MOVIES: Inception

Has anyone else seen the new movie “Inception”? What did you think of it? I just saw it today :slight_smile:

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. :slight_smile:

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”?

I’ll try to not spoil the movie :wink:

as for the rating, there was some PG-13 violence (nothing major), nothing sexually explicit from what I remember, and you’re right there wasn’t much swearing… sadly Our Lord’s name was taken in vain a couple times, but swear words weren’t used (thankfully!)

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 just saw this movie last nigh. It was excellent. 12/10.

I watch a lot of movies. I am not being sarcastic when I say this is the best movie I’ve seen since Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (and I call that my personal #1 movie. I don’t think I’ll ever see something that can match the pure storytelling, imagination, and characters of Tolkien. Add the visuals and score of Jackson and it’s just epic). The depth that they go, the characters, the plot line, the score, it’s all exceptional. Like, I can’t believe how good that was.

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.

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.
All in all very enjoyable…oh and did i mention clever?lol

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 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!

Great movie. I won’t say much, because almost anything is a spoiler. It is too complex for some people (those who want to shut their brains off when they go to a movie).

I thought I had it all figured out after my first viewing, but now that I’ve talked to others and heard their theories, I’ve realized there are layers I didn’t even pick up on. I definitely need to see it a second time now!

And huge kudos for little swearing and not forcing the “mandatory-and-completely-worthless” sex scene on us! :thumbsup:

I thought Inception was brilliant. Here’s my review:

I actually missed “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”–I really, really, really need to see it.

Out of curiosity . . . when did you walk out? I would agree that the first half wasn’t particularly complex. They spent a lot of time setting up and explaining how it all worked (which I liked, but then I’m a nerd–the scene with the Penrose stairs made my day!)

I thought it was absurd. Here were the main points I gathered from it:

*]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?)
Below is more dependent on how you interpret the film:

*]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.
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.

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 would disagree on the scepticism especially. The spinning top at the end was to add one last tense moment and spur discussion of fans (aka: it was a marketing ploy). Personally, I say it topples because it’s beginning to shake side to side which it never does in the dream world (it spins perfectly round).

Faith is given pretty good treatment actually. di Caprio does convince his wife of the importance of taking a leap of faith, it’s just that due to living in their own world for so long she now has deep-seated psychological issues that were unanticipated (I would say she’s a sociopath the way she tries to manipulate di Caprio). The struggle within di Caprio is whether he caused it or it just happened to her by staying too long, and at the end he finally recognizes that it was not his fault (she was just trying to be too genre savvy for her own good).

The subjective claim doesn’t hold water either, especially falling from the fact that it’s explicitly states that what they’re doing is illegal. Yes, they make up their own realities within the dream, but always realize that they have to wake up (di Caprio struggles to get to his kids the whole time and there’s nothing he himself can do to change the situation he’s in. How is that not objective?).

I’d love to answer the other ones, but I’ve got to head to work.

I thought it was absurdity at its best.

I walked out at 1:55, when it just felt too laborious. I still haven’t gotten myself over to to see how it ended.

It reminded me way too much of reading academic social science.

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.

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 couldn’t disagree more.

Remember Cobb’s wife’s train “riddle” (as she called it when Cobb’s projection of her first mentioned it to Ellen Page’s character)? Its answer, if I remember correctly, was something to the effect of, “It doesn’t matter because we’ll be together no matter what.”

The tragedy of Cobb convincing his wife to escape their dream limbo, is that she took his argument to its logical conclusion and ignored the importance of what’s truly real even after they fully woke up.

The movie further cemented the importance of what’s real when Cobb answered the request of his projection of his wife by saying something to the effect of, “I want nothing more than to be with you again, but you’re not my wife. I’ve imagined you, and as much as I knew you so well and loved you so much, even my imagined projection of you can’t possibly ever do justice to the real person.” He knew that illusion is no substitute for reality, no matter how pleasant. He knew that his subconscious’ projections could never equal the existence of the real person he loved, and he knew that a truly solipsistic existence is a completely futile substitute for real life.

OSUbride0708: If Cobb was still dreaming in that last scene, then that means the airport stuff and the plane landing were part of his illusory dream, too. But - and correct me if I’m wrong - weren’t we shown the moment when the other team members and the guy in whom they carried out inception actually woke up on the plane? And it was before Cobb woke up.

So how could it be Cobb’s dream world if it existed before he dreamed it?

No, I agree with the poster who stated that that top would have fallen at the end had we been shown just a few seconds more. It’s the only thing that fits thematically.

The top spinning at the end had implications for us viewers, not for Cobb. Ellen Page’s character was right about Cobb (“He’ll be fine”). He respected the importance of what’s real so much. He never lost sight of his goal of getting back to his family, and he turned down the opportunity to live in a joyful but solipsistic dream state. In short, he didn’t need to see the top fall and stop spinning.

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?

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.

So did you walk out before their recruited chemist explained that, or were you just not paying attention to the parts you did see?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit