This is topic Inception (2010) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001678
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-15-2010, 02:56 AM:
 
TV guide description - "The Matrix" for dreams.

Review - Very well done with a great sound mix too.

Spoilers - No, just walk into it cold. Don't even bother reading other people's reviews, just go see it.

Rating - 4.5 out of 5 stars
 
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-15-2010, 07:21 AM:
 
I'm still trying to digest everything and form a solid opinion. It was great for sure. Another well done picture, well acted and some awsome visuals.

agree with Brad, just go see it

4/5 [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 07-15-2010, 08:49 PM:
 
This is a definite must-see and also begs for multiple viewings to get a good sense of what the movie is about. I highly enjoyed Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and this one goes above and beyond what he accomplished in that. It's very refreshing to see a movie that is wholly original and not a sequel or rehash of old material.

4.75/5
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-16-2010, 12:02 AM:
 
I haven't seen the movie yet, but Inception is the summer movie release I have wanted to see most this year. I only glanced at Roger Ebert's 4-star review of the movie. He said Christopher Nolan first started writing the screenplay for Inception back when he was making Memento, another really great movie that demands some mental heavy lifting from the audience.

I just have to make my mind up whether I'm going to see the movie here in Lawton, or perhaps the Warren Moore 14 or even make the 200 mile drive to either Tulsa or Dallas to see it in film-based IMAX. Certain dream sequences of the movie were filmed in 65mm.
 
Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 07-16-2010, 07:36 AM:
 
65mm 5-perf though not 15 - perf Imax
 
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 07-16-2010, 09:47 AM:
 
Saw the Midnight in LieMAX and I must say that the Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole trailer looked very sharp and crisp, however the silver screen looked like crap.

As for the movie, WOW. I had high expectations and they were blown away. This was a rare movie that literally made my jaw drop. I have to agree with Brad, just go see this movie. You will not regret it!

5/5
 
Posted by Frederick Lanoy (Member # 5416) on 07-16-2010, 02:07 PM:
 
In France, Nolan and his team did a premiere in Paris (Gaumont Marignan with 4 digital screens) in 35 mm. It seems that Nolan does not want to use digital projection for Inception. In France, you'll have the choice between 3 LieMax screens and 35 mm. That's all.

Is it the same in USA ?
In LieMax, how does Inception looks like ? The use of 65 mm cameras is noticeable despite the 2 K resolution ?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-16-2010, 08:08 PM:
 
I imagine it is noticeable regardless of playback method, at least by a little bit. On the Blu-ray, you can definitely tell the difference in quality between 35mm, Vistavision and IMAX proper shots in Batman Begins 2 despite each and every one of them being far more resolution than Blu-ray is capable of. So the source is very, very important to overall image quality no matter how it is delivered.

I have not seen Inception yet. No time. Will probably see it Wednesday.
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-17-2010, 09:38 AM:
 
I liked it. Wife didn't.

It's satisfying while you watch it, but, after its over and you start to think it through, it loses its luster.

It's great fun to watch, though. Some great eye-candy.

They need little numbers in the lower corner of the screen to tell you what level you are at.

Music is a bit heavy handed...to much boom-boom-boom-boom.

One of the best endings ever, though.

My rating: B; Wife rating: D
 
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-17-2010, 04:03 PM:
 
CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 14
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

I wander down and get a center seat in, oh, row six or seven. The guy who sits in front of me is a middle-aged loser with stiff wirey hair hovering above his sweating bald spot. He's wearing a Shazam T-shirt that his mother clearly ironed for him. Perfect creases in the sleeves.

THE PLOT: Planting an idea. Wackiness ensues.

Wow. This one takes some work to follow, doesn't it. But it's visually solid, and it winds through its web of wonders nicely. I don't think it's THAT original or even a destined classic, and I don't feel myself needing to see it again, but the whole thing is good...I don't think they wasted a single frame.

The only question I was left with was "Did I just see a happy ending, or not?"

I suppose it doesn't matter...it was the right ending in any case.
 
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 07-17-2010, 05:13 PM:
 
I have to agree with Sam. We actually have seen this memory implant secret agent stuff before.

The original was Philip K. Dick's short story "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" which became "Total Recall"
 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-17-2010, 09:41 PM:
 
Loved it! [Smile] Would love to know how the real Imax looks!
 
Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 07-17-2010, 10:39 PM:
 
We opened this on Friday and I've got to say it lived up to the very high expectations I had for it. It's a longish movie but moves well and didn't drag for me or have any weak parts that stood out. If anything I thought it could be longer and I'm crossing my fingers for a directors cut once the dvd is released.

I'd like to hear from someone that saw it on IMAX and 35mm, though I want to see it on IMAX it seems like there would be very little added from the 35mm release
 
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 07-17-2010, 10:49 PM:
 
Show: 8 am, 7/16/10
Theatre: Esquire IMAX Theatre, Sacramento, CA
Projection: IMAX 15/70 on an IMAX GT projector
Sound: IMAX DTAC

Cons: The only way I could think of anything negative is to compare this to Dark Knight. Both films had the same writer, director and DP, and both had the same feel and pace.

Dark Knight began with the IMAX "Think Big" (aka countdown) trailer in scope. This made a huge impact when the first shot filmed in 15/65 showed on the screen. Inception, like every other letterboxed DMR film went the other way, having the countdown trailer fill the frame, then dropping down to scope (2.35 or 2.4) for the duration of the show. This is a huge misleading issue that IMAX needs to fix in its legacy theatres.

The other problem I had was that in Dark Knight, all the aerial shots were filmed in 15/65. There were a lot of flyover shots establishing location in Inception and it would have added to the experience if Nolan had shot only these in IMAX.

Pros: During the DMR process, the film was scanned at 6K. Considering that most DMR is scanned at 4K and that the IMAX digital systems are comprised of two 2K projectors with additional light output, the only way to properly view the image (most of which was filmed on 5/65 stock), is in an IMAX film theatre.

The geometry of a traditional IMAX theatre really helps with the immersion. In Inception, this went into overdrive during the second half.

The soundtrack is also one of the best I have ever heard. There are subtle audio clues throughout the film as to what is really going on and I can't think of a better place to listen to it than an IMAX (again traditional architecture) theatre.

Film: 3.5 out of 4
Film in IMAX: 3.8 out of 4
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 07-18-2010, 12:13 AM:
 
Oh No!

I somehow managed to doze off while watching
INCEPTION earlier today.

So mow I'm not sure if I'm really awake.

What a conundrum. . . . .
 
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 07-18-2010, 01:10 AM:
 
This is a very, very good movie. It may not be an absolutely original idea (movies are a century old, novels a great deal more than that, and oral legends and myths millennia, so I think the stock of those is running thin) but I can't think of any other movie with a similar concept that even begins to compare in terms of execution, writing, and acting. Brad mentions the sound mix, which I thought was absolutely phenomenal. Nolan and his sound editor use a rare light-handed touch with the surrounds, which helps to create a highly immersive environment.
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-18-2010, 07:09 PM:
 
I guess I'll be the naysayer here...

Short version: I never really cared.

Long version (SPOILERS)

I didn't hate it. I thought the idea of dreams within dreams was interesting, and the need to backtrack out of each one was clever. And I liked the zero gravity sequence - that was a lot of fun to watch.

But I didn't care for Leo's dilemma. It didn't help that his wife was a psychopath. I wasn't sure if Alfred the butler was Leo's father or his father-in-law. He never called him "Dad," but if he was his father-in-law, you'd think they'd have some kinda friction about what happened with his daughter.

In fact, the guy I cared most about was Scarecrow, and he was supposed to be the villain. His reconciliation with Peter Whistlestop was probably the emotional high point. I think one problem with the film was that there was NOT a real villain. Just a bunch of faceless "projections." No one to root against. They kinda set up Scarecrow's godfather/ uncle to be the villain, but that didn't go anywhere.

And Juno didn't seem to have much to do. She was brought in as the architect, but she spent most of her time as the psychiatrist.

All the cool stuff from the trailers didn't seem to be all that relevant to the film. The city folding back on itself and the train riding through downtown seemed largely incidental. And the bit about Juno folding mirrors on the sidewalk seemed to have no point whatsoever.

I didn't have a strong, real sense of dreaming. My dreams aren't that coherent or linear. I wasn't convinced.

I saw it in real 70MM IMAX at the Colorado Blvd IMAX theatre. I paid $17 a ticket, and for that I got a giant screen, vivid resolution, and NO crap before the movie started. It was worth every penny.

The presentation was really solid until the last quarter, when the projectionist mistakenly spliced in a reel from For Your Eyes Only.

Inception is the 2nd new film I've seen in 2010. The other was Toy Story 3. If I go back to the movies this year, it will probably be to see TS3 again, or MAYBE The Expendables.

Again, I didn't hate Inception. I enjoyed the ride... I just didn't ever develop an emotional attachment.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-18-2010, 08:33 PM:
 
Today at Regal 15 in Eugene, #3 in 35mm. Pretty good presentation except the image is off-center (shifted down and to the right). The pre-show projector has run out of red, needs a refill.

What Geoff said. While watching it I was thinking, I know this is really competent filmmaking, at least technically, but I didn't like how some of the characters were done and the "stakes" seemed like a big snooze. Blink and you'll miss Michael Caine's appearance.

The movie may bear a repeat viewing though because the concept is very interesting.

I would give it 3.5 stars but I'm deducting 0.5 star because half of Ken Watanabe's dialog is not understandable. Find an Asian actor who speaks better English. I could also add 0.5 stars just because they clearly tried very very hard with this. But they didn't knock it out of the park.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-19-2010, 03:39 AM:
 
Good review, Geoff. I agree with a lot of what you said.

quote: Geoff Jones
The presentation was really solid until the last quarter, when the projectionist mistakenly spliced in a reel from For Your Eyes Only.
Would you care to expand upon this a bit for me, please?

Anyway, I liked the movie, but the characters were perhaps a bit dull. Alfred had NO REASON to be in the movie other than Christopher Nolan was directing. Good thing Ridley Scott didn't direct or Russel Crowe would have popped up somewhere... or starred in it. And the dreams didn't seem weird enough to be dreams. When I dream it seems weird, yet normal at the same time. I think the movie will probably be better on the second viewing, but it's certainly no Dark Knight and definitely not a Memento. It may be on the level of The Prestige, but I don't remember too much about that one other than that everyone from Batman was in it.
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-19-2010, 01:25 PM:
 
quote: Geoff Jones
The presentation was really solid until the last quarter, when the projectionist mistakenly spliced in a reel from For Your Eyes Only.
Didn't A View to a Kill also start out this way? [Cool]

AJG
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-19-2010, 02:09 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
Alfred had NO REASON to be in the movie other than Christopher Nolan was directing. Good thing Ridley Scott didn't direct or Russel Crowe would have popped up somewhere... or starred in it.
Are you suggesting that had Tim Burton directed the movie that Johnny Depp would have appeared in some over-the-top makeup?
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-19-2010, 02:32 PM:
 
quote: Jonathan M. Crist
We actually have seen this memory implant secret agent stuff before.
That's like watching Star Wars and then saying "We've seen this science fiction space saga stuff before."
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-19-2010, 03:12 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
And the dreams didn't seem weird enough to be dreams.
Lots of dreams aren't all that "weird."
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-19-2010, 04:28 PM:
 
Sure, but most dreams are a bit strange.
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-20-2010, 08:24 PM:
 
quote: Geoff Jones
The presentation was really solid until the last quarter, when the projectionist mistakenly spliced in a reel from For Your Eyes Only.
quote: Joe Redifer
Would you care to expand upon this a bit for me, please?
The projectionist didn't really splice in a humvee-snowmobile-mountain-fortress-ski-chase reel from a James Bond movie... it only seemed that way.
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-20-2010, 08:33 PM:
 
Yes, I was waiting for the Bond theme... and Lynn Holly Johnson.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-20-2010, 10:21 PM:
 
Maybe Scarecrow just really likes James Bond movies and even dreams about them.

In my dreams I can hear stereo, see 3D, feel touch (and pain) and smell smells. I can often control the dreams. I either become aware that I am dreaming and start changing things, or I insist that I am dreaming to change things, mostly like making myself be somewhere else.

And, at the risk of TMI (too much information):
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle

 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-22-2010, 05:00 AM:
 
-
 
Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 07-22-2010, 07:50 AM:
 
This is a topic where I have to add something; dreams. My dreams are not usually weird at all. But I think I may have been in the movie business too long because my dreams are often subtitled. Or in English (me being a born-and-bred Finn). The oddest one so far was in Chinese (in the dream I "knew" it was Chinese, I have no idea what it really was but it did sound right) with Ensligh subtitles. Waking up from that dream was the perfect WTF moment.

Inception opens tomorrow and I have my seat reserved. With everything I've read so far I don't know if I can bear to wait until eight o'clock showtime [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-22-2010, 01:52 PM:
 
If your dreams are subtitled, they are officially weird.
 
Posted by David Alexander B (Member # 4862) on 07-22-2010, 05:36 PM:
 
well we saw it in 3DLP. 2.35 screen (only one imax in belgium and is was scrapped, what a pitty)
movie: had a hard time getting into it. since (spoilers) most action scenes are dreams, there's no "believability" in it. vs as if it was a real action/thriller movie. at least in a LETHAL WEAPON or DIE HARD you care for the action, you're "into it" because it's ''happening". here ?
i think Nolan is getting caught at his own twisting minds approach... (or should we start to say: all the great movie concepts/ideas have already be done ? and himself having put the bar so high in BB/MEM/TDK/INSOMINA/THE PRESTIGE, all (imho) masterpieces ?).Also there's been the MATRIX already done... (and its action scenes and sound were amazing).

great score by Zimmer.

but i put BATMAN/TDK/THE PRESTIGE (loved that one) well above

image: soft! or is it high def at home on 10-14ft screens that set the bar now and 2K on 70ft screens don't do it no more ?
sound: disappointed but i would say it was the theater not well equipped (not enough amp power/subs) or something else
TDK/T SALVATION/STAR TREK had all amazing sound and image presentations. but not this one.
or is NOlan's audio team changed ?
for instance the action scenes (cars chasing, bullets) had no real punch. too low (level), no dynamics.
the overal volume was too low too.
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-22-2010, 06:10 PM:
 
quote:
or instance the action scenes (cars chasing, bullets) had no real punch. too low (level), no dynamics.
the overal volume was too low too.
That last part is most likely the reason for the first parts and obviously has little to do with the director and everything to do with a 'projectionist' who is too lazy to get up off his ass and check the auditorium volume and adjust it accordingly. Some blame must also be levelled at the floor staff for not speaking up and saying "'Inception' doesn't seem loud enough."

When I started at my current location 10 years ago, everything was played on '5'. Everything. Of course, they weren't (and aren't) the only ones who do it this way but it's just not good enough to say everything is the same. As much as they like to tell you, audio levels are all over the place and need to be monitored accordingly. I started a system where now an individual volume is set for each and every feature on its first run and entered into the automation so it's set for the duration of its run. Currently, I have audio variances from 5.4 to 7.2.
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-22-2010, 09:30 PM:
 
I had a similar problem when I started at a theater a few years ago. Everything and I mean EVERYTHING was set too low. I cranked them all up to where they should have been. The next day a manager asked me... "Did you turn all the movies up?" When I told him yes he answered, "MAN they sound SO much better!"
 
Posted by David Alexander B (Member # 4862) on 07-23-2010, 05:09 AM:
 
i't a bit of luck or misluck here
terminator salvation (not even in 3DLP PCM but 35mm DD) had an amazing sound in a theater of the same cinema group.
same for STAR TREK (3DLP remarquable image btw)

but it takes only a few elderly complaining to the direction of the theater complex about sound "too loud" and voilą, ref level, level at which a feature should be listened, is screwed up
public doesn't realise there's a certan level needed to hear ALL the soundtrack of a movie (every detail etc)
(lol i confirm too watanabe should take english lessons)

i also think the bass in Inception are typical of noland's: deep (overdeep) and the subs/amps couldn't handle it
 
Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 07-24-2010, 04:29 AM:
 
I adore the deep bass. The theater sound system did handle it well, but with the soundtrack in my car and with earphones, not so much.

I can't think of anything I did't like in this movie. The car chase sequence toward the beginning started to get dull but then the *thonk* sound of a guy hitting the car windscreen woke me right up. Amazing sound, that one. And perfectly timed, too. But again, it does need sufficient volume to have the impact I imagine was the goal.

Theater was half-full (which is a very good turnout for an opening night here) and after the movie they all disappered very quickly and silently. Can be either a very good or an extremely bad sign. Obviously hoping for the former. But during the movie, no disturbance whatsoever so at least it did grip the audiende in the appropriate way.

Oh and the ending. without saying anything in the way of spoilers for those who didn't go already, I did feel a bit of "well I don't know, it's good right but perfect? How?" but the last frames kind of pulled the whole thing together for me. Is it or isn't it? Very well done.

I don't even bother with stars or numbers. I'll just stay that although the film itself wasn't sad or the ending that emotional, I did leave the theater with a little chest-pressing feeling like a sob getting out. Mind you, it didn't, but the feeling itself tells me a lot of the impact of the movie on the whole. And that it comes only after and not during the movie is the best sign. Loved it. Can't wait to go again.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 07-24-2010, 09:01 PM:
 
It's tempting to review Inception simply by saying, "it's just such a Nolan film" and leave it at that as that short statement embodies just about every complementary declaration that can be made about possibly the finest director currently working in Hollywood. A perusal of Christopher Nolan's catalogue of work - Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige and The Dark Knight - reveals not one dud, indeed it is a filmography of great distinguished bent which bridges the divide between exquisite intellectual cinema and populist multiplex fare. That he also writes his own screenplays alludes to a truly remarkable mind; the only thing more remarkable about the Memento script, for instance, is that somebody was actually able to conceive such an idea (actually by Nolan's brother, Jonathan) and then have the extraordinary gymnastic mind to to commit its complex structure to the page. Similar can be said for Inception, for although the mechanics of the script itself are less complex than that of Memento, its conceptualisation is no less profound.

Few films succeed in the presentation of high concept premises and there are few higher concepts than those which deal with the process of conceptualisation itself. This is the currency of Inception, a film which examines the notion of the birth and theft of ideas and the real costs imposed upon those who possess the technological and physical capability to trade in it. Such themes invoke palpable parallels to Videodrome with its questioning of the nature of reality and our perception of it. Although it is far from the visceral experience of David Cronenberg's 1983 magnum opus, is it too much to suggest that Inception is this generation's Videodrome?

Imbued with masterfully executed parallel-reality action sequences, sterling performances from an A-list cast and a ticking clock soundtrack driving the momentum of the film forward at a hasty clip, Nolan's ability to deliver such a high concept premise to the masses is without equal. Shoring up his cerebral journey with such bankable attributes, he guarantees the choking of multiplexes with intellectuals and action fans alike.

With repeat viewings revealing unforeseen subtleties further enriching the viewing experience, Inception stealthily deceives the casual movie-goer into an enlightening cinematic experience and demonstrates that movies can be so much more than just explosions and pretty girls - but they can have those too! This is perhaps the greatest achievement of Inception (and the handful of other films like it); indeed a cunning inception of its own kind, perhaps?

10 out of 10.
 
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 07-27-2010, 01:23 PM:
 
Nice idea, bad execution
I really didn't care for the characters on screen. Some very nice fight scenes though, because they are weird (rotating).
It didn't feel like dreams. And all dreams were about shooting and fighting. Too much shooting around hitting everything but the good guys... the van is bullet proof or something... Stupid. No suspense and it drags a bit.
It was alright and a nice watch. But no master piece. I don't get the high rating at imdb. Is it because the idea is unusual and the director is known? Main plot is lacking.
So ok movie.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-27-2010, 01:28 PM:
 
quote: Patrick de Groot
I don't get the high rating at imdb. Is it because the idea is unusual and the director is known?
It's because a lot of people disagree with you. Nothing more.
 
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 07-27-2010, 01:38 PM:
 
Too easy... Did you care for the characters? Did it have suspense? Did it feel like a dream? What did you think of the shootings all the time interrupted by explanations about the dream process? Limbo to increase the risk? All shootings because of the defense system? No wet dreams neither [Razz]
Nice watch... but no 9'ner.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-27-2010, 01:53 PM:
 
Lets just say you don't even have to go to imdb to find a bunch of people who loved the movie... you're in the minority here too and you only need to scroll up a little to see a long review that is a 10 out of 10.

Maybe I'm in a bad mood from having exams coming up, but this notion of "I don't like X so all the people who do must have some ulterior motive behind why they say they like it" is just bullshit.

And yes: I found the characters engaging, the dream parts did seem dream-like to me, and I thought the shootings were well-explained as to why they were going on.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 07-27-2010, 04:54 PM:
 
Has anyone else stumbled across the subtle clue hidden in plain sight which is present in the soundtrack over the final credits?
 
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 07-28-2010, 02:45 PM:
 
http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/screenwriter/2010/07/21/the-strange-business-of-the-imdb-250/
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 07-28-2010, 05:04 PM:
 
The problem with these lists (as with all other "audience" polls like those on radio and TV) is that they only ever reflect the particular demographic accessing that particular media. So as any kind of of serious cross section of opinion, they can be dismissed immediately. I imagine avid fans of All About Eve are not your typical IMDB patron.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-28-2010, 06:20 PM:
 
Exactly. The author assumes that the people voting for Inception are the same people voting against Twilight in the thought that the same demographics access any section of the website.

Like if I had a site where people conducted polls, you could conclude that the political polls were mostly voted on by teenagers because you noticed that kids voted in the "Who's your favorite pop star?" sections.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-30-2010, 12:54 AM:
 
The video below makes fun of the ending. If you haven't seen Inception, the video won't make any sense and you'll be wasting your time watching it. But for those who have seen it:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1939234
 
Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 07-30-2010, 11:23 AM:
 
re: IMDb "Top 250".

This is a list of top rated films, not a list of the "Top 250" films ever made. That's a major distinction.

I generally rate a film within it's genre and based on whether the film delivered what it set out to provide. For example, I give "Con Air" a 9/10. It's an action film that doesn't pretend to be anything more. It's one of those unapologetic "here's 5 minutes of exposition to brief the viewer on the scenario, and now - 'hang on on to your seats!'" movies. Does my 9/10 (would probably have been 10/10, but Colm Meany is an automatic -1) rating mean that I think "Con Air" is the second best movie ever made. God no.

Also, if you look at the number of votes for each of the films, it's clear that IMDb is using the average rating. Eg., Shawshank has 500k+ votes for a 9.1, while INCEPTION has only 97k votes for a 9.1.

There's also the issue of who is voting. Clearly, it's not generally "film" people. It's fandom, e.g. "American Idle" voters.
 
Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 07-30-2010, 03:40 PM:
 
*LOL* at the video link Joe posted [Big Grin]

I just came out of my second viewing of Inception. Glad to say, the crowd was still big and very, very silent during the movie. I listened at the end, I wanted to hear if the reaction from the others was as mine had been the first time. Great moment, I'll tell you that! There were sme disbelieving barks of laughter, and the collective release of a held breath. Obviously, it works!

I do love it when a movie does that, not only for myself but more in a professional capacity. Movies like this do our industry good, or at least fix some of what the likes of Clash of the Titans 3D ruined.

What I wanted to watch for especially were the blurry parts, the parts of the picture that seem oddly unfocused at times. I still can't figure out how they're used but I do know they're intentional since the subtitles are very much in focus throughout. Well. This just might give me an excuse to watch it yeat again...
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-31-2010, 12:14 AM:
 
Saw this at LieMAX, AMC Barrett Parkway, Atlanta. The auditorium used to be a regular 35MM screen. It is a huge auditorium. The funny thing is the old 35MM screen image was probably just as big as a letterboxed image on the MiniMAX screen. And before the movie starts, the MiniMAX screen looks fugly. It looks like a temporary screen setup.

I had a 6 dollar discount AMC pass plus $4 surcharge. So at least, I did not pay full price . I will give the presentation this -it was very sharp with a good lighting level, and superb sound. What I don't understand is couldn't they achieve almost the same kind of result with good ole 70MM? and regular 70MM would be cheaper, wouldn't it?

Movie wasn't as great as I expected. But I still liked it. Movie wasn't slow paced like I expected. But it wasn't as mindblowingly innovative either as the themes have been revisited in big hits in the last decade.

Good to see no Shia LeBouf in a role like the Gordon Lewitt or Leo's. Even Juno didn't annoy.

A pretty decent summer movie that won't be classic caliber in my opinion.
 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 08-05-2010, 04:15 PM:
 
Like Elise I noticed the audience became very quiet immediately after the movie began and there were neither comments nor any chatter during the next two and a half hours - very unusual. They liked the ending and left the theatre smiling.

Good acting, many nice ideas (zero gravity scene), an above-average Hans Zimmer score, and the filmmaker is not scared to leave some open questions, which is a good thing in my opinion.

I don't care for the shallow depth-of-field, shooting wide open approach in anamorphic, and actors walking out of focus distract me. I saw a 35mm print (dubbed) on a 55ft. screen and as others have said, the image looked very soft. Nearly all long shots, aerial or not, CGI or not, lacked definition. Couldn't spot any 65mm-originated footage, which was easy in THE INTERNATIONAL (rooftop scene at the end). Closeups and mediums shots were very sharp with a lot of skin and clothing detail. (Projection was not to blame...)

All in all, it was good entertainment, maybe a bit long on action that didn't really advance the story (shooting at the van, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" mountain sequence).
 
Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 08-16-2010, 12:35 AM:
 
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. One of DiCaprios' best performances. I did not get bored and I loved the way tension was gradually building up even until the end of the movie. I enjoyed the action scenes and I only thought once that I am watching the Matrix at the hotel corridor tumbling zero gravity scene but still it was an excellent movie and a must see. I will see it again.

Sound mixing has got to be one of the best I heard lately and the score is ohver rewarding .

Demetris
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-16-2010, 10:16 AM:
 
This was the most original concept to come out of Hollywood in a really long time. I particularly like how they set up the idea of extraction. And just as I was trying to wrap my imagination around all of the possibilities that would come from extraction, they take you in the direction of inception. Very clever. Well written, well acted, great score and sound editing, amazing visuals, it was just a great movie.
 
Posted by Matt Skilton (Member # 5288) on 08-18-2010, 05:42 PM:
 
Seen it twice now and absolutely love it. The film just raises more and more questions and it feels like one of the shortest 2-and-a-half-hour long films I've ever seen.

I do find it interesting as to why they've filmed it the way they have (i.e soft focus, out of focus etc). When I was doing a screen check with our 35mm prints, I thought maybe I didn't focus it quite right (especially as one of our scope lens is a bit crap) but having seen it properly (with me not doing the projection, haha) and in both Digital and IMAX format, it's definitely the film and I'm guessing intentional?? I know Chris Nolan very carefully considers the lens' that he uses and may be it's just to give it that 'dream-like' quality, perhaps?
 
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 08-24-2010, 06:22 PM:
 
Finally got aroung to seeing this. (Though I'd wait a few weeks for the crowds to die down a bit.)
Interesting IMAX presentation, impressed with the sound, less so with the image quality. (there's one scene where it keeps cutting back and forth between close-ups of Cillian Murphy, and Tom Berenger and the image quality is dire).

Interest movie, enjoyed it more that Dark Knight which I thought was overrated.

quote: Stu Jamieson
Has anyone else stumbled across the subtle clue hidden in plain sight which is present in the soundtrack over the final credits?
I take it you mean the song playing over the later half of the credits, because I did wonder about that too.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 08-24-2010, 09:52 PM:
 
^ Yep, that's it. What are your thoughts on it, Michael?
 
Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 08-26-2010, 12:34 AM:
 
I saw it four times so far. It's one of those films you HAVE to see it over and over and over. Every time I am impressed on the way the score is being used to really enchance the scene (e.g rolling corridor). The ending can be interpreted in various ways Stu but I think we should not get into it until the movie is six months old. I really do hope there is NO sequel for the movie is great the way it is.
Demetris
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-29-2011, 07:54 PM:
 
This is pretty cool and so is this.
 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-29-2011, 08:31 PM:
 
Yes!
Marion Cotillard also played Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose which she won an Oscar for and she sang that song in the movie!!
 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 06-28-2012, 05:47 PM:
 

It has been 395 days since the last post.


 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2