# The Matrix vs Inception



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Nov 12, 2010)

Which one did you like more.
i personally prefer the Matrix even though I found Inception good.


----------



## Wan (Nov 13, 2010)

Both are good, but I think Inception has better characters.  Dom Cobb is an unfathomably better main character than Neo.


----------



## Bleach (Nov 13, 2010)

Inception definitely. 

The Matrix had a good story but the delivery was poor IMHO. Never was a big fan of the movies. Watched it once and didn't need to see it again.

Inception is amazing though.


----------



## Roy (Nov 13, 2010)

Take a guess.


----------



## g_core18 (Nov 13, 2010)

Story wise they're about the same but Keanu Reeves' acting, or lack there of, tips it in favor of Inception. Also I like Leonardo Dicaprio, no homo.


----------



## Bathroom_Mop (Nov 13, 2010)

Inception was good, but because of the fact that its not a movie I an watch over and over again, I say it goes to the Matrix. Many people have watched Inception a few times just to catch things that they never caught before, but I don't think I could just pop it in the dvd player when bored and enjoy it as much as they would the Matrix. 

I can't even count how many times I have seen the Matrix


----------



## Rod (Nov 13, 2010)

I'd say Matrix had a wider branch of ramified potential subtexts to study and explore, however unfortunately the trilogy ended up losing it's focus (noticeably during isolated moments of the 2nd movie and incredibly during majority of the 3rd movie) what harmed even the central theme (who wasn't as strong as it's own subplot in terms of expectation when analysing things) when got carried away by action aspects in the saga (whose were fantastic, nonetheless, but caused the responsibles to go _"blind"_ it seems).


Inception, even though in my humble opinion, do not consider as rich in terms of variation in subtext as Matrix, has a stronger and more addicting, extremely curious central theme who is developed quite in linear fashion (a decision proven impressively correct) and never loses it's force throughout the story, interest is kept basically the same all along.


Alas, secondary of one, primary of the other.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Nov 13, 2010)

I prefer The Matrix by a distance. I wasn't enamoured with the storyline or to be frank any of the characters in Inception. It's triumph was its action sequences and its very stylish special effects. 

The Matrix was less convoluted and more grandiose, and probably better for it. The main thing is that it was just more groundbreaking, the entire genre of action movies was never the same after that. It has a far bigger legacy than Inception.


----------



## MartialHorror (Nov 13, 2010)

good question. I loved them both but it's been too long since I've seen The Matrix to make an accurate decision.


----------



## John Carter of Mars (Nov 13, 2010)

They're both good imo.


----------



## LayZ (Nov 13, 2010)

First I think people should disregard the 2nd and 3rd Matrix Films.  We are comparing The Matrix (not the trilogy) to Inception.  Really, why would you compare 3 films to one. 

*"The Matrix"* is one of my favorite movies EVER.  It was groundbreaking and had unforgettable visuals that influenced countless works of art.

"Inception" had unforgettable visuals as well and it was interesting, however it got too convoluted for me.  It took two viewings before I could fully understand what went on.  I feel like you have to be totally invested for 2-3 hours to completely enjoy this film during the first viewing.  

I could literally watch "The Matrix" anytime. If I was channel surfing no matter what part it was on I'd stop and check it out.  This doesn't apply for "Inception", I feel like if I came across any of the first 1:15 of the film then I would continue to channel surf. But this is just my opinion, I think its because "The Matrix" had more frequent and better action scenes. Thats why I think its easier to watch multiple times.


----------



## Taleran (Nov 13, 2010)

erictheking said:


> I prefer The Matrix by a distance. I wasn't enamoured with the storyline or to be frank any of the characters in Inception. It's triumph was its action sequences and its very stylish special effects.
> 
> The Matrix was less convoluted and more grandiose, and probably better for it. The main thing is that it was just more groundbreaking, the entire genre of action movies was never the same after that. It has a far bigger legacy than Inception.



Pretty much this.

I had to watch the Matrix twice because the first time I was too blown back by the visuals. 

The Matrix is the *Ultimate* action movie and the beauty of it is that it doesn't want to be anything else. Sure there are extra flourishes thrown ontop but at its core it is Action.

It is one of the movies that makes people go out and get a bigger TV or full on surround sound. (Seriously have good Surround sound(speakers not headphones) in a small to midsize room, turn the volume up and watch the entire portion of the movie where Neo and Trinity rescue Morpheus it is unreal)


----------



## ez (Nov 13, 2010)

Matrix is a game changer.


----------



## Phunin (Nov 13, 2010)

The Matrix had to deal with lower-tier 3D graphics due to its time period but I would definitely prefer Inception by a long shot. Inception has to be my favorite movie of all time (with actors, anyway). The acting seemed much better in Inception and I liked the presentation over all. Matrix felt like wire foo the whole time and the choreography was not that great to me.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Nov 13, 2010)

The Matrix. Inception was okay,nothing I'd rent to see again(unless it was HBO,Starz or something like those),but The Matrix is one of my favorite movies of all time. I know I've watched it at least 20 times.


----------



## The Boss (Nov 13, 2010)

Matrix was great because of the effects imo. If you take that out its your average action flick. So with that being said, I favor Inception over Matrix because of the unique story (and how it was told) is what sold it to me.


----------



## Time Expired (Nov 13, 2010)

The Matrix by miles.


----------



## Wan (Nov 13, 2010)

Both had strong (and somewhat similar) themes.  However, where they differed in quality is that the characters in Inception were far superior to the characters in the Matrix.  That's what makes it better as a movie, IMHO.

I mean, you could write a character study about Dom Cobb and Mal.  You could even write one about Robert Fischer.  Can you write one about any of the characters in the Matrix?  Not at all.


----------



## T.D.A (Nov 14, 2010)

Inception had better acting and cast. Matrix was more ground breaking.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Nov 14, 2010)

The action scenes in the Inception Movie sucked...


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 14, 2010)

And why should Matrix battle it out with Inception? Odd choice.

Matrix easily, it will be remembered for decades as a ground breaking action flick.


----------



## Sasori (Nov 14, 2010)

I couldn't get into the Matrix.

Was thoroughly bored through out.

Inception however, I can watch countless times and still be enthralled and immersed in it.


----------



## Thomaatj (Nov 14, 2010)

Weird question but I'd go for Inception. The Matrix is too nerdy for me .


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Nov 14, 2010)

Thomaatj said:


> Weird question but I'd go for Inception. The Matrix is too nerdy for me .



It's not, you talk about Naruto with other people on the Internet.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Nov 14, 2010)

Inception 
Dreams Within Dreams + infinite subconcious if you die in a layer of dreaming
but if you die in Limbo you wake up again

The Matrix 
Programs told that they are people programed to be used as batteries for "Machines" and that their freedom rests on the shoulders of Neo some kinda super Mac program that defies his own programs who in the end is put in the Virus Vault with Smith by AVG so that when the next upgrade happens Microsoft won't worry about updates again.


----------



## Thomaatj (Nov 14, 2010)

erictheking said:


> It's not, you talk about Naruto with other people on the Internet.



Haha, awesome isn't it. No you're right, I didn't use the good words. I realy liked the matrix but the whole thing was a little far sought imo, this doesn't mean I don't like the story but I just prefered the whole inception atmosphere. And the Inception cast was for me better than the Matrix one,


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Nov 14, 2010)

Inception had the better story/cast, but its impossible to ignore how groundbreaking The Matrix was.


----------



## Taleran (Nov 16, 2010)

Whip Whirlwind said:


> Inception had the better story/cast, but its impossible to ignore how groundbreaking The Matrix was.



I'm gonna have to argue that first point

Weaving was *FANTASTIC* as Agent Smith, and Fishbourne was the perfect Morpheus. Also I know Keanu was like a plank of wood like usual yet The Matrix is the sole movie in which that works because he is a guy who is thrust into a situation completely unknown to him so his acting actually works in that case.

Everyone in Inception was bland there were no characters, they were all just roles.


And which story everyone will like more is a more opinionated topic.


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 16, 2010)

Cobb was a fantastic character, the rest were wall paper in terms of any significance. As for its plot, the concept is fantastic, the plot less than extraordinary.


----------



## Wan (Nov 16, 2010)

Taleran said:


> I'm gonna have to argue that first point
> 
> Weaving was *FANTASTIC* as Agent Smith, and Fishbourne was the perfect Morpheus. Also I know Keanu was like a plank of wood like usual yet The Matrix is the sole movie in which that works because he is a guy who is thrust into a situation completely unknown to him so his acting actually works in that case.



Oh, Hugo Weaving and Laurence Fishbourne gave brilliant performances, no doubt about it.  However, a character is not made simply by the strength of the actor's performance.  What do we _know_ about the characters?  For Morpheus, we know that he thinks Neo is the One, is badass, and is a strong leader.  That's about it. For Smith, he's out to kill all human resistance fighters, and hates humans and the Matrix.  That's about it.  Rather flat, and not dynamic.



> Everyone in Inception was bland there were no characters, they were all just roles.



And this is false as well.  First of all, the acting by all the main cast is strong, if not as unique as Smith.  They were more down-to-earth -- which is to be expected, since they are living in our modern world, rather than a desolated planet with a virtual world.

Secondly, let's see what we know about the characters.


*Spoiler*: _Do not open if you have not seen Inception!_ 




Cobb dearly loved his wife.  Both of them boldly (and perhaps foolishly) pioneered going into further levels of dreams, and got caught in Limbo.  When his wife refused to wake and forgot that Limbo was not real, he manipulated her so that she would wake.  When she committed suicide, he was filled with regret, but turned to crime in order to continue his dream escapades. He began using the dream machine to try and fail to alter his memories, even though this brought a hostile projection of Mal into his missions.  He held on to reality, though, because he wanted to see his children again.  He accepted a nearly impossible job from Saito with the faint hope that this would bring him back to his children.  Ariadne caught on to all of this, and talked Cobb into letting go of his projection of Mal.  This led to him either returning to reality and his children, or staying in Limbo.




And that's just a summary, not a true analysis.  I could similarly summarize Mal and her projection, or even Robert Fischer.  But I can't do that for anyone in The Matrix.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Nov 16, 2010)

i'll eventually forget about inception, i'll never forget the matrix.


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 16, 2010)

Posting a summary of Inception doesn't really amount to much as an argument.


----------



## Thomaatj (Nov 17, 2010)

It is a fact that the Matrix trilogy was way more groundbreaking then Inception. But I think this has to do to the time the films were made. If Inception would have been made when the matrix got made and the matrix when inception was made, people would definitly see Inception as groundbreaking.

Truth is it is just harder to make a groundbreaking film these days, good special effects speak for themselves now. When Matrix was made they didn't, and you have to hand it to them that they did a terrific job with the effects. But still my vote goes to Inception, looking to other sides then the "groundbreaking" aspect.


----------



## Wan (Nov 17, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Posting a summary of Inception doesn't really amount to much as an argument.



It's not a summary of Inception.  It's a summary of Cobb's character.

To be fair, I could have gone into more detail about Morpheus.  So:


*Spoiler*: __ 



Morpheus is a resistance fighter.  The Oracle tells him that he will find the One.  He finds Neo and thinks he's the One.  He sacrifices himself to save Neo, but ends up getting rescued by Neo.




Still, very flat and static compared to Dom Cobb.


----------



## Eisenheim (Nov 17, 2010)

I personally like Inception more. Great story.

I think people like Matrix more because it has more action than Inception.


----------



## Taleran (Nov 17, 2010)

Mordin Solus said:


> And that's just a summary, not a true analysis.  I could similarly summarize Mal and her projection, or even Robert Fischer.  But I can't do that for anyone in The Matrix.





Mordin Solus said:


> Still, very flat and static compared to Dom Cobb.



Summarizing a characters motivations doesn't really mean anything compared to what you are trying to say. How they portray what you talk about is more important from a movie perspective than what the backstory is. You make it sound like the better characters are better just because their backstories are more complex than someone else. To give an example of this in a character Hal 9000 in 2001 a Space Odyssey has a very simple back story, but the Performance is what makes him one of the greatest antagonists in Cinema History. 

The problem with the characters in Inception is they are transparent very minor characters. The only character who isn't a blank slate in that movie is Cobb. Mal doesn't count because everything we learn about her is from the perspective of Cobb in a Flashback so we don't end up caring about her we end up caring about what her actions did to Cobb in the end. Fischer doesn't count because everything we learn about him is told in the exposition scene 10 minutes into the movie so he has nowhere to go, his big emotional ending was so ham fisted it almost ruined a good enjoyable film for me.

Now I am not saying the Matrix doesn't have characters who are only there to fill roles.

Doser is there for the emotion his death gives his brother
Mouse is there as the comedic relief(with that one scene of going out with a bang)
Switch and Apoc and there as back up muscle.

Anyways I prefer the characters in The Matrix because the actors in that movie do not rely on exposition as much to give you an idea of what the character is all about. It doesn't need to be explained because it comes through on the screen.



Eisenheim said:


> I personally like Inception more. Great story.
> 
> I think people like Matrix more because it has more action than Inception.



Thats one of the reasons.

The other was they blew their load in the trailers by showing all the crazy special effects and those were the *only ones* in the film.

Also the tame James Bond snow level was really boring entirely.

I wasn't even really big on the story of Inception I went in for what I saw on the trailer and got an entirely different movie, which isn't always a bad thing but in this case it was.


----------



## Garfield (Nov 17, 2010)

Well, personally, Inception, while it was great and while it did take one and a half times watching to understand it (the first half hour is confusing as hell on the first time around), it's like one of those movies which don't build on you the more you see them because they just don't have the conceptual depth because you know, it's too wrong. 

What I mean to say is, every time I see Matrix, I always keep debating "Hey yeah, it _could_ be possible....nahh, not possible...well maybe?...nahh" kinda thing. With inceptions, it just starts becoming like "hell no, dreams are just NOT like that...that's impossible...too fantastic..."

so yeah, I've easily been able to give the Matrix multiple takes but with inception, I got content right after I saw it's first half for the second time and understood wtf was going on exactly.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Nov 17, 2010)

The Matrix.

It was just overall more intense the first time around. When Neo died at the end and came back to wtfpwn them agents, it was a hell of a thing. Inception had its moments, but I feel that it was a little flat and did not explore its potential quite enough.


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 17, 2010)

> I think people like Matrix more because it has more action than Inception.



Better directed action would be the word.


----------



## Tekkenman11 (Nov 19, 2010)

Taleran said:


> I wasn't even really big on the story of Inception I went in for what I saw on the trailer and got an entirely different movie, *which isn't always a bad thing but in this case it was.*



Obviously you are in the minority because Inception was a great move. The trailer hooked me and the movie made me love the entire film even more.

Also the trailer explains the movie perfectly. Have you not seen all 4 trailers? If you couldn't figure out what the movie was before seeing it then I wonder what the hell happens to your comprehension when you engage yourself in a preview.

The two compliment each other. 

In the end, it is up to your perception (see what I did right there? Inception reference), but don't present your ill-perception (which it is because you stated yourself you were incapable of seeing the link between the trailer-movie) as an absolute. Also saying the acting and characters where dull? 

As someone who takes a great interest in character portrayal and such I think I can say with certainty that the acting in the movie was top-notch and fitted the characters perfectly. We must have been seeing two different movies. Leonardo DiCaprio is an amazing actor, you may not like him, but you can't deny his abilities. The rest of the cast was great as well. Stop hating.

With that I end my rant;however, I voted for The Matrix. :ho (for other reasons that are too lengthy to explain now). Even though I believe The Matrix > Inception, it doesn't take away from the cinematic masterpiece that Inception was.


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 19, 2010)

> it doesn't take away from the cinematic masterpiece that Inception was.



Sorry but Inception was no masterpiece.


----------



## Judecious (Nov 19, 2010)

I liked inception more but that's just me.


----------



## RED MINOTAUR~! (Nov 20, 2010)

Aside from dealing with themes of reality both films have barely anything in common and it's unfair to compare them. They both have their moments of greatness and their own flaws, and just as The Matrix inspired a generation of action film makers Nolan is doing the same thing, inspiring my generation.

If you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty though... Inception is mostly original whereas The Matrix is not. Problem?


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Jan 13, 2012)

Inception is the most overrated piece of crap ever...
Matrix wins easily...


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

Matrix invented bullet time, which changed the dynamics of most action movies forever

For the worse

I seriously swear to Morgan Freeman, I am fucking sick of the slow mo effect of simplistic crap they have shoved in every single movie since the matrix come out
Inception I feel at least brings an original way to go about it, granted, they had like ten years of shit to move over from, but honestly, even if we do leave the horrible sequels out of the matter, I can promise you, the artistic licenses of the Matrix did the world no favors
The philosophy is far more approachable with inception,(I am far more concerned with the ways too well equipped people have to mess with our minds and opinions that I am of my toaster wanting to conquer mankind) and they never feel like they had to dumb the story down like the producers of matrix did.
The suspense was more real, the conflict better layered, Cob and Mal are endlessly more appealing than Neo and Trinity, hell the whole crew is more appealing than just everyone in the matrix combined short of the Oracle, the programs and the French guy, and  those guys weren't even in the first movie.
Yes, you get very short moments of characterization, but they tell you everything you need to know about them for you to realize these are real guys, and what kind of people they are as well.
The dream system is endlessly better and neater than the program system, while at the same time being much more fantastic
Maybe in it's heyday the matrix was a reference, but this is not the turn of the century where everyone has their panties in a bunch over the Y2K, this is now, and I much rather keep inception than the matrix


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

I mean, humans for batteries? I was ten years old (something most pro-matrixes are overlooking) when that movie came out and even I thought that was pretty stupid
Leave the first law of thermodynamics aside, why not use elephants or other huge animals instead of potential hostiles that can fuck up your cyber-world?
And why do you even need to clone people with limbs? couldn't they just make blob people instead of battle ready humans?


----------



## Taleran (Jan 13, 2012)

Blaming a movie for the people who utilized what it brought in terrible ways is no way to judge a movie.

Especially when the people who do this do not consider the good films that came from the way paved by the film.



> I mean, humans for batteries? I was ten years old (something most pro-matrixes are overlooking) when that movie came out and even I thought that was pretty stupid
> Leave the first law of thermodynamics aside, why not use elephants or other huge animals instead of potential hostiles that can fuck up your cyber-world?



I think you are being incredibly too nitpicky and insane here. Also there are a million more logistical issues to using bigger animals and no guarantee that they produce more electricity than a person does. You are trying way to hard to find holes in something that makes enough sense and paints a believable world.



> And why do you even need to clone people with limbs? couldn't they just make blob people instead of battle ready humans?



They were growing people Ban not Cloning them, also who says the machines knew how to make a human without all its parts intact?


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

Taleran said:


> Blaming a movie for the people who utilized what it brought in terrible ways is no way to judge a movie.
> 
> 
> Especially when the people who do this do not consider the good films that came from the way paved by the film.


It  is when people are making arguments for the matrix's legacy

The only thing you can call for in the matrix are the mainstreamization of these four elements
Cyber Reality
Wire-Fu
Bullet Timming
Faux Paranoia

The first one is no better than Tron and left by no meanings a stream of cyber based movies or filosofies
The other two left a legacy of would be's, including it's own sequels, and are techniques known throughout the industry as a point of easy mockery and disdain
The fourth took advantage of the massive y2k hype and the only reason why don't laugh at it now is because of the growth of the internet since



> I think you are being incredibly too nitpicky and insane here.


And you're calling me out on the musings of a ten year old
These are the things I thought of then.

We can talk about the ending of the matrix for example

I felt the same way I did when I went to watch the fellowship of the ring without ever knowing it was a trillogy or that there were books about it.

Was it ever intended for sequels?


----------



## Taleran (Jan 13, 2012)

Are you talking about the Matrix or Fellowship with that last line because I think it is clear in both cases that there was more planned.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

I was talking about the fellowship.

And with the matrix I did not feel like it was clear at all.

I felt like the story was just gonna be dropped there, and I'm not sure I'm wrong.

I mean, the sequels are completely disconnected from the first movie, and if they're meant to be the ending, then there's another different can of worms


----------



## Whimsy (Jan 13, 2012)

I have no desire whatsoever to see Inception again.

This thread has, however, given me a strong desire to re-watch the Matrix.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

Not necessarily a good thing


----------



## Taleran (Jan 13, 2012)

Well with Lord of the Rings the plot that is set out is that they are taking the Ring to the Mountain and at the end of the first movie the Ring has not made it to the mountain therefore there is more story.

With the Matrix the reason that I feel that the sequels are necessarily if not entirely executed well because of the message presented at the end of The Matrix compared to Revolutions. The Matrix reads very simply that the machines are bad and that getting out to Zion is good and there is no grey area however the ending of the trilogy is a much more nuanced look at it and neither the Matrix or the real world is the 'right' answer but a fusion of both is.


----------



## blacklusterseph004 (Jan 13, 2012)

lol, necro'ed thread.

I wouldn't say I liked one more than the other since I enjoyed both for almost completely different reasons.

In any case, virtually everything these films tried to do, the Ghost in the Shell franchise did first and better anyway.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jan 13, 2012)

I watched Inception again. It's kind of less good on the second viewing.

And it wasn't that great on the first.


Matrix is better both on original view and repeat views.


----------



## Taleran (Jan 13, 2012)

blacklusterseph004 said:


> lol, necro'ed thread.
> 
> I wouldn't say I liked one more than the other since I enjoyed both for almost completely different reasons.
> 
> In any case, virtually everything these films tried to do, the Ghost in the Shell franchise did first and better anyway.



Well that is a major problem with comparing these two movies is because both of them are fusions of so many things that their creators loved that it sometimes hard to trace the ultimate source of those ideas.

It is a shame Ghost in the Shell really couldn't compare to Shirow's manga but still a great movie.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

Taleran said:


> Well with Lord of the Rings the plot that is set out is that they are taking the Ring to the Mountain and at the end of the first movie the Ring has not made it to the mountain therefore there is more story.



Well, yes, naturally, of course, but even though I had read the hobbit, back in 2002 I was like twelve, and had no idea what a Lord of the rings was. Gandalf croaking was *serious buisiness*
You can imagine my astonishment when after 3 hours, they cut off after boromir flips his shit and the brotherhood goes to hell on a basket.

Pretty similar to the one I had at the end of the matrix.



> With the Matrix the reason that I feel that the sequels are necessarily if not entirely executed well because of the message presented at the end of The Matrix compared to Revolutions. The Matrix reads very simply that the machines are bad and that getting out to Zion is good and there is no grey area however the ending of the trilogy is a much more nuanced look at it and neither the Matrix or the real world is the 'right' answer but a fusion of both is.


But at the end of the matrix the story is irrelevant
Zion exists, but it had utterly no impact on the story whatsoever.
There was a status quo between the machines and the resistance, but now that the one has mastered his powers, the ballance will shift
There's no plan hanging over from on side to the other, no evil left to rise, it ends but it doesn't give you closure
I mean, take the way the second movie ended
You got the infected bad guy, the condition of the two teams, Neo flipping the fuck out with what looks like telekinesis in the real world, the machines vs humans cycle, etc, etc
Take the way the first movie ended
Uuuuh
Nothing was accomplished on either side, except for neo awakening, which was self contained since he already used his awakening to solve the plot problems in the first movie itself.
There was no hint of sequels, only an obnoxious "The End. Or is it?"


----------



## Taleran (Jan 13, 2012)

The movie ends with Neo telling the Machines that he is going to show the people what they didn't want him/them to see.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

I also stand by the point that all these people being happy about re-watching the matrix is not a good thing


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

Taleran said:


> The movie ends with Neo telling the Machines that he is going to show the people what they didn't want him/them to see.



And what the hell is that supposed to be?
That could be literally anything. It's the most utterly generic "power to the people!" sentence ever, made specially so people could make up their own story and ending

I will point out to you that he didn't even do that by the way. He exposed nothing to the people of the matrix, and I remind you that even if zion wasn't utterly unconsequential, there is not exposition could do for them.


----------



## Taleran (Jan 13, 2012)

The movie is first and foremost about a War and how either side getting this one guy is the end of that war, the end of the first movie is not that end of the war.

Maybe just maybe your 10 year old self isn't a good judge of movies (mine sure wasn't, Man I fucking loved The Mummy and the The Mummy Returns)


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

Maybe, it's possible, but it's not like I didn't watch the movie since

)



> The film's mainstream success led to the making of two sequels




Told ya


----------



## Taleran (Jan 13, 2012)

No it led to the studio funding the sequels that they had planned. The Matrix was a gamble for the studio.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

I find that really hard to swallow, but if you say so.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

Doesn't invalidade my point that the first had that projected end, you know
If you want to compare it to other movies

And this link



Really makes it look like sequels were something that only ever given real thought after matrix was out.


----------



## Whimsy (Jan 13, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Not necessarily a good thing



Are you joking

Inception just isn't interesting or entertaining enough to warrant a rewatch.


----------



## Hidd3N_NiN (Jan 13, 2012)

My only issue with Inception is that the first half of the film is basically just a tutorial for how the dream world stuff works. So once you're familiar with the concept, the first half of the film feels a bit like a waste of time when it comes to re-watching the film. After that, the only stuff that matters is the 2nd half once they enter the guy's dream and all the action starts.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jan 13, 2012)

The first half of the film is a tutorial of what you'll never get to see.

Then the film degrades into a meaningless series of action events with little or no dream manipulation.


Very, very unsatisfying.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

Whimsy said:


> Are you joking
> 
> Inception just isn't interesting or entertaining enough to warrant a rewatch.



Or Matrix isn't accomplished enough as a movie to give you closure

You watch it the same way you go to a concert, you get there to see the greatest hits and everything else is just empty calories
Little to no worth of story telling, and it changes nothing of the way you view the world.
There's little to no journey there, all you have to is ruminate through the fight scenes.
Inception on another hand is a sequence of plot exposition and twists, a story about personal discovery, self doubt, making peace with your demons, the nature of the human mind and dreams, and a series of other great stuff that is there to be discovered.
I loved learning stuff in the second grade, but it's not like  I'm rushing to repeat it either.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 13, 2012)

For example, thousands of women went to see Titanic over and over again, but they weren't running off for the mildly average love story between Jack and Kate.

They went because every time they got in that room, then it was like all of those background characters, who were just touching enough to seem real got another three hours to live in splendor before they inevitably died all over again.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 13, 2012)

Don't care to really debate on the topic, at least not at the moment, but I found both to be good, satisfying science fiction flicks. However, _The Matrix_ more so than _Inception._


----------



## Whimsy (Jan 13, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Or Matrix isn't accomplished enough as a movie to give you closure
> 
> You watch it the same way you go to a concert, you get there to see the greatest hits and everything else is just empty calories
> Little to no worth of story telling, and it changes nothing of the way you view the world.
> ...



Fucking hell have you missed the point

It's not like re-reading a great novel, watching a film is a relatively small time commitment. Thus your point is irrelevant, unless Inception was some 10 hour long masterpiece, which it is not.

Matrix has more rewatch value. Inception...I'm not sure I can sit through again. It wasn't bad, it was just unremarkable.


----------



## Ash (Jan 13, 2012)

I voted Matrix, because I've never seen Inception. And I liked The Matrix.


----------



## αshɘs (Jan 13, 2012)

Matrix is the best cinema experience I ever had. With Inception I had to sit half of it through with holding back my pee.


----------



## Parallax (Jan 13, 2012)

every time I want to watch the Matrix I just read the Invisibles instead


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jan 13, 2012)

I can't vote for anything related to Wachovski, even their only not shit movie. And even that by sheer coincidence.


----------



## illusion (Jan 13, 2012)

I like Inception, thought it was a very good movie, but I have no desire to watch it again. Matrix on the other hand, I've seen at least 5 times, therefore it's The Matrix for me.

This is like comparing Schindler's List and Shawshank Redemption, both are outstanding movies, but I'd much rather watch Shawshank again. In my mind, that makes it the better movie.


----------



## blacklusterseph004 (Jan 13, 2012)

Banhammer said:
			
		

> You watch it the same way you go to a concert, you get there to see the greatest hits and everything else is just empty calories
> Little to no worth of story telling, and it changes nothing of the way you view the world.
> There's little to no journey there, all you have to is ruminate through the fight scenes.
> Inception on another hand is a sequence of plot exposition and twists, a story about personal discovery, self doubt, making peace with your demons, the nature of the human mind and dreams, and a series of other great stuff that is there to be discovered.
> I loved learning stuff in the second grade, but it's not like I'm rushing to repeat it either.



Yeah that is the problem with comparing these two films since what you get out of a movie and how you gauge the rewatch value would be so vastly different. These films market themselves and what they offer completely differently as well.

I mean, The Matrix is a really shitty story, bordering on Avatar level of crap, but what it brought to the table in terms of raw action in a medium we haven't seen before was amazing. It truly was the film that you go to the cinema to watch where the big screen and surround sound are actually getting a work out.

Now I think Inception also showed us action in a medium we have never seen before, but I don't think that was really ever the thrust of what Nolan was trying to present to the audience. Personally I have enjoyed Inception rewatches, but mainly because I enjoyed the exploration of the philosophy of inspiration. I liked how Nolan postulated what the ingredients were that gave birth to an idea, since every level the characters dive into is another step in the process. I also liked his vision of how the human mind would look if you lived in it. None of the action scenes were particularly revolutionary (although those zero G fight sequences with Arthur were truly epic in their own right), but I don't think that was ever really the point.

Invariably, what people get out of things will be different, but Matrix will probably strike more chords in peoples' memories. Even if they are for vanilla reasons, I think they're still valid.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 13, 2012)

Most movies are only worth watching again once you've forgotten what happened in them during your first viewing. Most movies are not designed for people to watch multiple times and still be entertained.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 13, 2012)

The Matrix.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 13, 2012)

I like apples.


----------



## Grape (Jan 13, 2012)

Violent By Design said:


> I like apples.



I see what you did there!


----------



## Time Expired (Jan 13, 2012)

Do not try to bend the spoon — that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: the Matrix was better.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 13, 2012)

Dark City.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 13, 2012)

Dark City is great.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 13, 2012)

Inception wishes it was Dark City.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 13, 2012)

Comparison threads never go well for Inception.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 13, 2012)

Not with us here to rain on Nolan's parade.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 13, 2012)

Depends on what it's compared to. I like _Inception._


----------



## Vault (Jan 13, 2012)

Matrix should never have had sequels.


----------



## AndrewRogue (Jan 13, 2012)

A dream within a dream within a dream. Freddy Krueger is fucked.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Jan 14, 2012)

Hatifnatten said:


> I can't vote for anything related to Wachovski, even their only not shit movie. And even that by sheer coincidence.



Nolan would only dream to do a movie half good as the matrix


----------



## Federer (Jan 14, 2012)

Dat Matrix.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 14, 2012)

Vault said:


> Matrix should never have had sequels.


I actually like Reloaded.  But if no Reloaded saves me from Revolutions... than yes... I agree with you.


----------



## Slice (Jan 14, 2012)

The Matrix didn't have sequels.
No such thing exists.

[/denial]


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Jan 14, 2012)

We are comparing the 1st movie with the inception not the whole shitty franchise


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jan 14, 2012)

GaaraoftheDesert1 said:


> Nolan would only dream to do a movie half good as the matrix


----------



## Time Expired (Jan 14, 2012)

Vault said:


> Matrix should never have had sequels.



Truer words have never been written.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 14, 2012)

What a strange and novelty sentiment


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 14, 2012)

GaaraoftheDesert1 said:


> Nolan would only dream to do a movie half good as the matrix



lol, The Matrix isn't _that_ good. 

And Christopher Nolan's filmography is.....way....way...way better than The Wachowski brothers.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 14, 2012)

But hey, expressing your opinion is all fine and dandy, and I'm done with mine and now I'd like to listen

What was it about the Matrix that people really liked?

I get it, the new approach to action, but, what more?


----------



## Stunna (Jan 14, 2012)

The action. 

I just generally like the genre mixing. I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff. Martial arts, robots, symbolism, gun fights... it's just _cool._ Like a live action anime or something.


----------



## Furious George (Jan 14, 2012)

Inception. 

Though it doesn't at all surprise me that Matrix is winning in a Naruto sub-forum. Bunch of animu muppets, the lot of ya.


----------



## αshɘs (Jan 14, 2012)

btw what's the deal with Larry/Lana again? Is he a tranny or did he switch genders through operation/therapy?

/random


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 14, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> But hey, expressing your opinion is all fine and dandy, and I'm done with mine and now I'd like to listen
> 
> What was it about the Matrix that people really liked?
> 
> I get it, the new approach to action, but, what more?




It had good martial arts scenes.

Their take on reality and the premise of the Matrix in itself is interesting enough.

Cool gun scenes.

Good exposition scenes which is pretty important for a movie like that.

The dialogue was funny, "STOP TRYING TO HIT ME AND HIT ME!!" :ho



It does its job as a fiction very well, I thought it established a world that had its own type of personality and rules. People can say it isn't "deep", but it isn't really suppose to be deep, and for an action film it has plenty of substance which gives it variety. 

The acting and most of the characters being bland are really the biggest cons, and those weaknesses are hidden well in those type of movies.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 14, 2012)

I agree 100% with what VbD said.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 14, 2012)

Well, I'll take my personal conclusions then.


----------



## Grape (Jan 14, 2012)

Speed II is a much better film than The Matrix.

In all seriousness though Cypher was the best part of Matrix. The movie itself is good, but not great. I never understood why the humans couldn't just program their own skills to counter Agents. 

The sequels were pretty shit. That one highway scene was incredible, better than any action scene from Inception.

The Oracle was pretty much garbage. How can she predict Trinity falling in love with "The One"? It makes absolutely no sense. She is a program, but can predict event's that take place outside of The Matrix? It's lame. Her guardian is a program, but can escape from Agents by running. Why can't humans program themselves to run a lot faster?

Having to find and use a land line based telephone to exit The Matrix is garbage as well. It makes no sense given that they can remove a person from a simulation with a click of a button. 

Now, go watch Inception and try to find a single loophole that isn't explained thoroughly somewhere else in the film. You can't do it. There are no loose ends.


Inception>Matrix


----------



## Stunna (Jan 14, 2012)

Plotholes notwithstanding, I still prefer The Matrix.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 14, 2012)

I wonder why no one ever thought of LOIC'ing the matrix


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 14, 2012)

> Now, go watch Inception and try to find a single loophole that isn't explained thoroughly somewhere else in the film. You can't do it. There are no loose ends.



If in one reality the building is going haywire then why are the rest of the levels still fine.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 14, 2012)

I'd a feeling someone was gonna mention that one.


----------



## Vault (Jan 14, 2012)

Grape Krush said:


> Speed II is a much better film than The Matrix.
> 
> In all seriousness though Cypher was the best part of Matrix. The movie itself is good, but not great. I never understood why the humans couldn't just program their own skills to counter Agents.



Again its explained, the brain has limits to what it can do. Nothing to do with programming. 



> The sequels were pretty shit. That one highway scene was incredible, better than any action scene from Inception.



True. Even though it was a movie it looked dangerous as hell and thats very rare to see in movies. 



> The Oracle was pretty much garbage. How can she predict Trinity falling in love with "The One"? It makes absolutely no sense. She is a program, but can predict event's that take place outside of The Matrix? It's lame.



Its already explained here, you are a smart guy. Figure it out. 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K-g7ipAqYY[/YOUTUBE]



> Her guardian is a program, but can escape from Agents by running. Why can't humans program themselves to run a lot faster?



Its not running its merely not staying in one location for an extended period of time. Not to mention Seraph is almost on par with Neo if only just lower. It was also more to do with running away from Smith who was assimilating the whole matrix and getting the oracle will make Smith even more powerful than Neo as we all saw at the end. 



> Having to find and use a land line based telephone to exit The Matrix is garbage as well. It makes no sense given that they can remove a person from a simulation with a click of a button.



A land line is hard wired which means that it travels through a SOLID medium or as you like to call it, its real  unlike mobile phone lines which are just radio waves. Also people who are free cant be removed from the program unless they are hard wired to the matrix itself and we all know people outside it enter through their own server. 



> Now, go watch Inception and try to find a single loophole that isn't explained thoroughly somewhere else in the film. You can't do it. There are no loose ends.



Why didn't the kids travel to see their dad instead?



> Inception>Matrix



I have countered each and every one of your arguments. Try again.


----------



## Bart (Jan 14, 2012)

I'm a Nolan fan; a huge one at that :3

However, the Matrix was revolutionary, and so happens to be one of my favourite films of all time mind you.

Wait, Vault, please help me out here, but is it just me or did Grape say that Speed II is better than The Matrix?


----------



## Vault (Jan 14, 2012)

Bart, I ignored that part


----------



## Bart (Jan 14, 2012)

Okay, Vault haha :3

Has anyone here mentioned the Donald Duck _"thing"_; I'm a Nolan fan so I'm allowed to bring it up hehe :WOW


----------



## Vault (Jan 14, 2012)

Yeah the comic thing i have heard about however there are 2 novels which are also ripped by inception. Too bad not alot of people know about them since they are 50 year old sci fi novels.


----------



## Bart (Jan 14, 2012)

Indeedy ^^


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 14, 2012)

Philip K Dick's novel I know of. Which is the second one?


----------



## Vault (Jan 14, 2012)

Funny enough both are Philip K Dick novels.

Ubik and The Three Stigmata of Palmer Aldritch. In Three Stigmata there is is also a machine, briefcase shaped which is able to make people same the same dream.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 14, 2012)

There is one thing Inception did right.  Promotion for the film was outstanding.  The studio did a great job conning the American public.

The film had a great teaser trailer and a great theatrical trailer.


----------



## Vault (Jan 14, 2012)

Not to mention that Mind Heist, brilliant score.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 14, 2012)

Freaking love Mind Heist.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 14, 2012)

Cillian Murphy turned in a better acting performance than anyone that was in The Matrix.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 14, 2012)

I find it really ironic how the main characters of _The Matrix_ are almost as emotionless as the robots they're rebelling against.


----------



## Vault (Jan 14, 2012)

Wait Rukia are you defending 3/10 Inception?


----------



## Rukia (Jan 14, 2012)

Even a turd like Inception has its good points.

Ennoea and I have always agreed that Cotillard and Murphy did well.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 14, 2012)

'Prolly cause it doesn't deserve three out of ten.


----------



## Vault (Jan 14, 2012)

Rukia will Rukia Stunna. Just leave him be.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 14, 2012)

Are they still making a sequel? Or that video game?


----------



## Vault (Jan 14, 2012)

I am not excited about sequels or even the video game. Just let it die.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 14, 2012)

I agree. Though the concept would be interesting in video game format. But I digress.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 15, 2012)

Murphy is good in everything, and Cotillard did her best while working with a terrible actor like Di Caprio.


----------



## Sasori (Jan 15, 2012)

Haven't seen either.


----------



## Kirath (Jan 15, 2012)

I thought that The Matrix was great when I watched it as a kid and I still kinda like it. Inception was good too, but I probably liked it less because I was much older when I watched it, so I won't vote.


----------



## Grape (Jan 15, 2012)

Vault said:


> Again its explained, the brain has limits to what it can do. Nothing to do with programming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A) The brain has it's limits? So, even though each person uses roughly 10% of their brain, we are limited to that 10%, even though in the film it takes less than five seconds to "download" a program to learn how to do anything in the physical world? lol.

B) It is running. Agent Smith claimed to have tried and failed to chase the Guardian before, claiming him to be a ghost. Yet, he was some how able to track him down within a minute? lol.

C) What's the difference between a land line and wireless if they are both "imaginary"..? Weak argument. It's a plot device, introduced for no other reason than to create suspense. lol.

D) Their Father was basically an outlaw. Presumably under supervision by a Child Protective Service or whatever. Even then, the ending is so ambiguous, you can't say if he really ever met his children again, if anything in the movie was actually real etc. 

Again, everything is explained in the film, even the ambiguous ending.


----------



## Vault (Jan 15, 2012)

> A) The brain has it's limits? So, even though each person uses roughly 10% of their brain, we are limited to that 10%, even though in the film it takes less than five seconds to "download" a program to learn how to do anything in the physical world? lol.



Downloading a program to do something is just a short cut to learning it soon or later there is going to be a limit to mastering that thing. Thats the hurdle normal people cant get over and the Agents are still faster and stronger than them however as morpheus said they are still restricted by the laws of the matrix, unlike the "anomaly." 



> B) It is running. Agent Smith claimed to have tried and failed to chase the Guardian before, claiming him to be a ghost. Yet, he was some how able to track him down within a minute? lol.



That was after he was "free" of the matrix, however as an agent she always eluded him. 



> C) What's the difference between a land line and wireless if they are both "imaginary"..? Weak argument. It's a plot device, introduced for no other reason than to create suspense. lol.



The land line in which they exit the matrix are specific, which means that they are created by the real world people because if it was "imaginary" as you said then the agents will always know when and where they would show up. 


> D) Their Father was basically an outlaw. Presumably under supervision by a Child Protective Service or whatever. Even then, the ending is so ambiguous, you can't say if he really ever met his children again, if anything in the movie was actually real etc.



Meh you got me there i was just trying to play devil's advocate


----------



## Grape (Jan 15, 2012)

No playing devils advocate... I won before your first reply.  

I just felt like being courteous and explaining why I won <3


----------



## Vault (Jan 15, 2012)

You lie  I clearly won this argument barring the inception part.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 15, 2012)

Ennoea said:


> If in one reality the building is going haywire then why are the rest of the levels still fine.



because the building was arthur's dream
It was going haywire because of ysuff's dream
Rthur wasn't in the levels beneath the hotel so he therefore  retained the fuck up.


----------



## The Other (Jan 16, 2012)

I found Inception rather better, also the fact it had to do with dreams, and was in a way...more believeable.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 16, 2012)

What's the fun in science fiction if everything's believable?


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 16, 2012)

The purpose of science fiction is to make the improbable, possible, and tell a story from there

If the thing is too imposible then it detracts from the story. Your brain keeps telling you in the background "nope, fake, not a chance, all lies" and you can't enjoy the story


----------



## Stunna (Jan 16, 2012)

Yeah, yeah, we all know that. I'm talking about the guy who watches _Star Wars_ and is like "Pssh. Laser swords and talking robots? Totally unrealistic." 

EDIT: But then, that's science-fantasy.


----------



## jux (Jan 17, 2012)

Inception takes this one by a sliver for me.

Matrix had a good storyline and great cinematography, but Inception's multiinterpretive ending and message left more of an impact on me. Zimmer's music is also no competition. Cobb served as more interesting leading character as well, and I reather appreciated the blending of sci-fi and heist (my favourite movie genres). Matrix had it's moments, particularly the less convoluted universe rules, but take out the special effects and it's just another action thriller. I realise Matrix revolutionized the action genre but I agree with Thomaat's post that if the time of release between both movies were switched both would have been groundbreaking. Also I can't stand Keanu Reeves.


----------



## Pseudo (Jan 17, 2012)

GaaraoftheDesert1 said:


> Nolan would only dream to do a movie half good as the matrix



Looks like somebody has not watched Memento .

The actions scenes in Inception were horrendous though.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 17, 2012)

> but Inception's multiinterpretive ending



Oh good lord


----------



## Whimsy (Jan 17, 2012)

Ennoea said:


> Oh good lord



Indeed


----------



## Vault (Jan 17, 2012)

.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 17, 2012)

Whimsy said:


> Indeed



Why must it be like this?


----------



## Vault (Jan 17, 2012)

But the ending is so ambiguous. 

Was it dream or reality or was it limbo?


----------



## Pseudo (Jan 17, 2012)

Ennoea said:


> Oh good lord





Whimsy said:


> Indeed



This is what Inception does to its fans . Looks like he hurt himself there trying to use that wide vocabulary of his. Also shows that he hasn't watched a lot of movies. See? Nolan is bringing quality to the masses.  




_Put this on your Sig if Inception blew your mind

_


----------



## Vault (Jan 17, 2012)

Funny i have seen sigs like that on this forum.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 17, 2012)

_Put this in your sig if Inception fans want to make you blow your brains out_


----------



## Pseudo (Jan 17, 2012)

I think Stunna had one too.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 17, 2012)

_Put this in your sig if you think Inception complaints need to tone it down._


----------



## Whimsy (Jan 17, 2012)

It blew my mind with it's horribly deliberately ambiguous ending


BUT WHICH IS IT TELL ME NOLAN I MUST KNOW

NOLAN YOU GENIUS


----------



## Slice (Jan 17, 2012)

I remember all the talking about Matrix before i could see it (it opened like 4 months later here in germany) "You have to be careful to understand everything", "SOme people never get what the Matrix is", "This is so deep i never saw a movie with such a psychological background", "Neo is an analogy for all the innocent and good in mankind".

Basically all the same stuff people associate with Inception. Only the next generation of moviegoers.


That said i still like both.


----------



## Whimsy (Jan 17, 2012)

This is true, I remember people talking about the Architect's speech like it was some gloriously complicated thing

When they just made it appear so by using overly complex language to obfuscate what was being said


----------



## Pseudo (Jan 17, 2012)

Whimsy said:


> It blew my mind with it's horribly deliberately ambiguous ending
> 
> 
> BUT WHICH IS IT TELL ME NOLAN I MUST KNOW
> ...



But you have to admit the ending of Memento was one of the greatest things ever.


----------



## Whimsy (Jan 17, 2012)

I still haven't seen it all the way through


----------



## Vault (Jan 17, 2012)

Memento is a great movie. Even the Nolan bashers cant deny


----------



## Whimsy (Jan 17, 2012)

InB4 Tetra


----------



## Taleran (Jan 17, 2012)

The reason this thread exists because when you get down to it both films are the same.

Separated by close to 10 years and built on style, well done editing some cool new visual effects and a gigantic pile of references from other movies, comics, books you name it.

However both are able to take those things and combine them to make incredibly unique experiences that feel fresh, so I will take both of them.

It is basically the same thing that is really appealing about say Cowboy Bebop.


----------



## Slice (Jan 17, 2012)

Something else came to my mind:

How many of you that absolutely put Inception above the Matrix actually saw Matrix in cinema 1999?
It may be only 13 years ago but with movies that so heavily draw from their visuals that actually matters.


----------



## Pseudo (Jan 17, 2012)

Vault said:


> Even the Nolan bashers



This particular set of humans reared their ugly head in 2010 right? I didn't even know such a thing existed. This guy is single handily saving the Hollywood Blockbuster and they have the nerve to say he sucks? Blasted art house film lovers.


----------



## Vault (Jan 17, 2012)

To be honest i dont get the hate myself. All the movies he has put out since havent been terrible they have ranged from good to excellent but somehow there are people who bash him  Some people go as far as to call him a Michael Bay with delusions of an art student


----------



## Whimsy (Jan 17, 2012)

I think it's in response to the Nolan fanatics (maybe).

They are pretty awful, I had a look at some IMDB threads and they really go completely overboard, berating anyone who doesn't find every single aspect of Nolan's movies fantastic, and slagging off other directors.

So of course, you get an equally abrasive counter movement, and _voila_.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 17, 2012)

jux said:


> Inception's multiinterpretive ending and message left more of an impact on me..


Are you serious?


----------



## Taleran (Jan 17, 2012)

The other thing too they both share is that the special effects in both films are happening because of plot not because of indulgence.

The bullet time in the Matrix is happening because of rules and checks set up in the plot. The same with the various levels of rotating fun in Inception. Which is another thing that separates them from the action movies that borrow those tricks.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 17, 2012)

Whimsy said:


> It blew my mind with it's horribly deliberately ambiguous ending
> 
> 
> BUT WHICH IS IT TELL ME NOLAN I MUST KNOW
> ...



Unlike the  phone call ending for the matrix? 

It was for flavor, a fine ending that teases you into thinking of the whole thing up untill that point
I think it was ever meant to be this huge statement.


----------



## teddy (Jan 17, 2012)

Definitely going with the Matrix, Inception was a good movie, but it really didn't hit me as the next big thing in a way done by the Matrix.


----------



## Ennoea (Jan 17, 2012)

> This is true, I remember people talking about the Architect's speech like it was some gloriously complicated thing



No they weren't. People in the cinema were laughing at it.

Nolan is mediocre, his brother is a good writer and his team have all the ideas yet he gets all the credit. His direction isn't special, yes he can do nice wide shots but so can Micheal Bay. He can't do action well, Inception had great ideas but the execution wasn't good, the writing was messy and the casting choices are always questionable, the film just didn't flow. I'm not saying it was horrible, I rated it a 7 and would still give it that but the whole fanboying wank surrounding him is crazy. He's not saving mainstream cinema, he's not our Kubrick. And Inception isn't complicated, and if you sit around discussing if everything is a dream at the end then you've completely missed the point of the film.



> Does anybody else agree with me that the closing scene is the best in movie history?



IMDB boards need to be bombed.


----------



## Taleran (Jan 17, 2012)

If anything I would say Fincher is the one saving mainstream movies.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 17, 2012)

Vault said:


> To be honest i dont get the hate myself. All the movies he has put out since havent been terrible they have ranged from good to excellent but somehow there are people who bash him  Some people go as far as to call him a Michael Bay with delusions of an art student




i've never seen a bad christopher nolan movie. it's really just backlash or going against the grain. im guessing because some movie fans see people rave about the dark knight, it upsets them and makes them think that nolan is super duper overrated.


i've never met anyone who is very knowledgeable overrate christopher nolan.


----------



## Furious George (Jan 17, 2012)

Violent By Design said:


> i've never seen a bad christopher nolan movie.* it's really just backlash or going against the grain. im guessing because some movie fans see people rave about the dark knight, it upsets them and makes them think that nolan is super duper overrated.*



And so 2/3's of the "Rate the Last Movie You Saw" regulars entire MO is exposed.


----------



## Parallax (Jan 17, 2012)

I agree with VBD on his statement.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Jan 17, 2012)

> To be honest i dont get the love myself. All the movies he has put out since havent been terrible they have ranged from mediocre to decent but somehow there are people who have given him godlike status


Fixed                       .


----------



## Rukia (Jan 17, 2012)

Inception is one of the most boring films I have ever seen.

One scene I did like was the van slow motion scene.  I laughed my ass off.  Fucking hilarious.  Didn't realize Nolan had such a knack for comedy.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Jan 17, 2012)

Ben Affleck and Stallone direct better shootouts than Nolan.


----------



## Vault (Jan 17, 2012)

The gun fights in inception were absolutely appalling. One of the weakest I have ever seen


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jan 17, 2012)

Inception was a disappointment on many levels. I never counted the gunfights as one since I didn't care about them.


----------



## Taleran (Jan 17, 2012)

Wait that movie had gunfights?

could have fooled me.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 17, 2012)

I find it alarming that Nolan hasn't improved at all when it comes to directing action.  You would think his experiences with batman would have helped him.  Apparently not though.  The action in Inception was awful.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 17, 2012)

Eh, if all this thread has come down to is constant bashing of a perfectly acceptable movie in deteriment of something when asked upon qualities can only be quoted "the action" then I do believe I have long taken from it all that there was to take.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Jan 17, 2012)

There is a reason Nolan never had an academy award nomination for his direction.
Hell even Mr *Airbender* has been nominated.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 17, 2012)

implying the academy awards actually recognizes quality.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Jan 17, 2012)

They dont recognise Nolan's trash thats for sure...


----------



## Rukia (Jan 17, 2012)

Violent By Design said:


> implying the academy awards actually recognizes quality.


They do a better job than The Golden Globes.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 17, 2012)

the teen choice awards don't recognize Terrence Malick either. hohoho.



> They do a better job than The Golden Globes.



no they dont. literally the same exact quality and fads. the academy is just older and has a much better award show (it is more focused on movies, no genre related categories except animated which is dumb, better hosting and production). their actual nominees and winners are equally bad.


----------



## Taleran (Jan 17, 2012)

The action in Inception was heads and tails better than the Batman stuff. The anti gravity fight was incredibly well done. The movie didn't have gun fights but it had some well done action set pieces.


----------



## Vault (Jan 17, 2012)

Care to explain the Hardy vs Militia then? Its like the bad guys were missing their target on purpose, it really was retarded.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 17, 2012)

That was awful Vault.  That whole scene was bad.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Jan 17, 2012)

Matrix > inception> Matrix 3 > Matrix 2


----------



## Vault (Jan 17, 2012)

Rukia said:


> That was awful Vault.  That whole scene was bad.



What about Yusef driving the van  With the amount of times they shot at that van im was shocked not even a stray shot didnt hit one of them. I was expecting atleast one person to not make it but oh well


----------



## Rukia (Jan 17, 2012)

I think the shooting scenes were similar to the gun battles in Die Hard 2.  They were shooting blanks!


----------



## Pseudo (Jan 17, 2012)

Ennoea said:


> No they weren't. People in the cinema were laughing at it.
> 
> Nolan is mediocre, his brother is a good writer and his team have all the ideas yet he gets all the credit. His direction isn't special, yes he can do nice wide shots but so can Micheal Bay. He can't do action well, Inception had great ideas but the execution wasn't good, the writing was messy and the casting choices are always questionable, the film just didn't flow. I'm not saying it was horrible, I rated it a 7 and would still give it that but the whole fanboying wank surrounding him is crazy. He's not saving mainstream cinema, he's not our Kubrick. And Inception isn't complicated, and if you sit around discussing if everything is a dream at the end then you've completely missed the point of the film.



Holy crap! I just realized that the reason Nolan's movie have been so good is due mainly to Jonathan's screen plays. Memento being the prime example. *reps*


----------



## Stunna (Jan 17, 2012)

ThePseudo said:


> I think Stunna had one too.


Did          not.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 17, 2012)

Al-Yasa said:


> Matrix > inception> Matrix 3 > Matrix 2


Matrix > Matrix 2 > Matrix 3 > The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008) > Inception


----------



## Stunna (Jan 17, 2012)

Matrix > Inception > Matrix 2 > Matrix 3


----------



## Mikaveli (Jan 17, 2012)

Is everyone done fangasming over Inception now?


----------



## Rukia (Jan 17, 2012)

Super Goob said:


> Is everyone done fangasming over Inception now?


Most people in this thread seem to agree.  Inception sucks.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 17, 2012)

I've never heard anyone say it sucks 'cept for you and Tetra, gtfo outta here


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jan 17, 2012)

Because most people in his thread are planet's intellectual legacy.


----------



## αshɘs (Jan 17, 2012)

ThePseudo said:


> Holy crap! I just realized that the reason Nolan's movie have been so good is due mainly to Jonathan's screen plays. Memento being the prime example. *reps*



It should have collapsed under its own logic 

Good movie though.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 17, 2012)

I dont think Inception sucks at all. It's one of the better summer blockbusters to have come out.


----------



## Violent-nin (Jan 18, 2012)

I like them both for different reasons, fuck this poll.


----------



## The World (Jan 19, 2012)

This isn't even a debate, Matrix is way above Inception.


----------

