Inception

[Cognisant]

You. Must. See. This.

//May contain spoilers.

I love the premise (kudos to the director for omitting how it works) but after watching the film I couldn't help wondering about everything they didn't do, not that the movie didn't adequately explore the premise, it's just such conceptually rich territory I reckon they could make a dozen sequels and still have possibilities to explore.

That said, there's some plot holes.
How come the inheritance guy didn't recognise his "subconscious guardians" when he woke up, wouldn't it seem at all strange that the occupants of the cabin just so happened to manifest in his dream, and remember a major part of his dream was realising there are extractors in his mind and that the information about his father supposedly came from counter-extracting information from... oh hang, that was all supposedly dreamt up, ooh wow complex.
Okay away, second plot hole (hopefully more valid than the first) why can't extractors impose their subconscious upon the dream, that is to say if you're fighting someone's subconscious army, what's to stop you from simply overwriting it with your own subconscious, how would that be different to changing the dream environment?

 

[Vegard Pompey]

Would see this if I was stuck in a place that actually had a cinema.

 

[Wish]

What ticked me off was how obscenely boring the dreams were. Why are this guy's subconscious protectors CIA clones? Why do these dreams take place in such mundane places?

I know my subconscious would be more creative than that!

EDIT: Really? Guys with fucking guns are protecting you? Give me Voldemort and 15 dragons any day

EDIT2: Not only are they guys with fucking guns, they're guys with guns whose bullets can't hit anything other than a guy that didn't need to be there in the first place!

 

[Deleted member 1424]

You should watch Paprika Wish, they did a much better job in that regard.
Some of the elements of Inception almost seemed stolen from there actually.

I've always liked the idea of achieving functional immortality just by tweaking our perception of time. It's something we all can do via dreams, mediation, and hallucinogens, so it some senses it seems more plausible than body modification. However I thought it was unlikely that the passage of time would be so consistent in dreams. Plus at some level of the dream within the dream wouldn't the brain burn out? This could be compared to overclocking a cpu with the similar risks; there has to definitely be a limit.

I thought the ending was a bit weak though; I wanted the wife to be right. It's always fun when the crazy person turns out to be the only one actually sane.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

of course.....

Spoiler

 

[Cavallier]

^Ha. Yes. That was my only issue with this movie. Then again I suspect Cobb gets shot at a lot so maybe having his kids visit him isn't such a good idea. Also, as a criminal on the run you'd have to smuggle the kids around the world if you wanted to visit them. I'm positive that if he's likely to get arrested the moment he steps onto U.S. soil then the government would be keeping tabs on where his children are going especially if they travel overseas. Best to not involve the children in his life at all if possible until he's no longer considered a criminal.

I was a little disappointed with the mundane environments of the dreams. However, as a foreign mind working with an unsuspecting mind I'd want to implicitly understand the rules of the dream I'm in. It would be easiest to have a dream-scape that matched our own real world rules.

why can't extractors impose their subconscious upon the dream, that is to say if you're fighting someone's subconscious army, what's to stop you from simply overwriting it with your own subconscious, how would that be different to changing the dream environment?

Hmmm this is an interesting concept but I think I see a few problems with it:

Okay, we know that you don't change the dream environment during the progression of the dream because then the subject's subconscious (let's say you are the subject) realizes something is wrong, recognizes the extractor (let's say I am the extractor) as foreign to itself, and I get attacked by your subconscious.* Say I then retaliate by imposing my own subconscious to defend myself. How do we tell the difference between your subconscious and my subconscious? Your subconscious is attacking me because it senses me as a foreigner and is threatened by that. How will I know that my subconscious will recognize you as a foreigner and attack you and your subconscious in turn since I know I'm in a dream while you do not? And how would I go about controlling my subconscious? If I have an accomplice how do I keep my subconscious from attacking that person as well?

Even if this tactic were something that could be effectively pulled off you wouldn't want to use it most of the time anyway. Like any other sort of heist the key is to keep as low a profile as possible so that you can get in and out with little to no resistance. Having to do battle means you've already lost the game unless there are extreme circumstances such as the one outlined in the movie.

Also, say I somehow managed through force of will to completely replace your subconscious with my own. (Yours disappears and mine takes its place.) That still doesn't do me any good as the extractor because whatever secrets you have are now inaccessible. The secrets in the safe are only there because your subconscious was hiding them there. Now the secrets in the safe would be my own.

*I really enjoyed the invention of a Forger. I'm disappointed that the movie didn't further explore what exactly makes somebody a Forger. I assume a Forger is somebody who is devious enough in their thought processes to be able to make foreign objects in somebody else's dream without them noticing.

 

[Cognisant]

Your subconscious is attacking me because it senses me as a foreigner and is threatened by that. How will I know that my subconscious will recognize you as a foreigner and attack you and your subconscious in turn since I know I'm in a dream while you do not? And how would I go about controlling my subconscious? If I have an accomplice how do I keep my subconscious from attacking that person as well?

My subconscious and I have talked in the past, not in words of course, it can't speak in words, but it listens to me, and self-hypnotic techniques could be used to reign it in, although this goes both ways, if it wants to tell me something it can, and it will not be subtle about it. I imagine if you were in my mind it wouldn’t bother attacking you directly, no it would probably just kill me, catch is I don’t wake up when I’m killed in my dreams (it happens a lot) I just become lucid. Now instead of a mook army to deal with you’ve got a hyperconscious Cognisant, which sounds bad but when you realise having the subconscious in the forefront of my mind makes my emotions, drives (like hunger) and my libido, many times more prominent, well frankly you don’t want to hang around.

Now if you got trapped in limbo with me like that… well, if I’m just playing you’ll be okay, you may even learn to play with me, but if I become curious about what makes you tick, well then it’s going to be an all out battle just to keep your ego intact, and if you fail, I wake up with two bodies

Plus at some level of the dream within the dream wouldn't the brain burn out? This could be compared to overclocking a cpu with the similar risks; there has to definitely be a limit.

I don't think their brains were being overclocked, instead the ram/processing normally used to maintain an up-to-date model of reality was being repurposed, i.e. the deeper into the dream they went, the further from reality they were, and the more abstract their perceived reality became, and abstraction is effectively informational compression.

You can live through a day, which takes 24 hours, or you can dream through a day in 15 minutes because when it's abstract the mind just skips all the time when nothing eventful was occurring, of course you still remember the time that didn't technically occur because your subconscious just created memories directly. So when they went into limbo they weren’t consciously there, instead their conscious mind was effectively asleep (dead) and their now free subconscious is creating memories like a writer putting content into a book, following a narrative as it were, because the conscious mind is entirely derived from the subconscious, i.e. our egos are utterly contrived.

Supposedly Zen uses this affect in a external way, that by limiting oneself to a single, very specific action, one can "be" what they would otherwise "do", enabling their brain to bring its full computational power to bear.

 

[Dormouse]

About the dreams being boring, I believe some studies have actually shown that most dreams are pretty mundane, we just happen to remember the extraordinary ones. So that rang pretty true for me.

Limbo seems pretty awesome to me. I don't get why so many people would eschew the chance to live as many lifetimes as they please... Imagine re-entering limbo with the same person multiple times, living out sagas as partners, enemies, etc. The possibilities are pretty epic.

Plus the whole mind-bending architecture thing was in no way adequatly explored. Where are the floating ponds? Upside-down waterfalls? Giant lava-lamps? Think, if you could fiddle with light and have the skyscrapers cast shadows upon the clouds, or something, the effect would be crazy.

but if I become curious about what makes you tick

Isn't that bound to happen eventually?

I really enjoyed the invention of a Forger. I'm disappointed that the movie didn't further explore what exactly makes somebody a Forger. I assume a Forger is somebody who is devious enough in their thought processes to be able to make foreign objects in somebody else's dream without them noticing.

Also this.

 

[Cognisant]

Isn't that bound to happen eventually?

I wouldn't be entirely devoid of self control

And there's plenty of fun to be had digging through your conscious thoughts and memories before I start heading deeper.

 

[Cavallier]

My subconscious and I have talked in the past, not in words of course, it can't speak in words, but it listens to me, and self-hypnotic techniques could be used to reign it in, although this goes both ways, if it wants to tell me something it can, and it will not be subtle about it. I imagine if you were in my mind it wouldn’t bother attacking you directly, no it would probably just kill me, catch is I don’t wake up when I’m killed in my dreams (it happens a lot) I just become lucid. Now instead of a mook army to deal with you’ve got a hyperconscious Cognisant, which sounds bad but when you realise having the subconscious in the forefront of my mind makes my emotions, drives (like hunger) and my libido, many times more prominent, well frankly you don’t want to hang around.

Now if you got trapped in limbo with me like that… well, if I’m just playing you’ll be okay, you may even learn to play with me, but if I become curious about what makes you tick, well then it’s going to be an all out battle just to keep your ego intact, and if you fail, I wake up with two bodies

Ah, you've changed the rules and this is where I suddenly realize we've been working towards cross purposes isn't it?

 

[Dormouse]

And there's plenty of fun to be had digging through your conscious thoughts and memories before I start heading deeper.

See, but you'd have to assume your counterpart would be doing the same. In which case it could potentially become something like an arms race for phobias and childhood traumas and other exploitable secrets.

Or, instead, your defence mechanisms might just get better and better until you'd both be knee deep in each others delusions, fabricated memories and denial.

Then again, all this would depend on the mind you're invading. Or sharing space with, I guess.

 

[Cognisant]

Theists would be easy prey, anyone who perceives suffering as something innately negative and to be avoided could be coaxed into surrendering their ego, metaphorically being smothered to death with kindness.

An absurdist would have the easiest time surviving, their mental flexibility giving them access to all sorts of tricks, but they're more likely to lose track of reality or simply dissolve into white noise, like static on a TV screen, it would all be a matter of self control.

A life affirming nihilist would be like Agent Smith in the third Matrix film, practically viral, the self is after all only an idea (a self that knows it's only an idea), and if that endlessly self propagating ego doesn’t have any beliefs to cause cognitive dissonance it can always find shelter in the cognitive dissonance caused by the beliefs of others. The original ego would be strong enough to maintain control, but the ego-virus will always be there in the subconscious, so the conscious ego would effectively be fighting its own subconscious for survival, and that can’t last forever.

I wonder how Neo fought off Smith, was he just that stubborn?
Or did he have something, another idea, a cure… I'm worried about that.

 

[Jennywocky]

I thought the ending was a bit weak though; I wanted the wife to be right. It's always fun when the crazy person turns out to be the only one actually sane.

Meh. Like it hasn't been done before... three zillion times.

I thought it was a strong ending, and a non-conventional one. Instead of specifying one point of view to be right and offering cheap closure that way, Nolan let the story linger so that the audience would have to wrestle with endless ambiguity and even strongly insinuated that the 'reality of Cobb's life' was not even the right question to be asking.

 

[Dormouse]

I found the ending of the film extremely satisfying. Ambiguity is fun, and I'm convinced I can get a good read on people just through knowing whether they expected the top to drop or not.

even strongly insinuated that the 'reality of Cobb's life' was not even the right question to be asking.

What question would you be asking, then?

I'm generally torn between thirsting for truth and just wanting a satisfactory illusion.

I wonder how Neo fought off Smith, was he just that stubborn?
Or did he have something, another idea, a cure… I'm worried about that.

Well, based on what you said earlier it would have to be some way to eliminate cognitive dissonance. Could be some mantra embracing paradox, could be some belief so simple as to eliminate all possible contradiction. Maybe it was just a madmans confidence.

I dunno.

...

So, I was thinking of alternative applications of that little dream-box, and the possibilities are pretty scary. I mean, I guess it depends how many people one could support.

Think if ever one was used in something like a prison. Every inmate could be hooked up to some central dream where a disaster could be programmed to kill them all. They'd end up stewing in each other's subconscious, which could potentially be one of those 'worse than death' punishments. Though I guess realistic application of something like that would depend on the cost of sedatives.

Plus I bet this would be useful for therapists. (Has anyone seen the movie Cell? Something like that, only making sense.) Whether or whether not dreams actually reflect anything on us, access to the subconscious would surely be useful.

I wonder if this could be used to accelerate the learning process of certain skills? Practice time goes up for each dream level, plus if it was anything dangerous you'd be running no real risk.

 

[bumsyspin]

What ticked me off was how obscenely boring the dreams were. Why are this guy's subconscious protectors CIA clones? Why do these dreams take place in such mundane places?

I know my subconscious would be more creative than that!

EDIT: Really? Guys with fucking guns are protecting you? Give me Voldemort and 15 dragons any day

EDIT2: Not only are they guys with fucking guns, they're guys with guns whose bullets can't hit anything other than a guy that didn't need to be there in the first place!

Agreed, for a movie about dreams, it could've been a lot more imaginative.

About the dreams being boring, I believe some studies have actually shown that most dreams are pretty mundane, we just happen to remember the extraordinary ones. So that rang pretty true for me.

It's still a movie whose job is to entertain.

Plus the whole mind-bending architecture thing was in no way adequatly explored. Where are the floating ponds? Upside-down waterfalls? Giant lava-lamps? Think, if you could fiddle with light and have the skyscrapers cast shadows upon the clouds, or something, the effect would be crazy.

Exactly. It was such a tease after whats-her-name played around with her dream.

Made me want to get back into lucid dreaming, though.

Here's my review for those that are interested. First of many, I hope...

 

[bumsyspin]

You. Must. See. This.

//May contain spoilers.

I love the premise (kudos to the director for omitting how it works) but after watching the film I couldn't help wondering about everything they didn't do, not that the movie didn't adequately explore the premise, it's just such conceptually rich territory I reckon they could make a dozen sequels and still have possibilities to explore.

That said, there's some plot holes.
How come the inheritance guy didn't recognise his "subconscious guardians" when he woke up, wouldn't it seem at all strange that the occupants of the cabin just so happened to manifest in his dream

It's my understanding that we dream about people around us all the time, particularly whatever was in our short-term / sensory memory (according to one theory).

, and remember a major part of his dream was realising there are extractors in his mind

Just because you become lucid in a dream does not mean you remember it when you wake up.

and that the information about his father supposedly came from counter-extracting information from... oh hang, that was all supposedly dreamt up, ooh wow complex.
Okay away, second plot hole (hopefully more valid than the first) why can't extractors impose their subconscious upon the dream, that is to say if you're fighting someone's subconscious army, what's to stop you from simply overwriting it with your own subconscious, how would that be different to changing the dream environment?

This was somewhat explained in the movie but only partially, so I'd call it a somewhat-valid criticism. In other dreams, you can do what you want, but if you are too obvious the projections will catch on to you and try to kill you or whatever. Obviously this is already happening. However they also said the dream world will collapse (I think?), and that would be the end of their mission.

 

[bumsyspin]

Meh. Like it hasn't been done before... three zillion times.

I thought it was a strong ending, and a non-conventional one. Instead of specifying one point of view to be right and offering cheap closure that way, Nolan let the story linger so that the audience would have to wrestle with endless ambiguity and even strongly insinuated that the 'reality of Cobb's life' was not even the right question to be asking.

Exactly, for all we know, Mal could be right. To quote myself:

If anything shows the strength of the screenplay, it is the conception of the paradox theory: Inception was made to be an impossible staircase. It was crafted in such a way that there red herrings whether we walk up towards the idea that it is reality, or down towards the dream theory.

Here's a list of random theories that are entertaining:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/.../167276283?p=1

 

[snafupants]

the special effects, the originality of the premise, the injection of ineffable concepts onto a visually presentable medium, the layered plot and concomitant interpretations, the impeccable, hammering soundtrack, and the slick acting... *hugs inception* so much more could be said. three interrelated conjectures why the attendant passengers (i.e., the prominent characters) were not recognized by fischer after inception: he was heavily sedated; his memory centers were down during the dream; and cobb, arthur, eames, and so forth were most likely not appearing in the dream as their corporal selves - remember inception has to be subtle. much of the action was in all likelihood very boring (i.e., gradual mental shifts by robert) but had to be theatrically personified to convey the scope and implications to the viewer. christopher nolan is an expert at catering to mass moviegoers and viewers who want to ponder the meaning days, weeks, months, and even years after. the movie seemed fifteen minutes long to me.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

I was actually pretty disappointed by the movie. I admit I found the plot intriguing and way better than that of your average big-budget Hollywood summer blockbuster although it didn't make perfect sense, and the soundtrack was delightfully overdramatic.

I had two major issues with the movie. First of all, the characters. The cast was extremely bland and I found it hard to give a damn about any of them. Secondly, the action scenes. To me, action scenes are like guitar solos; obligatory to a certain genre, but 99% of the time they just fucking suck. That climax felt at least five hours long.

 

[snafupants]

^ that rhapsody of mine was begging for dissenters. and while your opinion is beautiful, numerous critics and thinkers from all walks of life are at loggerheads with your conclusion about the film. seriously, is one of your main contentions that the film does not make perfect sense?!? neither does life. if you yearn for a movie without action, go see 84 charing cross road.

 

[TheHmmmm]

Meh. Like it hasn't been done before... three zillion times.

I thought it was a strong ending, and a non-conventional one. Instead of specifying one point of view to be right and offering cheap closure that way, Nolan let the story linger so that the audience would have to wrestle with endless ambiguity and even strongly insinuated that the 'reality of Cobb's life' was not even the right question to be asking.

The best part about the ending was how many people in the theater it pissed off. Honestly, I saw the black screen coming, but the guy who yells "Come on, what the fuck!" is always hilarious.

I don't like the theories being thrown around it though. I particularly don't understand how any viewer comes to the conclusion that the whole thing was a dream. Deprives so many integral variables of the story of their meaning, which wouldn't be impressive, it would be stupid.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

^ that rhapsody of mine was begging for dissenters. and while your opinion is beautiful, numerous critics and thinkers from all walks of life are at loggerheads with your conclusion about the film. seriously, is one of your main contentions that the film does not make perfect sense?!? neither does life. if you yearn for a movie without action, go see 84 charing cross road.

I didn't mean to say that the movie not making perfect sense was a huge issue for me; I didn't name it as one of the two major flaws which really made the movie disappoint me.

I do not yearn for a movie without action, I yearn for a movie with action done right. Even though Nolan had previously disappointed me in this regard, with the Batman films, a friend of mine said that Inception's action scenes were much better and with the concept of the movie in mind I thought that might just be the case.

 

[Jennywocky]

The best part about the ending was how many people in the theater it pissed off. Honestly, I saw the black screen coming, but the guy who yells "Come on, what the fuck!" is always hilarious.

My son (an INTP) groaned and said, "I *knew* it -- I knew that would happen!" .. but he still loved it and will see it again in the cheap theaters because he's still trying to grasp everything.

Again, people who get mad at an ending like this one (which is entirely appropriate in a movie that philosophically addresses the nature of reality) are actually missing the main thrust of the movie. It was never about determining what was "real" (and Cobb's obsession with what was real throughout much of the movie never really did him any good)... it was just about Cobb determining what "mattered."

I don't like the theories being thrown around it though. I particularly don't understand how any viewer comes to the conclusion that the whole thing was a dream.

I didn't get that either. To me, that's just smaller minds who can't handle ambiguity trying to make things more clear for themselves.

Deprives so many integral variables of the story of their meaning, which wouldn't be impressive, it would be stupid.

Yes, and the movie makes clear how ambiguous a "dream state" is anyway -- all the guys sleeping in the basement, are they truly asleep or is the world we call real their dream? We have no way to answer the question, but we're left with assuming that things matter no matter what is a dream and what is not; and in fact catharsis (and heightened self-awareness) was occurring within what we knew were dreams, and it carries back to whatever other realities there are. So obviously dream states are not less authentic.

I do not yearn for a movie without action, I yearn for a movie with action done right. Even though Nolan had previously disappointed me in this regard, with the Batman films, a friend of mine said that Inception's action scenes were much better and with the concept of the movie in mind I thought that might just be the case.

I was fine with the action in both Batman movies and this movie -- I think if you went to them with expectations for an "action" movie, that was your first mistake. Why? Because they weren't action movies, even if they were disguised and/or promoted as action movies. They're all catharsis/psychological exploration movies, as are all of Nolan's work.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

I was fine with the action in both Batman movies and this movie -- I think if you went to them with expectations for an "action" movie, that was your first mistake. Why? Because they weren't action movies, even if they were disguised and/or promoted as action movies. They're all catharsis/psychological exploration movies, as are all of Nolan's work.

That is what I like the Nolan films for - the ones I like, anyway. I liked everything about both Batman films except the action scenes, and all in all I would say they're very good movies, and even if you may say they are not action movies at heart, there are still tedious action scenes that aren't very psychological at all. And from the time, energy and most of all money put into these scenes, I think it's safe to say that Nolan likes action scenes too, and doesn't just put them in his movies to make more people watch them.

Are Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Inception action movies? Yes. Are they action movies with depth? Yes. Even though I'm not too fond of the action sequences, I still think there may be no one who makes as good Hollywood films as Nolan. I just didn't find Inception to be up to par with his previous work, by a long shot.

 

[Jennywocky]

That is what I like the Nolan films for - the ones I like, anyway. I liked everything about both Batman films except the action scenes, and all in all I would say they're very good movies, and even if you may say they are not action movies at heart, there are still tedious action scenes that aren't very psychological at all. And from the time, energy and most of all money put into these scenes, I think it's safe to say that Nolan likes action scenes too, and doesn't just put them in his movies to make more people watch them.

I think he does fine with them and enjoys them too (I think he applies the same principles to physical action that he would to psychological action -- a lot of forces acting against each other with basic rules of engagement that have to be followed, so there is systematic consistency.) Then again, you do have movies like Insomnia, which could have been more action-oriented but Nolan made it more introspective/psychological in nature. I don't find his movies to really include much action, except for maybe the last three... and I think that was a tradeoff for him (in order to get big budgets to explore psychology on a bigger scale) as well as perhaps a way to stretch himself. Action is a part of existence and exciting in its own right... but for Nolan, action springs from thought and psychology. Our ways of framing and understanding the world drives overt conflict.

Are Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Inception action movies? Yes. Are they action movies with depth? Yes.

Again, I don't think I'd categorize them as action movies per se; they're kind of like hybrids. In a true action movie, all the other elements are used to drive the action -- the action predominates. (Think Transporter 1,2,3, for example.) Even Mission Impossible 3 was more an action pic, despite the strong relationships between characters in that movie. But action is not typically the focus on Nolan's movies; he's exploring people and how they think and view the world, and systemtically showing us what happens when people think and view the world in certain ways... the inevitable results.

So while, in Inception, the "action goal" was to plant the inception (essentially a "heist" movie shape and form, similar to Ocean 11) so Cobb can get back to his kids, the whole movie was actually structured on Cobb's working through the guilt he associated with Mal's death (mirrored to a less degree on Fischer coming to terms with his father's death and finally believe his father might have loved him). The inception itself was actually just the tool Cobb used to work through this issue; note that, in the end, if 'getting to the kids' was the primary plot, then the movie would be extremely dissatisfying because we're never told whether Cobb is living in "reality" at the movie's end and thus achieved his goal, but the physical plot was actually in service to Cobb's psychological movement, not the reverse, and so since we can see that Cobb has been psychologically healed and made whole, the movie can be fulfilling regardless of the physical plot outcome. Cobb's psychological issue WAS resolved with firmness, even if we're not sure what happened with the physical conclusion.

Even though I'm not too fond of the action sequences, I still think there may be no one who makes as good Hollywood films as Nolan. I just didn't find Inception to be up to par with his previous work, by a long shot.

Oh. I did, but I think it's not quite the same as his other movies.

My favorite, I think, is still The Prestige.
That movie haunts me.
Along with the complex but believable psychology and obsessive nature of the protagonists, as well as how form reflected content (the entire movie was structured on the stages of a magic trick), a lot of the scenes in the movie worked under the initial pretext as well as after the "reveal" (which was telegraphed the whole way through the movie, but we were too blind to notice). The only other mainstream offering I remember that pulled that off was The Sixth Sense, and I think Prestige was the better movie of the two since it never coasted on sentimentality, it stayed true to core to the end.

And it was skillfully rendered: There are not many directors who can so seamlessly present non-sequential timelines and do so without even using cheats (like timestamps on the scene openings). This is a skill he showed even in his first release, Following, where I could piece together time sequence by the characters' appearances and locations and relationships. In Inception, Nolan had to keep us with him both in the non-sequential timeline (where Cobb is bouncing around in "reality," in dreams, and in flashbacks) as well as syncing up events in four different sequential timelines at once during the heist. I think he made it look SO easy that we probably don't have a decent understanding of how hard it is to actually pull off while maintaining coherence AND emotional direction.

 

[snafupants]

^ canny points. in both the dark knight and inception nolan framed visceral action between and above the psychological pith of the movies. hybrid is the right term and the motive, in my mind, is to placate both sects of moviegoers - art house and commercial - and reach larger audiences. the movie is as deep or as surface as you want to explore the themes. secondly, you nailed the thrust of the movie. namely, cobb finding redemption; telltale was his offering the chemist his entire payday. he realizes that reuniting with his kids wont bring his wife back, but it implies closure and a healthier future.

 

[Desert Seagull]

They should make a sequal with crazy effects, where its one mans imagination versus anothers, and whoever is more creative wins.

 

[walfin]

Did nobody wonder what happened to Fischer and Saito? Doesn't matter whether they were actually real or no.

I was wondering if Fischer would interpret the idea to mean that he should not dismantle his father's company, and that being his "own" man meant doing something else with it.

And I wondered if Saito would kill himself like Mal did. Especially if Fischer didn't dismantle the company. I mean, imagine spending 100 years stuck in some idiotic place for nothing. If he did that, that'd mean that Cobb's first bullshit explanation to Ariadne would've been true, since Mal could've killed herself even if he hadn't deliberately put the thought in her.

I've always wondered - can we truly become wiser from experiences in our dreams? Movie didn't really explore that.

Hey, where is this Paprika Wish thing? I can't find it on google.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

Hey, where is this Paprika Wish thing? I can't find it on google.

Adaire was not telling people to watch a movie called Paprika Wish, she was telling Wish to watch a movie called Paprika. You all should, it's pretty good.