🎦 Inception full movie HD download (Christopher Nolan) - Crime, Thriller, Action, Adventure, Mystery, Sci-Fi. 🎬
Inception
Year:
2010
Country:
USA, UK
Genre:
Crime, Thriller, Action, Adventure, Mystery, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.7
Director:
Christopher Nolan
Ellen Page as Ariadne
Tom Hardy as Eames
Ken Watanabe as Saito
Dileep Rao as Yusuf
Cillian Murphy as Robert Fischer
Tom Berenger as Peter Browning
Pete Postlethwaite as Maurice Fischer
Michael Caine as Miles
Lukas Haas as Nash
Tai-Li Lee as Tadashi
Claire Geare as Phillipa (3 years)
Storyline: Dom Cobb is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the dangerous art of extraction, stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state, when the mind is at its most vulnerable. Cobb's rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible-inception. Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists have to pull off the reverse: their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one. If they succeed, it could be the perfect crime. But no amount of careful planning or expertise can prepare the team for the dangerous enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 14510 Mb h264 128 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 640x272 px 1463 Mb mpeg4 1243 Kbps avi Download
Reviews
A boring pedantic sterile experience...
Wow what have we here? What hast thou put before our eyes? Could it be Christopher Nolan's boorish tripe 'Inception'? I myself could not tell as the movie was far too low brow to make even the slightest impression on my vastly superior intelligence. Nolan is an amateur who makes movies based on blatantly foreseeable childish artifices that only the most unintelligent boors would find the least bit amusing. 'Inception' is the kind of film designed to make lamebrains feel like they are intelligent. Nolan's intellectualism-for-dummies should be the main title of his biography. Luckily I am smart enough to see past this charade and give the people their fair assessment of this tripe.

'Inception' is built upon the notion of traveling through dream like spaces that bend time, space, and reality, yawn. It's been done before Chris in a much sounder fashion in Charlie Kaufman's epic masterpiece 'Synecdoche, New York'. That film is an orgasmic experience while 'Inception' is just beyond words describing it. I mean you might conclude that the inner subconscious would be more creative in coming up with better metaphors for security than guys with guns who chase you. The lengthy exposition- oh I mean training montage, despite having a semi-acceptable computer effect, was way more boring and less engaging than the scene it stole from 'The Matrix', and at least that scene didn't have Nolan's pretentiousness. Larry the Cable Guy is less insulting to the intellect. I mean Sarah Palin sounds smarter than Christopher Nolan's dialogue. ( Conjointly, the Herculean careener of mesh networks is titled Ariadne? Really? None of the juveniles that give you your millions will get that reference Chris but I'm glad you know how to use wikipedia)
2011-01-07
Inception has a lot of ideas and it doesn't do anything with them
I cannot ignore facts. I cannot ignore mistakes and plot holes, bad writing, or bad marketing. I cannot ignore hype, especially when it's already on the IMDb top 250, it received praise from critics, cashed in a lot of money, and people call it stunning and unforgettable. The simple truth is that Inception does not live up to the hype. Let me start with the trailer. All the coolest things (the folding city, the collapsing cliffs, the train in the street) are totally unessential to the plot. None of that takes more than a few seconds. So why did they put them on all the posters as well? Nevermind. I'll move on to the real problems of the movie.

So I heard all these people saying how complex the movie is. How I'll need to watch it twice. How the shocking ending will blow my mind. I knew exactly what that "shocking ending" would be half way through the film. The very last paragraph of this review deals with the ending. It's not exactly a spoiler but you can skip it if you don't want to know anything.

Cobb (DiCaprio) takes on a mission to implant a thought into Fischer's (Murphy) mind. As a reward, his contractor Saito (Watanabe) will clean his record with the LAPD. Cobb is wanted for the murder of his wife and consequently he can't return to USA and see his children. Throughout the movie, this is Cobb's main inner conflict, that before he fled the country, he didn't get a chance to see the kids' faces and he wants to see them again. Michael Cain has a very small role as their grandpa and DiCaprio's father-in-law. Why doesn't Cain take the kids someplace so they could be with their father? People move all the time. Or why doesn't he send Cobb some home movies if he wants to see their faces so much? They could even have video calls and all that stuff. It's a long distance relationship but it's something. Well, apparently no one thought of that, and so the main character's main motivation for his actions makes no sense.

As for acting, DiCaprio was good. But if you've seen Shutter Island, You've seen a third of Inception. Dead wife, small kids, a sense of loss, a pretty wooden house in a field, all those flashbacks Teddy had in Shutter Island… it's all in Inception. Minus the funny Boston accent.

The mission these mind thieves embark on is to plant an idea into a rich guy's mind. This is called inception. Hence the title, I guess. Everyone says it's impossible to do, so you know they are going to succeed in the end. Inception is essentially a heist movie, but instead of getting into a vault, Cobb's team has to get inside someone's mind – which happens to look like a vault. The supposed complexity of the movie boils down to the idea of a dream within a dream. Basically, imagine that once you are plugged inside the matrix, you plug yourself into yet another, deeper, matrix. There, I just explained the super complex plot of the movie. But in case that wasn't enough, there is Ellen page's character, Ariadne. She is the obligatory new member of the team that is introduced to represent the audience and their questions. I'm fine with that. Every movie has one of those uninitiated people. The thing is, she understands everything too quickly and becomes suddenly becomes the most competent character. Pretty convenient, if you ask me.

Let me finally get to the mission. It's the worst part of the movie. Watanabe wants Murphy, who just inherited a huge corporation, to dissolve it, because it was going to become a huge monopoly. So Watanabe hires DiCaprio to plant the idea of splitting the company in Murphy's mind. And so they do that. For two and a half hours. But I don't care if he splits the big company or not. Why should I care if Murphy has a bigger company than Watanabe? The stakes of the movie aren't high, they are nonexistent. I am not given any reason to care about whether or not they succeed. I'm only given more and more action set pieces to look forward to, and a lot of cool slow motion and zero gravity fights reminiscent of The Matrix, but I'm not given any reason to care for what is happening. I liked Watanabe's character only because I like Ken Watanbe. As for Saito himself, I don't give a damn if his competitor destroys his company or not. They don't tell us what consequences it would have, they don't show us what happens with the company, they don't do anything with this initial idea. Which is strange, because the movie is all about ideas being important.

Okay, so I didn't like the plot and the acting was nothing new. What about the rest? Hans Zimmer's unremarkable score works well with the scenes but it would be super boring to hear on its own. The visual effects are good but since all the coolest city-folding scenes were so short, there wasn't really that much to do. The zero gravity stuff was done well, I'll give them that. Cinematography was good, bordering on too much shaky camera.

Here's the paragraph about the ending:

The big ending is that you are supposed to be unsure what was a dream and what was reality. If it was real, then it's stupid because DiCaprio had dozens of ways to be with his kids without making things so incredibly complicated. The movie is supposed to make you think, but if you think about it the whole plot falls apart. If it was a dream, then it's a stupid cop out on Nolan's part. An excuse for all the things that didn't make sense. It was all a dream, so screw you, audience.
2010-07-20
Obsolete idea
So, it's all a dream.

When in high school, I remember one of our English teachers putting a ban on essays that turn out to be a dream. His argument was that one could just write all sorts of nonsense and take the easy way out by revealing at the end that it was a dream.

Overlong seemingly pointless car chases and gun battles... Plenty of these in re-runs of the A-Team...

All this messing about in the hotel, fighting guards, tying up bodies and moving them around. These guys aren't very creative / resourceful in their dreams, are they? However attractive Marion Cotillard is, the sub plot became very irritating indeed. The grenade launcher should have been used on her early in the dream! As for the end, an easy cop out: it's a dream, folks.

I won't go into the cgi / scenery designs. There was stuff just as good in computer games designed for the Amiga and Atari.

There was great potential, but this movie is a mess.
2011-01-24
Very Disappointed
Inception is an interesting movie, however I did not enjoy it. I go the movies to be entertained, to be transported into the movie, to be involved and have my emotions stirred. Inception did none of that, it failed because it focused on the creativity but forgot about the audience. Credit must be given to the special effects, the acting and the creative content, but the praise stops there.

I have read a lot of the reviews here and I have to say I'm very surprised, I simply don't agree with the high rating this movie has been awarded with. If you would like to watch an interesting, creative and action packed movie, this will not disappoint. For me, there were too many implausible (bordering on ridiculous) twists to enable me to enjoy it.

The technical aspects surrounding the connectivity between the participants was just nonsense, there was little explanation, little offered on how it worked and why. Clearly someone thought the audience would just let that part slide and not be too fussed about the technicalities.

This is a selfish movie, its been written, produced and directed to be creative, amazing and intelligent.. the problem is someone forgot about the audience. I for one was not engaged, transported nor were my emotions stirred..apart from feeling annoyed and disappointed.

I expected so much more from this movie..
2011-03-19
All The Classic Marks Of A Bad Movie…
Inception indeed has all the marks of a bad film. This is not just apparent in the film itself, but comments fan make.

"If you don't like this movie, it's because you don't get it!" "If you don't like this movie, you lack class!"

These sorts of things are the same things I hear when one of my hipster friends gives me a CD of some band nobody's heard of, and when I press Play, I immediately figure out why. When you like a movie that is identifiably bad, you have to come up with excuses for liking it that aren't tomfoolery, like "you just don't get it, MAN. It's too ironic for your puritanical tastes!"

In the end, I find that the film itself, fans aside, is not terribly thrilling. The ideas aren't original—it was like a Matrix in the dream world. Except a bad one, because nothing gets explained, really. Watching Inception was like watching the story of Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 play out. The question I kept asking myself was "okay, why is so-and-so doing THAT?" At the end of the movie, I decided that Christopher Nolan, like George Lucas, is talented, but has gotten too full of himself. Why do I care about Cobb's kids, to whom we are granted no real introduction? Why do I care about dueling energy companies? Why do I care about a bunch of corporate hit men and mob bosses? There's no connection.

An emotional connection is something lacking, but more frustratingly is the disappearance of character development about 15 minutes in. Everything gets lost at about that point actually. The logic of the plot, the coherence of the plot, everything. It's baffling to me. I loved The Dark Knight and The Prestige—they hit that sweet spot in between baffling and straightforward. Inception missed the mark horribly.

——SPOILERS DO NOT CROSS——

By far, the ending is the most ridiculous. It's a contradictory ending. Although we see the top is clearly falling, and Cobb is not wearing his ring, the children look the same as they did.

——SPOILERS DO NOT CROSS——
2010-11-15
This is your first lesson in shared dreaming. Stay calm.
Inception is written, produced, and directed by Christopher Nolan. The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Dileep Rao, Tom Berenger, and Michael Caine. The musical score is by Hans Zimmer and Wally Pfister is the cinematographer. Plot finds DiCaprio playing Dom Cobb, a specialised spy for hire who steals ideas from the dreams of people. But one day he gets a different offer, one that will enable him to see his estranged children. To get his reward he must enact Inception, the planting of an idea in the mind of the selected target. But Inception is thought impossible and should Cobb and his selected team fail? The consequences are unthinkable.

There has already been much written and pondered about as regards Inception in the relatively short running time of its life. One can only imagine what will be written and said about it in ten years time. For although it's arguably a bit too early to be talking about it being held in such high regards as the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, it's inescapable that Nolan's movie is this current generation's sci-fi classic. That Nolan has managed to make it accessible to the mainstream, and dazzled the eyes as much as the brain in the process, is close to being a piece of genius craftsmanship.

Inception is a film that it's better to know nothing about before venturing into it, and then it asks, well Nolan asks, for your undivided attention. It's neither as confusing as some have painted it, nor does it have any tricks-peek behind the curtain type-up its sleeve. The truth is is that Inception has something for everyone; thematically speaking, and that's before we pore over the special effects that sees Nolan raising the bar considerably. As is the case with twisty high concept movies, interpretations are many, with the director rightly abstaining from discourse about his movie. What forms the basis is your basic life and death struggles, with the grey areas during and after given a clever cinematic make over. There's also meditations on grief that this reviewer personally found easy to get involved with; that of course wont work for everyone, but that is just one of many strands that Nolan dangles for the discerning viewer.

If that all sounds a bit too serious for the man who has redefined the Super Hero genre, rest assured thrill seekers, Inception is also a loud swirly spectacle. The action is raucous, be it gun fights or zero gravity punch ups, Nolan has not lost the ability to take the viewer on an action fuelled roller-coaster ride, aided superbly by Lee Smith's editing and Pfister's perfectly broad photography While Zimmer's score blends electronic action pulse beats with saddened guitar strains (ex-Smiths guitarist Johnny Marr on 12 string) to craft one of the best scores of 2010. As I said, there's something for everyone here, making it perhaps one of the leading nominees for title of ultimate modern day blockbuster.

Then there's the strong ensemble cast, led by a quite scintillating performance from DiCaprio. Following on from his cards played close to his chest turn in Shutter Island, DiCaprio has given 2010 two of its best lead performances. Here he gives real depth of emotion, the kind that makes it easy for the viewers to hang their hats on. His unfussy acting is easy to buy into, giving the character the air of believability, he is the glue that binds the whole film together. Murphy is wonderfully vulnerable, very much an axis in the narrative, while Levitt almost usurps DiCaprio with a neatly layered portrayal that carries a delightful whiff of duality about it. Special praise, too, for Ellen Page. Still in her early 20s, she exudes an intelligent sexiness that shines bright in a role that could have been boorishly played as a cipher in a lesser actress' hands. While Hardy provides brawny levity and Berenger leaves a favourable mark.

The Matrix meets Heat and Mission Impossible, only it's written by Phillip K. Dick and Richard Matheson; or something like that. A cracking hybrid movie that's fit to grace any summer and sure to improve and enlighten with further viewings. 9.5/10
2011-04-07
One of the most overrated films ever! The most un-dreamlike film about dreams I've ever seen!
What do David Lynch, Luis Bunuel and Wes Craven have in common? They have all created far superior films about dreams on a fraction of Christopher Nolan's budget. For a film about dreams everything looks so dull and drained of color. Inception never feels surreal like a dream. It feels like ridiculous PG-13 action sequences strung together by character's explaining it's all a dream within a dream etc. When watching this film, I thought of far superior films about dreams and alternate realities, Bunuel and Dali's "Un Chien Andalou" (1929), "The Blood of a Poet" (1930), "The Wizard of Oz" (1939), Hitchcock's "Spellbound" (1946), "Meshes of the Afternoon" (1947), Dr. Sues' "5,000 Fingers of Dr. T" (1953), "Le Jetee" (1962), Fellini's "8 1/2" (1963), "Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors" (1963) Fellini's, "Juliet of the Spirits" (1966), "Who Wants to Kill Jesse" (1966), "Valerie and her Week of Wonders" (1970), "Viva La Muerte" (1970), "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" (1972), Tarkovsky's "Solaris" (1972), "The Hourglass Sanitorium" (1973), "Eraserhead" (1977) "Altered States" (1980), "Time Bandits" (1981), Pink Floyd's "The Wall" (1982), "Forbidden Zone" (1982) "Videodrome" (1983), "A Nightmare on Elmstreet" (1984), "Dreamscape"(1984), "Brazil" (1985), "Paperhouse" (1988), The B-movie "Beyond Dreams Door" (1989), "Santa Sangre" (1989), "Jacob's Ladder" (1990), "Kurosawa's Dreams" (1990) "Total Recall" (1990), "Naked Lunch" (1991), "Arizona Dream" (1993), John Carpenter's "In the Mouth of Madness" (1995), "12 Monkeys" (1995),"City of Lost Children" (1995), "Lost Highway" (1997), "Dark City" (1998), "The Matrix" (1999), "eXistenZ" (1999), "Being John Malkovich" (1999), "The Cell" (2000), "Waking Life" (2001), "Donnie Darko" (2001), "Muholland Drive" (2001), "Demon Lover" (2002), "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (2004), "Strange Circus" (2005), "The Fall" (2006), "The Science of Sleep" (2006), "Pan's Labrynth" (2006), "Paprika" (2006) and the list goes on and on and on. 100's of French and Asian films; hell, even the "Nightmare on Elmstreet" sequels.

In "Inception" Leonardo Dicaprio plays Dom Cobb, a dream thief who can enter people's dreams and steal top secret information. Like his character in "Shutter Island" (which had better dream sequences) Leo is obsessed with his dead wife and longs to go home to see his kids. He's given a mission by a corporate boss to enter a rival's dream and implant false information. By completing this mission, he'll be able to go home to his kids. Dom hires an architect played by Ellen Page to create false dream worlds. Then there's his agents, who are one dimensional rip offs of characters from "The Matrix" (A far more entertaining film) For a film about dreams, you'd expect a little Fruedian sex or nudity. Oh no we don't want are dreams to go beyond a mass-marketed PG-13 rating. Or how about at least abstract surrealism or stream of consciousness dialog? Instead we have all the character's taking time out to explain everything to Hans Zimmer's overblown music. In the words of Ariadne "Wait, Who's subconscious are we going through exactly?". That's odd, a shootout on skis, "James Bond" style and Look I'm floating like in "The Matrix" (Lets not get to bizarre or fun) Maybe, I'm being critical, because I'm by no means a fan of Christopher Nolan. "Momento" and "The Dark Night" were good films, but should never be mentioned in the same breath as HItchcock or Kubrick. People really anger me comparing Inception to "Blade Runner", or "2001, A Space Odyssey". Even "Avatar" had more heart and soul than "Inception". In "Avatar", I actually cared about the characters and felt like I was in a different world. In this film how am I supposed to care for rich corporate suits who want to steal secrets. How about having an Exxon executive jumping in the dreams of a BP executive? If it's all a dream within a dream within a dream of one dimensional Hollywood characters, why should the audience care? And why take 150 mins. to tell a story, when it could of been done in less than 2 hrs.?

On one note, the special effects were impressive and the film did have great acting. I think this film could of been good if it was more colorful and dreamlike and maybe 45 mins. shorter. "Inception" fell cold and flat of having a heart and soul. Why do films now look gray, poo brown or washed out in color? Movies used to be so much brighter. Compare this film to "Suspiria" (1977), "What Dreams may Come" and "Edward Scissorhands" and you'll see what I mean. Spending $200 million dollars on a film that could of fed a 3rd world country for 10 years, is more of a nightmare than a dream. All that money spent and it still looks visually boring, artless and dull. As a person who practically makes minimum wage and lives off Ramen noodles, I watch sci-fi and fantasy films for an escape. Why would I care about a rich corporate rival who has a bad relationship with his father? Boo-hoo! In the end I felt like I was viewing the unimaginative dreams of Wall Street brokers. This is a film made by a room fool of people, rather than an artist with a vision. A mass marketed product like fast food, masquerading itself as nutrition. For this film to be in IMDb's top 5 is a joke; this is mediocre at best. People are saying that this is better than "The Wizard of Oz", "Pulp Fiction", "Blue Velvet" or Citizen Kane". I must be dreaming, no I kicked myself and this is for real.
2010-08-02
Didactic, but nonetheless a good movie.
Inception has a problem that I cannot bear: the constant that someone comes to explain the laws and how that world works. The creation of the character of Ellen Page (Ariadne) was for the sole purpose of explaining that to moviegoers. Not that it's bad, but at certain moments it seems like the movie becomes more class at school, to know how that universe works, instead of the characters in this movie live the adventure for themselves. In this aspect the film is didactic. And the space for the imagination is limited. In this aspect everything in this film is chewed, everything explained, where are the possibilities? I do not want someone to explain the universe, I want to see the characters live and react in this universe.

Yes the ending leaves open the question whether that is a dream or reality, but it is a cheap gimmick instead of letting them our imaginations fly. If at the end of the movie the experience of the characters was a dream, so it was waste of two and a half hour, at least the Matrix shows the characters in the real world, and that it was not a dream inside a dream. The tension and time invested would not be a waste of time

Not that it spoils the experience of the film, but it disturbs in some parts, mainly in the middle of the film, when the group is preparing for the assault. The concept is good, but it should be presented in a simpler way. Clearly Nolan was very ambitious in the concept of this film. But Nolan is quite integral in the proposal of his films, and he tries to put unknown concepts to the general public in such a cohesive way, even with the problem of trying to explain everything and other problems of pace are easily forgiven. Nolan tries to do his best in each of his films as if his movie was his last, as if his life depends on it. A great honesty on the part of Nolan, and this I can and I want to enjoy. Nolan is such an honest guy and scores points with me. It's the difference between the lousy movie director and an excellent director. The bad elements of Inception are not enough to spoil its qualities. The ambitious ideas of the filmmaker and the great sequences in parallel assembly that characterize his works.

Not that the idea of Inception is innovative, this idea has been copied many times in other works (Paprika, Synecdoche New York and The Matrix are the most practical and common examples). But it's the way Nolan puts these ideas in the big budget blockbuster. Let's be honest here. Smaller or lower budget films are not seen by the general public due to the absence of of large production values (a great soundtrack, great locations for filming or great special effects, etc). See these ideas or concepts in a great Hollywood blockbuster made with such quality and care, it is amazing. And these ideas are embedded in the drama of the film in such a cohesive and exemplary way; it is applauding Nolan's professional integrity. This is why Nolan movies are so well received, he tries to put in these Hollywood blockbusters something more, something common in indie or smaller films, but with the financial aspect of the great studios to provide a better technical quality.

Obviously there is quality on this movie; the large parallel sequences are exemplary. The parallel between the Van sequences, the hotel with the Joseph Gordon-Levitt (when character is awake in the elevator), the peak at the military base in the snow and the desolate city of Cobb and Mal is almost perfectly made with an all- encompassing soundtrack. Of course the sequences of action are lousy . And many dialogues are very weak. Two weaknesses in Nolan's movies.Bad things come with the good things. I suspect that the bad action scenes of Inception and Dark Knight were the reason why Nolan turned DKR into an action movie instead of trying to tell a good story, Nolan's ego should have been hurt by the criticism as he directs his action scenes in these two films. Particularly Inception and the action sequence in the snow with Tom Hardy. Too bad, sorry.

But the performances are amazing, particularly Marion Cotillard as Mal. There are many layers in the various characters which Nolan conducts with mastery and the way they are inserted into the film is almost perfectly. Particularly in the initial sequence (which I thought would be a scene to showcase special effects, and Nolan proved me wrong). Or in the scene between Ariadne and Cobb, when Cobb tries to explain how his wife dies, and then discovered new layers of the character to reveal that in fact, he did have to do with the death of his wife. Of course this will be important to the outcome of the film. It is this ability to put the scenes and the flashbacks in certain key moments of the plot that Nolan shows much quality, and one of his long lists of virtues.

Inception is a movie like any movie; it has its flaws, but also its virtues. But, for me the qualities overlap the defects, and in the end the movie is well worth watching. But is its legendary statute being worthy? If Inception was released in the 1980's would it have the same impact in that decade, as it had in 2010? Currently the commercial movies in Hollywood are in crisis. We live in an era of remakes, superhero movies and franchise fatigue without the studios or directors making an effort to improve with originality or at least with a little more original concepts. Inception's credit could be lower if today's Hollywood was not in such a decadent state. But nonetheless, Inception is still a good movie.
2016-12-30
All right.....
The film is a disappointment, because it did so little with so much. Basically what you have here is a very interesting sci-fi heist premise; Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are partners who use dream-invasion technology to steal industrial secrets from unsuspecting mass transit passengers (why any powerful people in such a technological age would travel on mass transit, is just one of the many obvious questions the film expects us not to raise) while they doze. In exchange for immunity to a troubling criminal charge against Cobb, they agree to undertake an unprecedented mission: to practice "inception" on a powerful business scion, that is to plant an original idea in his subconscious through the dream manipulation.

All of this is great, but unfortunately none of it has any emotional weight. To find that we have to look into the mystery of why Cobb has been in exile, and this plot has to do with his wife (Marion Cotillard) with whom he shared a disastrous and traumatic experience of dream sharing. This is to me where the movie essentially falls apart. It seems like Nolan and the other writers never fully synthesized these two dominant strains in the film, so that most of the time the emotional drama is just getting in the way of the heist film or vice a versa. At no point did it seem to me that the heist was complimenting the drama or vice a versa. And in fact after some very impressive effects sequences during the scenes where Cobb shows his new assistant Ariadne (Ellen Page, too green to hold up her role) a lot of the action becomes outright tedious, never more so than when we're "treated" to about a reel or ten minutes of numbing snow-mobile and gunfight action, right at the point where the film should be reaching a climax. It all starts to feel very obligatory, and Nolan is not a good enough action director to make empty content feel like fun.

As a basic action/heist movie with sci-fi premise, it still works well enough that I would recommend it as a rental. Nolan works in some of the elements that have made some of his better films work on a higher level, such as the association with totems and icons (the spinning wheel, etc.) and the connection between memory or memory devices and identity. However when all the pieces are laid out, the film seems overly simple and mechanical. The plot is just this -- the guy takes a job, he does the job, he gets to re-unite with his kids. Although he constantly mopes about in a depression because he tried inception on his wife and she died, he has no ethical or moral problem with doing the same thing to Cillian Murphy's character, even though nobody knows the real consequences that could befall or the true motives of Ken Watanabe's character. I was hoping that some larger picture would emerge, but instead this film is politically naive and instead attempts to be dramatic. The constant shots of adorable children playing on the lawn made me feel I was watching a bad Spielberg film. The entire emotional anchor of the film is put on the shoulders of these cute kiddies in true Spielberg fashion. If you don't buy into this ridiculous soft-target hook, then the whole film collapses like DiCaprio's dream world.

This isn't a bad or stupid film, but after a while you start to yearn for at least some human warmth or humor, which is almost always missing from Nolan's films. The characters are so sincere that it starts to become suffocating, especially considering how ridiculous the premise is when taken seriously. Basically this is like "Total Recall" in terms of ideas and in terms of stupid action scenes, except that it takes itself hugely seriously. It does not become a better film by doing so, nor a more intelligent one.
2010-08-23
Mind Boggling.
Around 750, the renowned poet of the Tang dynasty, Li Po, is supposed to have asked, "Last night I dreamed I was a butterfly. Today, am I a butterfly dreaming I am a man?" Marcus Aurelius, the late Roman emperor and philosopher, wrote, "Life is a dream, a little more coherent than most." Freud concluded that dreams were the fulfillment of unconscious wishes that had managed to sneak past the dozing censor. Aboriginal Australians believed in a real parallel universe called The Dream Time in which everything and everyone who ever existed, still existed, and anybody could enter this place during sleep.

Modern psychology believes that dreams are nothing more than random cortical bombardment caused by a lot of activity in sub-cortical structures associated with the filing of memories, and the cortex goes into overdrive trying to make narrative sense of them.

Sex dreams are pleasant enough except when the furry little animals show up, but statistics demonstrate that the majority of dreams are truly lousy, the kind we can easily live without. Don't you get tired of running in slow motion through a swamp while being chased by an ogre?

Does all this sound like pointless rambling to you? Well, then you're not going to enjoy "Inception" because it meanders at lightning speed all over the place and lives by no rules that human beings have ever known.

On the other hand, if you find these adventitious allusions in some way interesting, then you should see this dark and muddled movie. You get a bonus too, because in its style it closely resembles an action movie from the 1980s. Everything is happening all at once -- or maybe not all at once. Who cares? The point is that people get shot in the forehead and buildings comes toppling down for no reason and slow-motion explosions take place at irregular but short intervals.

I'm getting pretty tired of seeing films that use some bewildering metaphysical scheme as an excuse to show off still more CGIs. I couldn't watch this thing through.
2011-06-18
📹 Inception full movie HD download 2010 - Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Marion Cotillard, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Caine, Lukas Haas, Tai-Li Lee, Claire Geare, Magnus Nolan - USA, UK. 📀
×