Entertainment For Lively Minds
Which are you more excited about - 'Inception' or 'Toy Story 3'?
Posted by Remote Control on 16 July 2010 - 1:26pm.
and have you booked tickets for either yet? (Or, if this topic stays around long enough... have you seen either yet?)
- More from Remote Control.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Lip Tremble
Has to be Toy Story 3. Even although I know the lip will be trembling a la "Up". Nobody makes films as affecting as Pixar.
I seem to get worse as I get older! Last time I watched Superman (at Christmas) I has "something in my eye"
Don't even talk about Marley and Me. And yes I am aware that it was pretty much drivel!
Yes it was drivel
but I still left the cinema so I didn't have to watch the dog die, much to the amusement of my wife and daughter.
It must have been those old Lassie films.
Will probably go see both
tomorrow as Pixar is God and Ellen Page is bloody wonderful even in films where the rest is pants.
Have booked tickets for both
Taking the afternoon off on Monday - lovely feeling - to see inception at the proper IMAX cinema at the BFI, and then the following week my 6 year old and his friends to the local terrible 3D at the local Odeon. Very excited.
Both please
My wife and I will enjoy Toy Story 3 and I'm sure I'll drag the kids along to Inception.
Probably both....
... but a tough call tomorrow as the kids are out with their aunt and we are off to the cinema. Do we go to see Toy Story as they have already seen or do we go an see Inception, which we both fancy and its one we wouldn't be taking the kids to.....
problem solved
Toy Story doesn't open til Monday.
Problem still there.....
... I'm in Singapore and its been out for 3 or 4 weeks now. It will probably get the nod as its likely to disappear fairly soonish.
I will...
...be going to see Inception on the last day of term, Friday, at the BFI Imax next Friday afternoon after the schools have kicked out. On my own. Bliss.
I saw Inception last night
and it is brilliant. (I have to say, though, that DiCaprio kept reminding me of Jack Nicholson - if they did a father / son movie together, it would be uncannily believable.) But Inception is a terrific movie with some excellent performances in it and even at 2+ hours, whizzes by. It's a good ending, too. The Hans Zimmer soundtrack was a bit grating at times but the use of sound - loud / quiet / silent - was excellent. Thoroughly recommended.
Just come home from seeing it
Wow. Wow. Wow.
...
Wow.
Sorry, no, no,no! (Spoiler alert)
I thought it was utterly unengaging, overlong and overwrought.
Nolan's very good at making you think you've seen something great and then 1 day later you're wondering what exactly it is you've seen and whether, more to the point, you've actually enjoyed it. His last few films don't withstand repeated viewing - The Dark Knight is awful if you watch it twice.
Kermode praised the ideas inside the film and that it demanded the audience had to "keep up" with it. Thanks for patronising me Mark, but I had no trouble following it. It was just that I realised during the snow sequence that I just simply did not care about
a) The characters
b) Their predicament
To develop this a touch further
1) The pacing of the movie may best be described as "stately", the premise involves us caring about industrial espionage agents trying to assist one corporation break up another. It was akin to being asked to care about Microsoft sabotaging Apple because they've lost their market dominance.
2) Why did they take the job? Who was chasing Leo in Mombassa or wherever the hell it was? Was it the company he was actually working for? Was it the Murphy/ Berenger company? If so wouldn't Murphy/Berenger know they were being tracked and be on the look out for Leo? If it was the Japanese corporation-why chase/ try to kill someone working for you?
3) The "hero" is a git who basically screws over everyone he works with because he has "issues" and did actually contribute to the death of his wife.However, because he wants to see his kids, we're meant to be touched by his devotion and that provides the moral core (or even, God help us "animus") of the movie...no, sorry, it didn't. The more you learned about the character, the less appealing he became and ultimately I just wanted him dead.
4) What did Michael Caine teach? "Sleep" classes? A lecturer that gets his students to sleep so he can be with them in their dreams, or did he do all this as a sideline? Imagine being a lecturer, sliding up next to a pert 18 year old female student and offering to "teach" them a dream technique. Campus security would frogmarch you off-site in seconds.
5) Ms Page is as cute as a button and a good actress, but she really is just Ms Exposition in this. What was her motivation - the financial reward aspect was never clarified and surely, if she's so gifted she could just nod off and create her own empire if she's so bloody skilled?
6) How common is this sleep thieving? That was never made clear. How many corporations use it? What's the point of it being used to train soldiers, as is mentioned if you're not meant to use your own memories? If you can just dream big guns, as one character does, why spend time dreaming about hand-to-hand combat?
7) Where were the sexy / weird dreams? In my dreams I can fly, am invisible and live in a house with Salma Hayek, Jessica Alba, Emily Blunt and Christina Hendricks- all of whom insist on wearing very few clothes and service me (ahem) regularly. If you can control your dreams, why not make them really cool? Leo and Marion's idea of Heaven seemed to be Docklands.
I could go on and on, sorry, but I came out really pissed off with the movie.
I am however, looking forward to Toy Story 3.
Isn't it being a bit churlish pointing out plot holes
in a film about people entering other people's dreams? Suspend belief for a bit and just enjoy that fact that Holloywood can still make sassy intelligent films that aren't franchises or TV remakes.
Not when the plot's being held up as "masterful"
and if it is following dream logic-where's the surrealism that inhabits your dream life? You can't stipulate a set of rules for this dream universe ( which the film clearly does) and then complain if someone takes you to task over the intricacies of the plot.
Nolan for some reason seems to be considered above criticism. Why? Please explain.
Cameron makes a film that visually captivates and stuns, but has all the plotted / emotional depth of a colouring book and is rounded on when the "suspend disbelief" argument is trotted out. Nolan makes a film about dreams and we're meant to accept that it's all okay because "it's just a dream"?
Poke me and I'll wake up in the bathroom next to Bobby Ewing.
All your points are valid
But it still wowed me.
Thank you. That's why I love this place
and the fact that a film can wow one and provoke ire in another and we can discuss the merits / failings of the film in a respectful way is terrific.
That modern cinema can still dazzle is a great thing and one man's meat etc.etc. means we can always have a healthy exchange of views.
Anyway - are you off to see Toy Story 3?
If it had gone surreal
it would have ended up like "What Dreams May Come" and we wouldn't want that would we? What I liked was the way that real life intruded into dreams, the kick, water &music. All of these we know, as humans, can actually happen.
People can say what they like about Avatar but anyone who saw it in 3D at the iMax knows that it was something special. To me Cameron really used 3D as part of the movie not as a gimmick to make a few extra bucks at the multiplex (hello Clash Of The Titans).
You've hit the nail on the head Grant
I too simply didn't care about any of the characters.
Although Leo
will always seemingly look like a 14 year old desperately trying to grow a bumfluff beard - i found this untterly engrossing. I hoped that at some point Cillian Murphy would put on his Scarecrow mask and get really freaky dreaming going on.
I felt for a film that high of information that the audeince needed to know there was very little Basil Exposition moments -something which Kermode pointed out. I think overselling the 'look this is really clever' line is going to bring out the sniffy 'oh its just not thart smart' brigade.
Those 2 1\2 hours flew by for me
WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME?
Saw the film last night and came away thinking it was all really a dream made up from characters on the flight - just like you see everyone in the departure lounge before your flight.
That would also explain why Michael Caine was in LA and not Paris.
Personally give me 'Conception' any day of the week!
I've read a lot of theories
on the ending since I saw it and all are pretty convincing so I think its up to how you want to see it (go to the imdb for all the discussions).
I know that at the screening I was at the audience let out a gasp\groan which would have pleased Mr Nolan
Ah, the Odeon West End, then
Yes, I was at that screening too. Doesn't the Odeon have a funny smell. Foetid sweat, vomit and stale popcorn mingled.
Don't know what it was all about
and don't care. [Grant pretty much nailed it, above] But I did notice at the end when Di Caprio gets his passport stamped at the airport that the stamp was of the two semi-circles with a line through it that he had drawn earlier in the film.
Toy Story 3 next week. Yipee!
Toy Story 3;
Greatest film ever made.
PS
Anyone notice that clever bit where the music used to bring them round is Edith Piaf's 'Je ne regrette rien'.
The film of Piaf's life 'La Vie En Rose' starred Marion Cotillard who played her and in 'Inception' was Dom Cobb's wife.
Clever stuff or what Nolan?
Two in two days
I saw Inception today. I was quite impressed, but not knocked out; it would work well on a double bill with Shutter Island, although Scorsese's film is far superior. I think it's far more significant for what it represents - intelligent, would be mainstream thriller - rather than the film it is; impressive and so on, but quite cold - and not in that gripping way that Kubrick mastered.
I've just booked tickets for my son and myself to see Toy Story 3 in 3D tomorrow, and am silly with excitement.
Toy Story 3 (SPOILERS INCLUDED)
Just got back from seeing Toy Story 3. I don't think I can remember a film in recent times that has united an audience quite like this. I mean, I'm 38, my son's thirty years younger than that; there were teenagers, parents, you name it; and we all laughed freely throughout, and in my case shed a tear or two at the end. There was no one laughing with that distance that says "I can pretend to enjoy this, but my guard is still up". There was none of that cultural or age gulf that you get with much Dreamworks fare. I've just listened to Mark Kermode's podcast this week; and, while I disagree with him about Inception - it's just not a film you find yourself caring about 24 hours later - he's bang on the money with everything he says about Toy Story 3. And, as for my emotions taking control of me at the end, well...my daughter was born in 1995, the year that Toy Story was released. She adored it repeatedly on video, and I first saw it with her - once I'd put away my sheer snobbery about a film that was made entirely with computers - and was converted. I took her to see Toy Story 2 at the cinema when she was not quite 5, and I still maintain that it's the best children's film ever made. So, now she's a bit old to be wanting to see this one. Like Andy, the all grown up child at the centre of the films, she's moved on. The legacy belongs to the next generation now. And that's why the end of the film destroyed me. When Andy says "I have to go away now"...well, that's how adults describe death, isn't it? And I found myself grieving for a part of my life that had been born and died in perfect sync with these rather wonderful films.
Perfect family film
In that it offers something for everyone without ever forgetting that its primary role is to entertain kids. I read it more as the toys being the parents saying goodbye to the grown-up Andy rather than he being in the senior role, but I had something in my eye (ahem) at the end and may have missed an important moment.
I saw Inception (*SPOILERS*)
I agree with Grant, above. Too much in the film that just doesn't work.
I WAS "with" it for most of the film, though. It's enjoyable and the idea is interesting enough to keep you trying to second guess what the final point of it all is going to be.
However (on top of the plot holes mentioned by Grant) there were a couple of unforgivable flaws....
- The film doesn't live up to its own set-up. A thief-for-hire who steals industrial secrets from dreams and has been doing the job so long he is starting to lose his grip on reality? Great. Wonderful. Worthy of Philip K Dick at his best. But we only really get a few mindbending moments (Paris folding over, weightless fights: all good stuff) and a lot of sub-Bond stuff. Where are the TRULY mindbending twists and turns? It suffers by comparison with the superficially similar Shuttes Island, as quite a few people have pointed out.
- The film treats its audience with a hint of contempt. The sci-fi plot virtually dares you to start second-guessing what the twist is going to be, right from the start of the film. What is REALLY going on? And the obvious thing that first comes to mind is the very simple (but elegant) idea: maybe reality is just a dream as well? Great. Wonderful. Can't wait for Christopher Nolan to either live up to that idea or undermine it with an even deeper twist. But.... no: he just throws the idea away with a final shot that skirts with the idea without ever engaging with it. As if it hadn't occurred to the audience within the first ten minutes of the movie.
Changed my mind...
Saw it a second time: I now like it. Think I was wrong.
I think the key point is: It's not really a film about dreams at all. If you go in expecting David Lynch-style layers of reality and identity then it's disappointing. But, in true Matrix style, it's really about hallucination/ manipulation-of-perception/ whatever. And in that sense it's a perfectly servicable little movie. Neater than the Matrix anyway.
Ultimately, the difference:
I forgot about Inception almost immediately. Toy Story 3 will stay with me for the rest of my life.
Opposite for me
Big Pixar fan but I was really disappointed by 'Toy Story 3' - overwrought, cloying, less witty, repetitive, strained, joyless and unnecessary rehash of the first two.
I really, really....
...REALLY enjoyed Inception. But then I had few precon(in)ceptions about it. I seem to have avoided all the hype entirely; not quite sure how that happened. I saw it at the Waterloo IMAX last night, and in that context it works unbelievably well as a visual spectacle and as a bit of entertainment.
Here's the thing, though: I don't think it was even trying to be terribly clever. I mean, god knows it's a lot more thoughtful than yer average actioner, but it IS an action adventure film above all else, and on that level it delivers utterly. In the showing last night, people gasped, laughed, let out involuntary little squeaks of excitement and then applauded at the end. You don't get that too often.
Speaking as someone who spends his life teaching people to analyse texts, I think it's possible to over-analyse, and it strikes me as a tiny bit churlish to do the whole "not-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is" bit. I'm glad it wasn't trying too hard to be clever. If it had come right out of the gate saying "OOOH, check out my cleverness", that would have made it a shit action film. As it is, it's a really good blend of just clever enough and DAMN entertaining; it probably won't stay with me all my life, but hell: that's a tall order.
And on a skyscraper-sized screen, it was jaw-droppingly beautiful. And I loved the ending.
Good point
Guilty as charged! My friends all think I over-analyse films/books/etc and expect them to be cleverer than they are.
But I am unrepentant! Have you seen "Memento"? It proves that Christopher Nolan can make a great thriller that delights you with its cleverness without being too confusing. "Inception", from the first moment (even if you haven't seen any trailers or have no preconceptions), absolutely BOMBARDS you with the expectation that you are in for a "head" movie, that it is going to make you think as well as thrill you. So from the opening minutes, it throws down a challenge to you: "What do you think the movie is REALLY about? Keep your eyes peeled now!" ... and it's on that level that it is disappointing.
I agree it is jaw-droppingly beautiful. Between this and The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan (and his team) has proven he is more than capaple of filling the screen without resorting to overt gaudiness like Avatar.
Inception failed for me
But hard to not give it some praise. Everyone looked as though they worked really hard on it, and it's always good to keep creative people employed. But, there are big buts. It sounds so negative to list them, but here are a few.
I didn't care about any of the characters. It wasn't designed to move me. It was a story based on the notion of dreams within dreams, within characters created to move the plot forward. Just taking a concept, and solving the plot holes doesn't do it for me. And there was so much chat to explain how important it was (reminded me of the Dark Knight in that respect). At the mid point, at that moment when they couldn't turn back on their mission, De Caprio had to explain to the others how they couldn't turn back. And the rest of the gang went "Oh I see, we are stuck here then". Now why couldn't he dramatise that moment instead of explaining it? And a huge amount of montage late on, cross cutting various action sequences, which were pretty much driven by the relentless, Zimmer score. In fact this cross cutting and full on music went on so long I actually tuned out and tuned back in to discover it was still going on.
All the dreams were on the nose. No sudden change of location, no unmotivated move from one place to another. Rather the coldness of the "architect designed" dreams seemed to lock the characters in real places. They were hard, cold, real dream locations - a hotel, an office block, a lock up. No magic there.
No sex. At all - except a kiss. Come on, this is a dream. Try a bit harder.
His direction is mundane. Compare to how Spielberg blocks a scene, and you might as well as they are working in the same creative area. Nolan tends to shoot singles, a mid shot and then slow tracking into a face for meaning, on the whole. Spielberg is incapable of shooting a predictable boring scene, just can't do it. He goes within the scene, finds the emotional core, and then uses his camera to bring it to life. Instinctive genius.
But Momento was fantastic. Why did he stop directing in that really fluid way? Why did he stop creating characters for us to care about?
Just seen Inception......
.......and thoroughly enjoyed it!
But, my goodness, the half hour preceding it was utterly depressing. Dreary, unoriginal ads followed by trailers for crash, bang, wallop, no-brain-required 'blockbusters' - Tron! A-Team!! Diaz/Cruz!!! Arnie/Stalone/Willis!!!!
Just show the bloody film..