re: Charles Bronson's Inception Review

I'm liking your reviews man. Chicken needs to give you a blog.

Thanks for the heads up Chuck.



I was thinking of going to check it out tomorrow but I was kinda waiting on your review. Now that I've read it I'll probably just wait for the DVD or watch it when it comes on HBO.

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I am as much a fan of my fans as my detractors. I appreciate everyone's opinion, even the stupid ones.

I now want to talk about the ending. After a solid movie, I was very disappointed in it. As soon as we were told by Leo what a totem was, I knew One Trick Pony Nolan would leave us, as in Memento, with the suspense of not knowing what was real. Morons will debate ad nauseum about it, as well as the different layers of reality in the wedding cake layered film. Nolan loves doing this because it makes his semi-intelligent viewers fell intelligent. The truth is, Nolan doesn't know either. He just wants to control your thoughts with his indecision and trickery. The movie's basically a complex way of a blind man doing the ball and cup trick and at the end asking his audience which cup the ball is under, but the blind man never raises any cups and leaves his spellbound viewers with no answer.

he tries way too hard for a message board

Chuck I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one my man. I have 0 complaints with this one. For all the hype it was getting I was actually amazed that it lived up to it.

While I enjoy reading movie reviews, your use of flaming and slurs reeked of immaturity. If you had any intellectual viewpoints on movies (and there might be some expressed originality), they would be discounted due to your ego. See SFP circa whenever. Should anyone sponsor your blog at this stage of your writing maturity, I would surely lose respect.

See the movie again, and opine away. Go free speech and all that good stuff. I'll be more selective in my TD browsing.

quote:

---

What's not to love -- college intro level introductions to Kant, Descartes, Freud, Jung, and Kierkegaard

---

I stopped reading here.

Regardless of relevance?

Quite clearly, you've never read any of the writers I've mentioned. Briefly, because I want to get to a few points about my second viewing, Descartes, of course, is only notable because he questioned the very nature of his existence. How could he know what was real? His view was only through doubting, only through thinking. Thought and doubt give rise to being. No clearer is this expressed than in the totem, a device that represents cogito ergo sum. Kant comes into play because the movie is an illusion. The movie is based on illusion because Leonardo refuses to apply what he knows with what he experiences. That is, he knows his dreams are dreams and experiences them as such, but he will not let mind trump the heart. Kierkegaard is mentioned passingly with the "leap of faith" expression, used twice in the movie. That notion is only a vignette of Kierkegaard in the movie, an attempt to distract us from the heart of Soren. Subjective versus objective truth is that heart. What is true in the movie, one must decide, is it subjective only to the subject of the dreams or is the subject an object, a pawn? What is true to one? Is that true universally?

Moving to psychology, not philosophy, you philistine, all the babble about subconscious and projection comes directly from Freud. Must we even mention Jung, considering his entire work was based on dream interpretation? To cut short, there are relationships between what appears in our dreams and what appears in reality. For instance, the Indian drinks too much champagne on the airplane. The product is it rains in the dream.

Augustine largely developed the Christian doctrine of Original Sin, an act or a condition that he believed produced guilt. And guilt, said Augustine, "is washed away by tears of repentance." Fascinating that Leonardo's character never cries, but his wife does. Her guilt is absolved by her repentant tears. Leonardo's guilt is perpetual because he does not know how to repent and receive a baptism by tears.

Now to correct a few misconceptions I've seen thrown around. The point of the totem is only to determine if you are in your own dream or in someone else's. It has nothing to do with reality, as some have said.

To bolster my claims that everyone is a pawn in Leonardo's guilt driven world, notice that Juno chooses a pawn as her totem. She is the pawn prima facie.

Did you notice that it's Fischer's dad who is the first patient shown, but briefly, in the Indian chemist's underground lair? What does his presence there mean? Consider Kant.

Good night.

holy shite