🎦 Inception full movie HD download (Christopher Nolan) - Crime, Thriller, Action, Adventure, Mystery, Sci-Fi. 🎬
Crime, Thriller, Action, Adventure, Mystery, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
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
Boring, too long, illogical, awful dialogue
This film really let me down.

I didn't expect a great film but I expected something that was at least 'OK'.

How wrong I was. I honestly can't understand the hype. 'Intelligent' they say?? What sort of intelligent film has to have it's protagonists explain what is happening continuously throughout the film?? Now Memento, that was a good film. And, I suppose, 'intelligent'. But by intelligent, I mean something that pushes boundaries of the viewer's understanding. I don't mean intelligent as in 1) able to do simple arithmetic, 2) develop reading and writing skills and 3) generally being one notch above a dolphin.

OK, let's make a start shall we? Firstly, one of the greatest literary and cinematic arts is the use of metaphor. This film has none. One thing the film is full of is too much explanatory dialogue (not to mention pre-teen psychology - the father figure relationship in the subconscious). For example, in the first Matrix film, the viewer understands the profundity of what is being delivered through metaphor (a feature that the subsequent Matrix films sadly missed). In this film here, everything is painstakingly explained. To me, this speaks volumes.

Secondly, great actors, yes. BUT ALL miscast and given appalling dialogue in an appalling script. I mean, Ellen Page was great in Juno, but here she comes out with painfully mechanical lines in the same way that Joseph Gordon-Levitt also does. In the same way that every character does. They ALL speak the same way and we are no better understanding one character by the end of the film than we were when they first appeared.

Thirdly, logic. Philosophy. Call it what you want. Why was Ariadne chosen to become the architect? What does she actually DO??

And Ken Watanabe. Why is he alive after dying on the third or fourth level 'down' in the subconscious after the film so adamantly stresses the dangers of dying in the 'dream'? How can he wake up on the plane?? Why, in fact, is there that scene at the start of the film where he appears old and which features the safe and the confidential papers Leonardo De Caprio finds.

Why does Leonardo De Caprio constantly have to furrow his brow? Oh, yes, it's a vain attempt to look mean and manly because the poor man still has, unfortunately for him, such a baby face.

Why is Cillian Murphy's character chosen to be their means of helping LDC's character get back to his kids? And isn't it convenient to have a dream sequence in a blockbuster that resembles a James Bond film snow-covered chase scene? Why does the film have to go on for two and a half hours instead of one and a half? And most importantly, if Leonardo De Caprio's character is so severely screwed up about his wife why, o why does he have to be the main character in this film? Couldn't the team work with someone more well-balanced?? Can he in fact be any use to his kids if he eventually finds them???

Nonsense nonsense nonsense. Big pile of nonsensical psycho-babble. And yes, where else but America???
Lost in its own complexities
A visual Tour De Force that gets lost in its own complex world, Inception stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Dom Cobb; a rogue 'extractor' who steals elements of dreams and sells them to the highest bidder, all in the name of corporate espionage. But things start to go drastically wrong when Cobb takes on a seemingly impossible job and his dead wife turns up to make trouble.

Ingenious but convoluted, Inception may not be to everyone's taste – but it is undoubtedly a Chris Nolan picture; the same man who gave us Memento, The Prestige and of course, The Dark Knight. The problem is that for all the slick visuals and clever narrative structures, we end up with something cold, clinical and frustratingly diffuse.

Why Inception falters, and I appreciate that I may be in the minority, is that for such a surreal and imaginative concept to work, it requires an equally surreal and imaginative mind, and Nolan is just too conservative and too technical for the content. It might have made a more interesting film had it been directed by P.T Anderson or, dare I say it, Terry Gilliam.
Inception didn't bring anything fresh and original like everybody's claiming it has and calling this an intellectual movie is an insult. It tried, but it didn't succeed due to poor, nonsensical writing.

The soundtrack doesn't match the movie, it's too suspenseful in a movie with no suspense whatsoever.

The mission is something I can't really connect with and I don't know who can really.

There was really no sense of any danger at any point as it was all in a dream(s) and the limbo idea didn't make any sense. And by using that limbo concept on the character you couldn't care less if he lived or died, come on, who would care about a multi-millionaire asshole that's trying to get even richer by destroying his competition? He couldn't go back to the US because "They think I killed her"? Is that how the law works now, there was no evidence that he killed her, no witnesses, nothing, he would never be convicted for it, Leonardo, go back and go to court please ;-) They could have used more imaginative dream worlds instead of Dark knights Gotham city in day time, James Bond ice Fortress style and a Matrix like corridor (hallway).

The faceless subconscious militia, booooring. Or maybe the problem is that the subconscious of all of these people have no imagination. How come there was no crazy dream like scenes in a movie about dreaming? My dreams are much more interesting than the scenes of this movie...

I could go on and on but I just want to lower this high rating, because 9 out 10 is 3 or 4 more than this movie deserves.
Expensive drivel
As long as it remains possible to spend 100 million dollars on making drivel, setting aside 10 million towards advertising in order to tell people that it's great so that they've spent 200 million on tickets before they find out otherwise, there'll be no incentive for Hollywood movie-making ever to improve.

I've reviewed Angelina Jolie's latest farrago in very similar terms. While that movie bizarrely assumes that the Cold War still remains of interest to anyone (?), "Inception" insists basically that it's interesting to watch other people's dreams. Well, visually it can be - the "architecture-bending" style of "Inception" would have had great appeal, maybe in a 60-second advert for a credit card or mobile phone company.

But visual appeal aside, the "plot" of the movie is not so much multi-layered as multi- pointless. The old cliché that "if you die in dream you wake up" is hauled out here with monotonous regularity, but it's never applied consistently, and even if it were, who cares? If you MUST fire a machine gun at someone in a dream (and I can't think of any reason why you'd really need to), why would you ever run out of bullets? Wouldn't you just dream up some more? If you want to blow up a dream hotel, do you really NEED dream explosives? If the fuse goes out, is it safe to return, or should you always light the dreamy blue touchpaper and stand well back?

The movie's makers assume that multi-layering these various dream levels will be endlessly fascinating (as evidenced by the enormous running time), but anyone with an ounce of discernment will simply become less and less connected as the plot becomes "deeper".

We're in the same childish, ill-conceived territory here as many movies about existing in "virtual reality" or even "on the holodeck". Simulate as convincingly as you like, but you can't change the laws of physics in the real world, and if you're in a dream, then there's no real need to worry about being stabbed or shot, and neither should the viewer care whether the characters are, or aren't.

The urban myth being put about that "Inception" includes some sort of interesting or unexpected ending is no more than that.

For a witty, snappy meditation on alternative reality, try Cronenberg's "eXistenZ", and (despite the fact that, like, when you're dreaming you know, your life goes really slowly and, like, you can live a whole lifetime in the dreamy dream state, man) try to give this bloated waste of time a miss.
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.
What a convoluted mess!
I'm not even going to waste my time writing a review, it would get lost in the "dream world" of positive reviews. Those who are making this out to be something profound or mind-boggling are also delusional.

All it is is a muddy film with tons of plot holes and slightly better-than-average special effects. I am completely amazed at the comments about this being something more than it is. "The Matrix" was far, far better, made far more sense and offered far more insight into human nature, love, etc.

Nolan has made a "cluster f__k" that must have subliminally messaging going on in some theaters cuz nobody in our theater enjoyed it very much. The acting is superb. There's one really cool scene of Paris defying gravity. Other than that there is nothing new and there is little or no logical plot line. It is just as my title says, convoluted. I'm a writer and this is the kind of stuff I delete from my novels when I begin to stray or run on.

There's one review here that understands what is going on with the people who have fallen for this nightmare... he says "There are movies for stupid people. There are movies for smart people. Then there are movies for people who like to think they're smart." He has hit the proverbial nail on the head. This is a movie a few, likely stoned college fanboys go to see, start a conversation about "what if..." and create something out of nothing. Any intelligent person begins to have serious trouble coming up with answers that truly fit the massive questions in Nolan's script. To pass it off as "well, it's all a dream" is just a cop out. The movie doesn't really work. The dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream is just a way for him to cover his mistakes.

This movie deserves a high 7 at best. In time, it will drop considerably on this site... perhaps to near #100. But that will only be due to Nolan fans. True movie buffs will never fall for this fantasy. It's ordinary storytelling and a "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" script.

Go back to schools everyone. Stop doing drugs. This is not a fine wine... it is carbonated fruit punch. And your drooling all over your shirt!
Matrix but in dreamworld? Nah.
I'd like to keep my review rather to the point.

Pros: 1. its theme - dream is a fascinating topic to say the least. There are a lot of unknowns in dreamworld.

2. its plot - there are several sweet twists and unpredictable turns.

3. its edgy drive - although you know what's coming next, still you feel jumpy about it when it does.

4. its rapid storyline - the story moves fast from one scene to another, making the viewers feel like on a roller coaster ride. At times, it's hard to keep up, even after watching it several times.

5. its sophistication - there is a lot of information to remember and digest. This is the very thing the modern moviegoers are after, I believe.

6. its realism - okay, pun intended. The movie explains (or at least tries to) the ins and outs of what dream is about and how it functions, some of which are very familiar with and dear to us.

Cons: 1. its poor character development - although the acting was convincing enough there was not enough of character development. I wonder how many people really felt connected to the main character(s) after watching the movie. Yes, the movie talks about emotional struggles but it was more of an action film than anything else, if you ask me.

2. too many distractions - I found that the movie had more characters than necessary. They may play certain roles in the plot but they seemed more of distractions than anything else. I wish the movie was more focused.

3. a bit preachy - I noticed that the characters would explain things about dreamworld and then the exact things happen later in the movie. I'm afraid, Inception overused this trick.

In conclusion, its theme is fascinating but its delivery is not without room for improvement.

I highly recommend you to go and read Somewhere carnal over 40 winks, if you dig this kind of flicks.

This movie was terrible. It tried to be something ground breaking and emotionally challenging, but fell terribly short on all fronts, starting with the basic premise. I am expected to believe that a group of people smart enough to construct an elaborate plot involving breaking into other people's dreams are not smart enough to reunite a man with his family without getting stopped at customs? That's stupid. Fly to Mexico and walk. Or fly the kids to you. This giant plot hole is unfathomably stupid, as is most of the dialogue in this two and a half hour nightmare. I think my personal favorite line in the movie was when DiCaprio's character told his dream wife that he could not do her justice because he could not remember all of her perfections and all of her imperfections. You can't have both stupid. This movie is probably mindblowingly deep and meaningful if your education stopped in grade school, but if you have a least a GED, don't waste your ten bucks.
Just when I thought I was stuck in a dream(nightmare), I find some realistic reviews of this tosh!
Perusing the top 250, I was shocked to see this in the list, never mind so near to the top. I make no apology for admitting, that I fell asleep on numerous occasions (though kept re-winding). This is something I haven't done since Transformers (no re-winding),despite the thundering 5.1 soundtracks. Both these movies are style with no substance, but, back to this one.

Has the need to appear intelligent by "loving" this film, so resulted in an "Emporer's new clothes" atmosphere? Can the slip-shod writing and drum-roll, sign-posted direction be so easily forgiven, in lieu of it's unique premise? (nobody mention The Matrix!)

I hope this tumbles off the list as time passes, because it devalues some great picks and under-ground, high-points, that have already made it, thanks to some more discerning movie-goers.
📹 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. 📀