This is hilarious - Incepción, starring Dora the Explorer.
Smonster, mainly I'm saying that the
symbolism in the Fischer storyline is so trite and cliched that, IMO, it's not a very good story unless there's a meta-reason for it to be that way. I really can't think of a good reason for the snow level to exist AT ALL (Fischer's projection gives him the inception-idea in the hotel, so according to the rules set up before they go in, the mission is complete) unless it's just an excuse for Leo's subconscious to rescue someone else from Limbo.
The fact that
we may never see reality at any point in the film
doesn't bother me. I'm not sure why it should.
but don't you think that
Saito honored his deal regardless? Whether the end means it is real or a dream, Cobb got to be back with his kids.
who's dreaming the snow level
We talked this out today. Here's my understanding:
For each dream, there is an
architect, dreamer, a subject, and potentially passengers. The architect designs the dream (and doesn't have to be inside, but can also come as a passenger), the dreamer builds and controls the physicality of the dream, and the subject fills the dream with projections.
For the initial Seito dream, we had two layers: the deepest layer was dreamed by Leo/Cobb/Dom (or maybe Arthur, though since he left the dream and it didn't collapse immediately, I'm thinking Leo, because how could the dream continue if the dreamer wakes up?), but designed by the red shirt, while the apartment with the riot was dreamed AND designed by the red shirt. Arthur was a passenger/assistant. Seito was the subject.
The teaching dreams were initially designed by Leo, and he was the subject (his projections killed Ariadne) but Ariadne was the dreamer and could ignore/change the initial architecture.
The van level was dreamed by random chemist dude. The hotel level was dreamed by Arthur. The snow level was dreamed by Eames. You're not allowed to go deeper if you're the dreamer of the current level, which is why each of those people stayed behind. For all of these, Cilian Murphy was the subject.
At least, that's what I think.
We didn't see the MNS trailer, but we did see one for a new action flick that supposedly stars Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and... Arnold Schwarzenegger? WTF? Shouldn't he be busy fixing California's budget or something?
Some googling has revealed that his role in The Expendables is a cameo, but the trailer made it seem like a major role. What odd marketing.
Gris, should all that be spoiler-fonted?
it has all of them PLUS Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren AND Mickey Rourke. i had originally heard that all the 80s action stars would be in it, which would include Segall and Jean-Claude, but i don't see them on the imdb page.
oh and Charisma Carpenter is in it. i'll have to see it. no matter how bad it is. i'm sure i won't see it in theatres though.
we did see one for a new action flick that supposedly stars Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and... Arnold Schwarzenegger? WTF?
And Charisma Carpenter.
Which, really, is what boggles the mind.
Still, Statham and Jet Li figured large in the trailer, so I'm there. Despite hating the people you cited.
i'll have to see it. no matter how bad it is. i'm sure i won't see it in theatres though.
I'll be in the theatre for it, because I'm like that.
And I hate Mickey Rourke.
But Randy Couture!
Steven Seagal reputedly had a falling out with the producer. Jean Claude turned it down because it wasn't character-oriented enough.
Okay.
Jean Claude turned it down because it wasn't character-oriented enough.
That's on the list of the funniest sentences I've ever read.
