Thanks, ponceleon.

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
fucking *quality

I'll answer up here because I'm scared of the quote monster;

Pacing. The film is 148 minutes long. And it does move quickly. Too quickly. Pacing is very important in a film so it's a legitimate point to bring up. Nolan actually has a lot of pack in to this film but his exposition is crass. We absolutely fly through Cobb's backstory (Ariadne is only there to reveal this which is why she's another non-character) when a better director would reveal it slowly and with more effect. Particularly as it's the hoary old dead wife plot. I just think he wants to set it up super quick so he can get on with the action and then finally use it as his emotional capper. Also the egregious use of music on dialogue scenes suggests he doesn't really want us focusing on what's being said too much. Why not? Because the dialogue is crap and he just wants it all done and dusted so he can get to the inception action scenes.

I just mentioned the maze because Cobb makes a deal about this and then it has no further role in the film (I did enjoy Ariadne holding up her maze prop). But there are other things you could also point to. In the end it was glossed over. This was lazy and I don't like lazy writing where the ideas aren't joined up or followed through.

I don't have a huge issue with Mr Caine but again it smacks of laziness. Nolan worked with him on the Batman films (and there's Murphy as well) and using him again for a very small role doesn't make much sense to me. That's a moot point to be honest but it was one more thing I personally found irksome.

Re proffering students for dodgy illegal activity - I think that's clear. Does she not have parents and a family? Is he not concerned for her safety? After all people with guns ARE after Leo. The authorities ARE on his trail. I'm for suspending disbelief but this was obviously ridiculous. Which includes the lack of contextual setup regarding how the tech has come to be and it's place in the real world. That's why you should give a fuck. Even The Matrix addresses this and did it very well. The social and cultural impact alone would be interesting to hint at but again Nolan can't be arsed. Nolan only has one scene with the guys "who come to wake up". It's jarring and that's why I'm bothered about it.

It's full of these problems that pull you out of the film and this is because he's purely focused on the technical, procedural aspects of extraction/inception. I find that focus means everything else goes to hell. Most other sci-fi (and most of it average to bad) I've seen aren't this wonky. I CAN and happily do suspend disbelief. But this one kept poking me in the eye.

But the main reason I'm bothered about this film is it's feeling of utter shallowness. I can see people enjoying this as pure hokum, as a film about the procedural aspects of dream invasion.
But as a film with interesting themes, memorable characters or even or a single interesting bit of dialogue? Inception fails at all of these. It was a film about nothing.

>> ^spoco2:

Holy crap that's a lot of anger! A few points about your points:
I don't get your issues about pacing. Some films are slow moving, considered pieces, this isn't. That doesn't make it any worse or better than films of that ilk, just different.
Why do you really care about the maze she makes? What does it matter, really, ANY maze she designed you would have issues with, so why show it? It's not the point...
Why do you have issue with Michael Caine being in it? And why shouldn't he be offering up students? Does it need to be explained in some large exposition to you, he used to also have some dodgy life, he understands what it can be like, he thinks it's liberating for people... who cares? Why can't you fill in some holes yourself?
Also, who the F ck should care how or why this tech exists... that's not the point of good sci fi, the point is... what might happen if X existed, or Y happened... that's what sci fi is good at, you don't need to have yet more exposition to explain how or why this tech exists, it just does in this world... let's move on. Films are better if some things are left unexplained and left open to interpretation, if you feel the need for every little nuance to have its back story explained you're going to be only watching 4hour plus movies, or normal length ones where almost nothing interesting happens.
Myself and the fried I went to see the movie with had no issue following the plot either and were surprised that anyone really could be.
I get that you didn't like it, but some of your reasons for not seem strange and I'm sure could be levelled at movies that you like too.
And, hey, I like Total Recall, I really do, it too is a great bit of what is and isn't a dream. But hey, it has its issues too.
>> ^Deano:
Hello! Just back this minute from seeing the film. I have a few comments to make which may involve SPOILERS.
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS

Holy crap that's a lot of anger! A few points about your points:
* I don't get your issues about pacing. Some films are slow moving, considered pieces, this isn't. That doesn't make it any worse or better than films of that ilk, just different.
* Why do you really care about the maze she makes? What does it matter, really, ANY maze she designed you would have issues with, so why show it? It's not the point...
* Why do you have issue with Michael Caine being in it? And why shouldn't he be offering up students? Does it need to be explained in some large exposition to you, he used to also have some dodgy life, he understands what it can be like, he thinks it's liberating for people... who cares? Why can't you fill in some holes yourself?
* Also, who the F*ck should care how or why this tech exists... that's not the point of good sci fi, the point is... what might happen if X existed, or Y happened... that's what sci fi is good at, you don't need to have yet more exposition to explain how or why this tech exists, it just does in this world... let's move on. Films are better if some things are left unexplained and left open to interpretation, if you feel the need for every little nuance to have its back story explained you're going to be only watching 4hour plus movies, or normal length ones where almost nothing interesting happens.
* Myself and the fried I went to see the movie with had no issue following the plot either and were surprised that anyone really could be.

I get that you didn't like it, but some of your reasons for not seem strange and I'm sure could be levelled at movies that you like too.

And, hey, I like Total Recall, I really do, it too is a great bit of what is and isn't a dream. But hey, it has its issues too.

>> ^Deano:

Hello! Just back this minute from seeing the film. I have a few comments to make which may involve SPOILERS.
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS

Hello! Just back this minute from seeing the film. I have a few comments to make which may involve SPOILERS.

SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS


Hmmm.

The short review is - what a load of disappointing and quite frankly tedious crap.

Oh Nolan why are you getting worse with each film? Who honestly thinks LDC is an actor with enough charisma to hold a film like this? He really wasn't enough for this role. Why the fuck does Nolan insist on having that thuddingly monotonous soundtrack pounding over virtually every single scene of dialogue? Why not give the actors some space instead of making it feel rushed and forcing them into layering soundbites for only the sake of exposition? Why not make this about the performances rather than worship the god of pacing? (it certainly didn't feel like 148 minutes I'll give him that).

Sorry, that girl he hires? Where was that maze she designed? Oh fuck that, we want a shortcut now. And why is Leo's dad (Michael Caine again for some reason) offering up students to do dodgy work? And what was she studying? Extraction 101? What world is this that dreams can be hacked in this way? This is never explained. Should we expect to see the flying cars out the window? Has cancer been eradicated in this world? How many other people are doing this shit?

And Leo with a bad case of dead wife syndrome (DWS). You know if you want to keep pulling that trick you might want to make it better than it was in Memento. Which is hard to do. Mainly because Guy Pearce is a better actor who makes you feel something about his character. Sympathy, disgust, shock, whatever. Something. LDC is like balsa wood in comparison.

But maybe I'm being too hard on Leo. Maybe the problem is with the script. I was surprised to find I had no problems following what was supposed to be a twisty, layered plot. I didn't see multiple plots criss-crossing and tying my mind up in knots - you want that? Try a James Ellroy novel. I still find Memento a mind-bending watch. The dream within a dream scenario is as hard to imagine as a box within another box. And here that's all that Nolan is concerned about. He loves the techie aspects of this. How does box C behave in box B. Oh B is jiggling about so C is getting all shook up. And do we get to care much about the inception itself? Nope. I thought this was a big missed opportunity to play the complex mind-games required to crack the subject. But in between explosions there wasn't much time for that.

Nolan has become a slightly more sophisticated version of the recent fanboy directors. But he's still thoroughly crass and obvious and doesn't have the talent to explore the spaces between what initially seem like promising ideas. But dreams? Hell, I enjoyed the more straightforward japes of Dreamcape and that was a long time ago.

But I am surprised that so many love this - I'd ask that you think about the characters. State what was memorable about them and what made them interesting. What did this film actually say that was of substance? Strip away the artifice and what are you actually left with?

I saw Total Recall, again, a few days ago. It was better than this.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'do, not, dont, blink, keep, going, eyes, lids, dry, nervous, talk, interview, camera, face' to 'Michael Caine, do, not, dont, blink, keep, going, eyes, lids, talk, interview, camera, face' - edited by poolcleaner

I'll be seeing a bunch of films at TIFF. Right now my most anticipated films of the festival are probably Perrier's Bounty (written by Mark O'Rowe, who wrote Intermission and Boy A), Harry Brown (a revenge movie starring Michael Caine! How can that NOT be awesome?), Enter the Void (new film from Gaspar Noe), Ong Bak 2, A Serious Man, and Air Doll (new film from Hirokazu Kore-eda).

Here we go again, the never-ending whiners' argument. UK actors always cast as villains by Hollywood? Puhh-leaz.

Forgot your own cinema legend Laurence Olivier, did you? Oh, we're in the 21st century now? What about Jack Bauer? Huh? Forgot Hugh Laurie, America's No.1 male sex-symbol, too? Christian fucking Bale? Gerard Butler? James McAvoy? Starting to remember some, are you now? Jude Law. Idris Elba. Sir Ian McKellen. Patrick Stewart. Ralph Fiennes. Michael Caine. Clive Owen. Ewan McGregor. I bet I could name thrice as much if I started googling.

If you want to whine about Brits occasionally being cast as baddies, first acknowledge that Arabs, Russians, and Chinese have long had it way worse. Wankers.

Dude, Prestige rocked me. Chris Nolan directing Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, and Michael Caine - doesn't get much better!

Oh, and this guy sucked. Needn't even be said.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ruprecht, dirty rotten scoundrels, steve martin, michael caine, trident' to 'Ruprecht, dirty rotten scoundrels, steve martin, michael caine, trident, cork, fork' - edited by youdiejoe

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ruprecht, dirty rotten scoundrels, steve martin, michael caine, pitchfork' to 'Ruprecht, dirty rotten scoundrels, steve martin, michael caine, trident' - edited by youdiejoe

It's Michael Caine. You forgot the i

Great clip

Just in case, *requeue

Goes well with the 6 part Michael Caine acting in film lessons that was posted recently.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Michael-Caine-Acting-in-Film-Part-1of-6

Hey that was a great sift! Thanks for posting it!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
That was great, but I want that custom player that they tell you how to make in sifttalk: http://www.videosift.com/talk/How-to-create-a-Custom-Player-in-YouTube

I think there should be a pointer to that in the VS FAQ.


Oxdottir- Thanks for making me a better Sifter. I'll achieve that lowly bronze someday. Thanks for the vote too.

Why would this myth be in doubt? Michael Caine did it first.

Jaws: The Revenge (1987) is JAWS 4

http://imdb.com/title/tt0093300/

Year Result Award Category/Recipient(s)
1988 Nominated Saturn Award Best Actress
Lorraine Gary

Razzie Awards
Year Result Award Category/Recipient(s)
1988 Won Razzie Award Worst Visual Effects
Henry Millar (special effects supervisor)

Nominated Razzie Award Worst Actor
"Bruce the shark"

Worst Actress
Lorraine Gary

Worst Director
Joseph Sargent

Worst Picture
Joseph Sargent

Worst Screenplay
Michael De Guzman

Worst Supporting Actor
Michael Caine

qruel