The level of complexity in Inception is far more impressive than Dunkirk, Interstellar, or the like.
Dunkirk - Christopher Nolan's next film
- Thread starter Nikhil
- Start date
The level of complexity in Inception is far more impressive than Dunkirk, Interstellar, or the like.
Ah yeah, thought they were both his sons but upon looking it up only the older kid was.
What was particularly complex? I thought the dream-inside-a-dream stuff was pretty basic.
You guys need to use spoilers if you're going to discuss specific plot events before @Wibble comes around.
That's just a cash grab remake by the film studio. Nothing to suggest Nolan will be involved.
Obviously a dream inside a dream inside a dream. If you think that's basic than a bunch of ships going to pick up soldiers must be immensely complex.
He has a writer's credit for screenplay so he's involved.
I was being fairly concise but I reckon you could say more on them if need be. Styles' character at the end when he talks about the old man "hardly being able to look at them" seems to be projecting his own guilt after coming close to losing his humanity when he tries to force the Frenchman to sacrifice his life. Again, what we get is fairly limited because we're seeing a snapshot of war...but I reckon there were plenty of small moments which helped us to humanise and understand the characters in the film, albeit in a manner that's more subtle than Nolan's usual heavy-handed, spell-everything-out style.
The only storyline where the characters aren't really fleshed out at all is the airforce one.
Nope. He has a writer's credit for the original screenplay. He's not involved.
Simply putting the dream inside a dream storyline into your movie doesn't make it complex, though. Michael Bay could do that if he wanted, but it'd probably still be crap cause it'd be a Michael Bay movie.
Of course, Nolan's far, far better than Bay...and despite my criticism of it Inception's a well-made thriller with a strong cast and a good soundtrack. But I never particularly got much from it beyond the thriller aspect.
Feck if that's the case, then it stands zero chance. Part of the allure would be that he was directing.
Inception, however was very complex - infinitely more so than Dunkirk, which was comfortably the simplest and least intellectually stimulating film he's made since Insomnia. If he made an Inception sequel it would be one of the biggest grossing films ever.
What's actually complex about Inception, though? It's an entertaining popcorn thriller.
Let's put it this way, if you weren't impressed by a film like Inception then you should be completely unimpressed by Dunkirk, which lacks both characters and a coherently identifiable story.
Aye, a one-time watch, at the very best.
You're not answering my question.
And you're also twisting what I've said: I liked Inception and thought it was a decent popcorn thriller with an excellent cast and strong soundtrack. But what about it is actually complex?
Its already been answered in previous posts. The story has depth, complexity, a clearly identifiable protagonist, and effectively weaves together Sci-Fi with technology and psychological thrillers. That's why this #popcornthriller was nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture and won the Academy Award for Cinematography, Sound Effects, Visual Effects, Editing, and Mixing.
You're just saying it had depth and complexity without actually saying where that depth and complexity comes from though, or what within the film makes it particularly complex.
Being nominated for Best Picture isn't a particularly strong defence: Braveheart won Best Picture but it's pretty much a straightforward good vs evil war thriller without much depth on either side. Like Inception it's a very well-made, entertaining movie, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's got much depth.
We're not going to get into a debate about that. If you can't see it then that's on you.
I'm genuinely curious about it: people have different interpretations of films (as evidenced here) and I'm interested to know what you felt was particularly complex or deep about Inception? As I say I liked it, but felt like it was more of a popcorn thriller type movie that was well-made and well-directed. It's not bad by any means, but I reckon TDK was far more entertaining at a similar type of thing and Dunkirk resonated with me a lot more and is probably the most subtle Nolan movie I've seen yet, without having admittedly watched his earlier work which tends to receive plenty of praise.
I absolutely love Inception but I didn't find it particularly complex either tbh. You do need to pay attention through the movie but it's not overtly complex or deep. I found Memento a more complex movie but that's probably because I was pretty young when I watched it.
As for Dunkirk, I sort of agree with @Raoul . The lack of any real characters/dialogue gives a sort of emotional disconnect with the protagonists and the lack of any enemy makes it not really feel like much of a war movie. It's still a great movie for me though but he can do better. I kind of wish this had been longer so he could actually have thrown in some actual scenes of them fighting the Germans.
As for Dunkirk, I sort of agree with @Raoul . The lack of any real characters/dialogue gives a sort of emotional disconnect with the protagonists and the lack of any enemy makes it not really feel like much of a war movie. It's still a great movie for me though but he can do better. I kind of wish this had been longer so he could actually have thrown in some actual scenes of them fighting the Germans.
Good film and very well cut together.
Not sure i can agree. I felt some scenes really took away from any tension. EG
In the scene where Tom Hardy is trying to take out the bomber we see that he has to break off and the bomber gets his target. Later in the movie we get the same scene but from the boats perspective. Its all building to whether Tom Hardy can stop the bomber but we already know he didnt. Which took away any tension i should have felt, cant blame the score or how it was shot but the editing could have been better
I like Nolan movies, except Interstellar, but wasnt overly impressed by this. I like movies like this, where the story telling isnt via exposition but felt this one missed the mark. Not by much but like most i felt no clear protagonist really made it hard for me to connect with the movie. Now it can work, 2001 is a great example, but didnt here. I'd give it a 7/10 bonus points on the cinematography otherwise it would be a 5/10
Was a bit disappointed. No characters with much of anything to show. Feel like he wasted guys like Tom Hardy Cilian Murphy and Branagh. If this didn't have the Nolan tag this would have half the hype it does
Because it was heist that took place in a dream within a dream...within a dream...within a dream...within a grey dull corporate looking bloody dream. Or something.
This too. They could've had random anonymous actors playing the parts as there was little character development.
Inception, complex? 
Just finished watching it, didn't think it was all that to be honest.
The cinematography was fantastic and tense, especially the air battles, but besides that I wasn't particularly wowed.
The cinematography was fantastic and tense, especially the air battles, but besides that I wasn't particularly wowed.
I haven't seen this yet, but that's incredibly lazy and cheap. Everything about any character in pretty much any film ever made can be summed up in one paragraph. There are no films that require a dissertation to explain characters. You can sum up particle physics or string theory in one paragraph, it's a pointless point to make.
Last edited:
I really, really enjoyed it.
Again with the lazy allegation. That's the only response criticism to Dunkirk seems to have. Anyone you disagree with had a lazy view while yours is enlightened (apparently).
You could sum anything up in a few sentences. But in some cases (bare characters) it does them justice whereas others (proper deep ones) it doesn't because there's so much more to them.
Besides you haven't even seen the film. The film intentionally doesn't focus on characters so your arguing for the sake for it with little basis at all. It's very clear that Nolan made a a decision tp focus on events rather than the people in them (much).
I watched this in the cinema the other night.
I can see why cinematically some critics would be praising it. Some of the shots of pilots chasing down the enemy, the realistic way the planes go down as opposed to the extravagant explosions. Ships sinking were quite realistic too.
But in terms of story line it is very lacking. There is literally no context for the situation the troops find themselves in bar a few opening lines and a couple of shots of a troop running through streets at the start.
It has left me scratching my head as to whether Dunkirk is even movie worthy.
The only kind of tenseness created come from the incidental music, and then that's not even tense.
The characters are almost non-existent. No names, no arc, nothing.
Not sure why there was all the hype. I wouldn't pay to watch it if I knew what I was going to see.
I can see why cinematically some critics would be praising it. Some of the shots of pilots chasing down the enemy, the realistic way the planes go down as opposed to the extravagant explosions. Ships sinking were quite realistic too.
But in terms of story line it is very lacking. There is literally no context for the situation the troops find themselves in bar a few opening lines and a couple of shots of a troop running through streets at the start.
It has left me scratching my head as to whether Dunkirk is even movie worthy.
The only kind of tenseness created come from the incidental music, and then that's not even tense.
The characters are almost non-existent. No names, no arc, nothing.
Not sure why there was all the hype. I wouldn't pay to watch it if I knew what I was going to see.
Because you made a lazy point. Saying that a film is poor because you can sum up the characters in a paragraph is a terrible point to make. That's true whether I've seen the film or not. I may watch the film and agree with you that the character development is terrible, but that doesn't mean I'd ever make the point that it's terrible because you can sum up the characters in a paragraph. Something you can do with any film ever made, it's a moot point. It's as bad as those who overhype a film, those who criticise it with equally ridiculous points.
The film was full of brilliant characterisation. It just wasn't aggressively expositional, which is a nice sea change for Nolan. Hardy did as much with his eyes in this film as he did with two faces in Legend.
Isn't that the whole point, these weren't some super hero soldiers who were going to win the war single handed. These were average blokes off the street thrust in to one of the most defining moments in human history. They weren't all brave and some of the things they did to survive were pretty shitty (pretending to be medics carrying the body, trying to force the french guy off the boat so they would float).
We're conditioned to expect a hero and villain and a structured plot but I thought this approach was way more realistic and refreshing for it.
For me it's definitely Nolan's best movie (alongside TDK) because it eliminates the two things he's always been worst at - plots, and character development.
Not nearly as bad as someone who completely fails to comprehend others arguments. I never said the film was poor or terrible so you've clearly got no idea what you're talking about. I've already said it's a good film.
I said the characters were not fleshed out, and they weren't. That they could be summed up by one or two sentences sums up how generic and uninteresting they were (due to a lack of dialogue). Whether you agree with that manner/phrasings of the criticism is not something I care about, and is barely worth discussing.
Watch the movie and then discuss the film. Might make for a better discussion.
It's on IMAX here and that's all i care about 
Cannot wait to watch this one!!!
Cannot wait to watch this one!!!