I didn't see a question, but am agreeing.

Yes, I think the purpose of the totems isn't so much to prove that you're not dreaming, but rather to prove that you're not being manipulated by someone else. If it's your own dream, you're only at the mercy of your own mind.

Can anyone clarify the purpose of the blonde woman during the 'Mr Charles' routine? She lifted Fischer's wallet, then one of the team took it upstairs and discarded it. What was all that about?

CovenantJr wrote:

Kil Tyme wrote:

Brinn wrote: This brings two questions to mind; One, possessing your totem does not preclude you from being in your own dream as you know the characteristics of your own totem. You can only ever be sure that you are not in someone else's dream.

That is the reason for the Totems, yes. I didn't see a question, but am agreeing.

Yes, I think the purpose of the totems isn't so much to prove that you're not dreaming, but rather to prove that you're not being manipulated by someone else. If it's your own dream, you're only at the mercy of your own mind.

Can anyone clarify the purpose of the blonde woman during the 'Mr Charles' routine? She lifted Fischer's wallet, then one of the team took it upstairs and discarded it. What was all that about?

I found Inception to be thought-provoking, inspired and ambitious.
It's stayed with me a few days after seeing it, and i wouldnt mind seeing it again at some point.
Thomas Covenant fans should love this one, plenty of existential angst and blurring of realities to keep you all scratching your heads !

Covenant Jr, I just thought that the blonde woman (which was actually a member of Leo's team in disguise) was used as an "in" with Fischer - the scenario is set up, the Blonde simultaneously flirts with and fleeces Fischer, and then Leo's character comes and intervenes, alerting Fischer to the Blondes duplicity to win his trust .. the idea (I think) was that Leo's character believed it would be easier to maintain and add depth to the dream scape if Fischer was made aware he was in a dream scenario - and after he was comfortable with that head-space, *then* they would take him deeper into the 3rd layer of the dream ...

This Link shows who the dreamer was at each level, and who was there. Pretty interesting after you've seen the movie; a HUGE spoiler if you haven't seen it. It also corrected (?) me on who the dreamer was during Limbo part (I thought it was Leo...not a "shared state"):

www.giantfreakinrobot.com/wp-content/up ... -hires.jpg

Now I have to see it again to see if I agree with myself on what I thought was happening at certain times.

Wow - a great movie!

I totally called the ending, but got the reasoning wrong...

(It's a good thing the title calls Spoiler, otherwise pretty much everything I write would have to be spoiled...)

OK, first, I predicted the ending on the basis of it being a long con. When Cobb talks about going deeper, to the point where you could be in a dream for years, I thought the whole point of the movie (and of the title) was that he was trying to plant an idea in Ariadne's mind, and had been working on that for years. The "reality" where she was an architectural student was merely the top level dream (where we never knew she was dreaming), and in "real life" she would be the important business person.

Of course, that was wrong

Anyway, thinking about the title, I think the "obvious" explanation (once you've seen the ending) is also wrong.

The whole point of the movie (and the title) is that DiCaprio is trying to plant an idea in someone's mind, but not who you think... he's doing it to himself. He's trying to convince himself that he's been allowed to return home to his family, and in the end it works.

My friend I saw it with thinks you can debate whether or not the top stopped spinning after the cutoff; I don't think so, there are too many little things. Things like Michael Caine being in Paris, yet meeting DiCaprio at the airport in LA. His children being the exact age they were in his dreams. The scene where he meets them is lifted straight out of his dreams, in fact. And finally, he took his eye off the top, and let it keep spinning. Before, whenever he checked it, he wouldn't look away until it had stopped... yet when he reached his kids, he did.

While it's true that a part of him knew he was dreaming, he let it go; he had worked hard to convince himself of the reality, and didn't want to wake up.

I don't necessarily buy that explanation (though it's a clever one, and I applaud you for it) but I certainly agree that, at the end of the film, Cobb no longer cares whether he's dreaming. It's Covenant-like in a way - he's got all the happiness he needs, and it doesn't matter whether it's real. If it's still a dream, he doesn't want to know. The oddity there, for me, is that if the top doesn't stop spinning it means he's in someone else's dream. If he is, whose is it? If the top stops spinning, it means Cobb is either awake or in his own dream. If it keeps spinning, it means someone is manipulating him - that his children and Michael Caine are projections drawn from his memories, like Mal was, but Cobb himself is the subject and someone else is the dreamer.

Good film. Made me think a lot about lucid dreaming and how I have really started to pay more attention to minute details so that I can identify when I am dreaming.

The important thing about the ending is that he walked away from it. He wasn't obsessed about whether it stopped or not. He wanted to see his children and he chose to accept the reality he was in.

I believe that it was reality for two reasons in particular: The top started to wobble- which they never showed before; He was not wearing his wedding band.

EDIT: OK, OK. It was convenient that the one phone call fixed the murder charge; and until I read Rigel's post I failed to notice that Caine was in Paris (in his classroom where he worked) and then L.A. to take DiCaprio to the Children that supposedly lived with Caine.

But maybe Nolan wanted to show us that reality is what we make of it. And the wobbling top signifies the tenuous line between what is real when we're awake compared to what is real when we are dreaming. There is compelling evidence that the entire movie took place inside a dream. You could certainly argue that the inception was performed on DiCaprio.

Mal was kind of a totem. He knew it was a dream if he saw her.

I agree with everything .. and nothing.
LOL
nevermind.
YES! Fabulous movie!
Is Cobb in reality or not at the end?... hmm, i guess it can be debated forever, and perhaps Nolan wants it that way, not having an exact answer. And it's best that way. It's not *really* important if he is dreaming or not ... just like the end of Brazil, it's just an extra kick in the gut.
Loved it.
And Gordon-Levitt was fabulous. nice surprise from him.

Saw the movie last night. Absolutely loved it. 5 stars. I disagree with people that it is hard to understand - once you get the logic, the movie is fairly 'explainable'.

Once again, Zimmer proves to be an excellent composer.

Gordon-Levitt is likely to be cast as the Riddler in the next Batman movie, so after seeing Inception (hated G.I. Joe, and was worried because he was the villain), I am now very interested.

Lastly, my opinion on the ending is that Cobb is still in the dream world, although the spinning top does start to move erratically as though it will fall down. One has to question why he walks away not to check this - either he doesn't want to know it's still a dream or has accepted it.

Or, it doesn't do either: the top neither stops nor continues; we are in the dream and our (my) dream ended the movie before there was a clear answer. (I think that response came from JJ Abrams).

Just saw the movie. I'm still trying to work things out.

A quick thought about the next to last scene:

Limbo seems to be vaguely defined, allowing some speculation as to whether or not Saito and Cobb made it back to reality.
After the two men figure out they were in Limbo, Saito reaches for the gun, kills Cobb then kills himself in anticipation of waking up. Earlier in the movie, the group was told by Cobb and Yusef that, due to the heavy sedatives, if you die in this dream you don't wake up---you go to Limbo. In Limbo you simply wallow about in your subconscious, lost forever. So, do the rules of Limbo change once you figure out you are in Limbo? If so, then I suppose Cobb makes it back to reality to be with his kids. If not, I guess he is just as happy in the dreamworld.

Rigel wrote: The whole point of the movie (and the title) is that DiCaprio is trying to plant an idea in someone's mind, but not who you think... he's doing it to himself. He's trying to convince himself that he's been allowed to return home to his family, and in the end it works.

That's a pretty cool take. Sort of a metaphorical inception, huh?

My friend I saw it with thinks you can debate whether or not the top stopped spinning after the cutoff; I don't think so, there are too many little things. Things like Michael Caine being in Paris, yet meeting DiCaprio at the airport in LA. His children being the exact age they were in his dreams. The scene where he meets them is lifted straight out of his dreams, in fact. And finally, he took his eye off the top, and let it keep spinning. Before, whenever he checked it, he wouldn't look away until it had stopped... yet when he reached his kids, he did.

I just assumed Miles would be in LA with his grandchildren. Miles (Caine) was working in Paris, but he was preparing to go to LA to visit his grandchildren. When on the phone talking to his children, Cobb mentions something about sending gifts with their grandfather to give to them. When Cobb meets with Miles in Paris, he gives Miles a bag of gifts to take to the kids.

You are right about the last scene. It is nearly identical to the memory Cobb has when he leaves his children behind to escape the country. Also, whenever he dreams of his children, he can't see their faces. He even goes so far as to turn away to avoid looking at their faces in the dream sequence when Mal tries to convince him that the children are real. Not sure if this is significant, just seemed odd to me. Does seeing their faces make them real to Cobb?

I think Cobb and Saito made it back. It's just a question of 'made it back to what?' I'm siding with the theory that the whole thing was a dream. Mal was right. Cobb said the inception worked too well. Maybe it did exactly what it was supposed to, and it was his own perception that was limited.

The question Mal posed about the sense of some shadowy organization trying to kill him was never answered. I think Cobb was subconsciously trying to not only live with what he did but to create a reality that he could live with.