@thread - TL;DR
As for the movie - there's only one logic holed that jumped in my face while viewing: the damn flight was supposed to have taken 10 hours during which we were led to believe to have been inside the dream world for the most part, which, compounded three times over, would equal to something like 17 lolzillion years.
Apart from that, above all, I loved how the movie is incredibly airtight in its storytelling (on first viewing) - a true rarity in today's film reality (sic!).
Here are my favourite facts, about 1 hour after seeing it:
1) Ellen Page's character name is Ariadne. She designs the maze and she's the key to unravelling Cobb's mystery. Ownage.
2) the film dabbles in a very dangerous territory, mixing The Matrix with The Dead Zone, yet manages to end with a frickin' surprise and never makes you go "oh hell, not that again"
3) screwing with gravity = yes
4) the script is solid. All caps kind of SOLID. Heck, it's holy crap kind of solid. No waste. No extra weight (despite the running time). And no bollocks.
5) the storytelling is exquisite. I had to see Mulholland Drive twice to stitch all the pieces together. I had to see Primer four times to really make heads and tails of it. Inception delivers in superb clarity, and although I might think twice before wanting to see it the third time, I already know I won't be able to resist seeing it at least once more in theatre
6) music stops for 15 seconds during the entire film (notably when the truck hits the water) and Zimmer really delivers in that the theme (although somewhat reminiscent of another very recent DiCaprio flick, Shutter Island) literally carries the action. I didn't know it was Zimmer before the ending credits and now my respectometer went easily up by, say, 2 points
7) Ariadne (khm, Page) has a small tummy, which you can only get from drinking too much beer or, in the case of women, from a diseased costume designer or having sex with a cake. But it was cute.
In summation, it has been a while since I've seen storytelling this complete (not compelling - complete) and I loved every minute of it.
Anyone seen Inception yet?
Author
(SPOILERS BELOW. DO NOT LOOK IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT!)
I couldn't have seen the movie end in any other way than it did. I, too, saw the ambiguous ending coming (pretty much as soon as the camera panned to the children, I knew it would eventually pan back). Having it end any other way would've done the film an injustice.
The entire point of the film was built off of this ambiguity, IMO. We were presented with a multitude of facts about dream sharing and how the inception process actually works. The film follows these rules for the most part -- but there are minor little details that are either left out or implied, that can cause one to re-think the movie from a different angle.
I don't think anyone will know for sure what actually happened -- there is a ton of evidence to support the fact that Dom was still dreaming (whether he is actually in limbo or if he had been dreaming since his first time using the powerful sedative) but there is also ample evidence that points to it actually being reality (I've seen quite a few arguments made based around the presence of his wedding ring in reality and in dreams... I need to watch again to see this little detail).
Count me in the camp that thinks he was still dreaming -- and that he decided to let go, and let his dream become his reality. The foreshadowing from the "sedative" scene was just too strong to deny.
I think this ambiguous nature was brilliant, really makes for interesting theories and makes me want to watch the film all over again. Donnie Darko and Mulholland Drive had the same kind of effect on me, and those two films are in my top 10.
Quote:Original post by SamLowry
(spoilers)
I don't see how the ending would open up a path towards a sequel, it was fairly predictable that such an ambiguity would be inserted at the end. I have to admit I was a bit disappointed by it, it seems too much like "the typical thing to do". I hope a second viewing will show that there's more to it than that. The Prestige was great in this regard: it had two twists, it threw dozens of hints at you, and yet, most of the viewers didn't see it coming (or as Michael Caine would've put it, "You want to be fooled").
Another thing that bugs me a little about the movie is that it's hard to know to what point Nolan has actually thought it out. Are plot holes just plot holes, or are those seemingly contradictory details actually there for a purpose? To what point can we trust Nolan's genius? Does it really make sense to watch out for the smallest hints in order to determine what the ending actually means? Does the abrupt waking up at the end mean something? Does the interruption of the totem-check in the beginning (when he tries out the new drug) mean something? Are they just there to introduce ambiguity, or is there really some One And Only Correct Interpretation? Does DiCaprio's totem-check really mean anything, since he doesn't seem to hide its working, whereas Gordon-Levitt is much more paranoid about it (he doesn't let Page touch it). The ending implies the totem keeps on spinning, but it's supposed to be reality, and in other scenes that are supposed to be on the same "reality level", the totem does stop spinning.
Anyway, despite the overall negativeness of my remarks above, it really is a good movie, one definitely worth seeing.
I couldn't have seen the movie end in any other way than it did. I, too, saw the ambiguous ending coming (pretty much as soon as the camera panned to the children, I knew it would eventually pan back). Having it end any other way would've done the film an injustice.
The entire point of the film was built off of this ambiguity, IMO. We were presented with a multitude of facts about dream sharing and how the inception process actually works. The film follows these rules for the most part -- but there are minor little details that are either left out or implied, that can cause one to re-think the movie from a different angle.
I don't think anyone will know for sure what actually happened -- there is a ton of evidence to support the fact that Dom was still dreaming (whether he is actually in limbo or if he had been dreaming since his first time using the powerful sedative) but there is also ample evidence that points to it actually being reality (I've seen quite a few arguments made based around the presence of his wedding ring in reality and in dreams... I need to watch again to see this little detail).
Count me in the camp that thinks he was still dreaming -- and that he decided to let go, and let his dream become his reality. The foreshadowing from the "sedative" scene was just too strong to deny.
I think this ambiguous nature was brilliant, really makes for interesting theories and makes me want to watch the film all over again. Donnie Darko and Mulholland Drive had the same kind of effect on me, and those two films are in my top 10.
I don't understand why a spinning top would spin forever in a dream- it was the opposite logic of the weighted die and chess piece totems.
But aside from that, I unfortunately went into the movie after reading this quote:
So the first half of the movie, I was thinking that he couldn't go see his children because Mal trapped him inside her dream- which made enough sense with the references to her made in the first half. By the end I had to wonder if he was just over Mal and wanted to stay in the dream to be away from her- he did spend a lifetime with her after all.
Something that brings question to the 'it's all a dream' theories is how detailed the world is throughout the movie versus the known dream sequences. He can talk to the other characters and come up with new ones in the supposed super dream state/reality where as in the known dream sequences, all of the people were freaky, hive-minded monsters. In limbo, there appeared to be no other people except the Japanese guards.
But aside from that, I unfortunately went into the movie after reading this quote:
Quote:I went to see it a second time to test that out again. I had a few theories about which scenes were "real" and which were not, and I've accepted that there may only be one scene, one single scene in the entire film, that takes place in reality. Or not. It's the only one of Cobb by himself with no other characters present, except for those on the other end of a phone call.
So the first half of the movie, I was thinking that he couldn't go see his children because Mal trapped him inside her dream- which made enough sense with the references to her made in the first half. By the end I had to wonder if he was just over Mal and wanted to stay in the dream to be away from her- he did spend a lifetime with her after all.
Something that brings question to the 'it's all a dream' theories is how detailed the world is throughout the movie versus the known dream sequences. He can talk to the other characters and come up with new ones in the supposed super dream state/reality where as in the known dream sequences, all of the people were freaky, hive-minded monsters. In limbo, there appeared to be no other people except the Japanese guards.
Quote:Original post by capn_midnight
I'm not even sure we ever even hear her on the phone.
We do, but only a few words. She has some kind of accent, probably French so that it fits with Mal's.
We're balls deep into this thread; SPOILERS OBV.
I just saw Inception this morning. I waited all day/night to read this thread. Prior to watching the movie I had only read the first post - since it was imperative, for my own enjoyment, to wait until I had thought about the movie before continuing in this thread.
First, the preliminaries: capn_midnight's first post is awesome. In terms of a quick summary, it echoes many of the things I would have said or had been thinking. Although I am surprised by the lack of mentioning Mal.
Next, SamLowry's first post is awesome too. It speaks to how I felt after the last flash of the last frame impinged upon my retinas: are we, the informed, victims of an addiction to ambiguity for ambiguity's sake? For example, are we too smart to ever accept something like this at face value even if that were its intent?
And FireSickle, THANKS, for mentioning Mal. If we are to consider an interpretation beyond face value, then I think this bitch is to be reckoned with.
So yeah I am still seeing stars. A few things I'd like to add beyond the previous great discussion.
1. "Leap of faith." The idea of a leap of faith is mentioned by MAL(on the ledge) as well Saito(in the helicopter(ie. go back to usa)).
2. When Cobb 'implants' the idea that Mal is dreaming via entering her safe box in her childhood home in the venerable dreamscape, she is ended by him telling her something about the destination of the train-ity blah blah with her head atop the railroad track. We then see the image of the railroad spike shaking as the train approaches, cut to Mal's face atop track, cut to next scene.
The line that Cobb uses about the train is mentioned again in the film. I am trying to remember where. Also, the shaking railroad spike image is used once more at this instance. (Still cannot remember. Maybe someone knows?)
3. In order to implant the idea in Mal, Cobb utilizes her 'totem' the spinning top, and again my perception may be off, by 'orienting it' in her safe box to implant the idea to kill herself that spirals out of control with respect the various dream levels.
When the Ellen Page character asks about totems, Cobb replies that it's something Mal used to test whether the individual was still dreaming. When the Page character completes her totem, Cobb asks to inspect it. She refuses since the perception of the totem must be uniquely experienced.
If Cobb inherited his totem from Mal, then this is suspect I would think.
So now for the wtf's. (1) & (2) make me notice the salient repetition of these ideas. The fact that (1) occurs from two sources (and maybe (2) since my memory is tapped) we can say this is coincidental or....
And number (3). In the last scene the spinning top never tips. It is perturbed, in that we never see it fall. After all, Cobb implanted the idea in Mal, using her own totem which he later adopts as his own.
---
How does Cobb get a hold of Mal's totem? Why does he then use it as his own? This seems to violate the uniqueness requirement. Is it an unfortunate consequence that since the idea had been implanted into Mal that their venerable dream world was unreal that other world in which she awoke she would experience the same dilemma. Or could it have been some sort of a failure on her part to implant an idea into Cobb and that he was trapped in the dream limbo? We are reminded that the illusion that the self has implanted the idea to self without any external inputs is essential for an idea to be regarded as self-generated.
------------------
Ah, my head is spinning. Maybe I am addicted to ambiguity. Maybe I should be like my girlfriend and shrug my shoulders and move on.
Mind gravy.
I just saw Inception this morning. I waited all day/night to read this thread. Prior to watching the movie I had only read the first post - since it was imperative, for my own enjoyment, to wait until I had thought about the movie before continuing in this thread.
First, the preliminaries: capn_midnight's first post is awesome. In terms of a quick summary, it echoes many of the things I would have said or had been thinking. Although I am surprised by the lack of mentioning Mal.
Next, SamLowry's first post is awesome too. It speaks to how I felt after the last flash of the last frame impinged upon my retinas: are we, the informed, victims of an addiction to ambiguity for ambiguity's sake? For example, are we too smart to ever accept something like this at face value even if that were its intent?
And FireSickle, THANKS, for mentioning Mal. If we are to consider an interpretation beyond face value, then I think this bitch is to be reckoned with.
So yeah I am still seeing stars. A few things I'd like to add beyond the previous great discussion.
1. "Leap of faith." The idea of a leap of faith is mentioned by MAL(on the ledge) as well Saito(in the helicopter(ie. go back to usa)).
2. When Cobb 'implants' the idea that Mal is dreaming via entering her safe box in her childhood home in the venerable dreamscape, she is ended by him telling her something about the destination of the train-ity blah blah with her head atop the railroad track. We then see the image of the railroad spike shaking as the train approaches, cut to Mal's face atop track, cut to next scene.
The line that Cobb uses about the train is mentioned again in the film. I am trying to remember where. Also, the shaking railroad spike image is used once more at this instance. (Still cannot remember. Maybe someone knows?)
3. In order to implant the idea in Mal, Cobb utilizes her 'totem' the spinning top, and again my perception may be off, by 'orienting it' in her safe box to implant the idea to kill herself that spirals out of control with respect the various dream levels.
When the Ellen Page character asks about totems, Cobb replies that it's something Mal used to test whether the individual was still dreaming. When the Page character completes her totem, Cobb asks to inspect it. She refuses since the perception of the totem must be uniquely experienced.
If Cobb inherited his totem from Mal, then this is suspect I would think.
So now for the wtf's. (1) & (2) make me notice the salient repetition of these ideas. The fact that (1) occurs from two sources (and maybe (2) since my memory is tapped) we can say this is coincidental or....
And number (3). In the last scene the spinning top never tips. It is perturbed, in that we never see it fall. After all, Cobb implanted the idea in Mal, using her own totem which he later adopts as his own.
---
How does Cobb get a hold of Mal's totem? Why does he then use it as his own? This seems to violate the uniqueness requirement. Is it an unfortunate consequence that since the idea had been implanted into Mal that their venerable dream world was unreal that other world in which she awoke she would experience the same dilemma. Or could it have been some sort of a failure on her part to implant an idea into Cobb and that he was trapped in the dream limbo? We are reminded that the illusion that the self has implanted the idea to self without any external inputs is essential for an idea to be regarded as self-generated.
------------------
Ah, my head is spinning. Maybe I am addicted to ambiguity. Maybe I should be like my girlfriend and shrug my shoulders and move on.
Mind gravy.
An interesting moment that I don't think has been mentioned yet is in the Tokyo hotel (before leaving via helicopter), Cobb sets his totem spinning and holds his gun aside his head - implying he himself is in constant doubt of reality.
IIRC he's interrupted before the totem stop spinning, adding more fuel to the alternate interpretations by making the reality of that scene ambiguous.
This is only indirectly connected to them 'dying' on the railroad tracks - Cobb can't convince her to do this while she believes limbo is real, but once his inception takes hold she cooperates.
I take this as:
A) The cliched ambiguous ending for the sake of an ambiguous ending -- letting people come up with their own interpretations, because we want to ;)
B) Cobb doesn't care any more - he's got his kids back, which is all he wanted to begin with. He couldn't be with them properly in the dream world, because they were just projections of his memories.
Also, the childrens faces are a more reliable 'totem' than the spinning top anyway - he's unable to recreate their faces throughout the story, despite wanting to.
IIRC he's interrupted before the totem stop spinning, adding more fuel to the alternate interpretations by making the reality of that scene ambiguous.
Quote:Original post by signal_The totem represents her knowledge that 'limbo' isn't real. She locks this knowledge away (by permanently setting it to rest) to guard her sanity (and live happily in limbo). When he breaks into this part of her mind and sets the totem spinning, she is again subconciously aware that she is in a dream. However, this knowledge doesn't leave her once they wake up.
In order to implant the idea in Mal, Cobb utilizes her 'totem' the spinning top, and again my perception may be off, by 'orienting it' in her safe box to implant the idea to kill herself that spirals out of control with respect the various dream levels.
This is only indirectly connected to them 'dying' on the railroad tracks - Cobb can't convince her to do this while she believes limbo is real, but once his inception takes hold she cooperates.
Quote: When the Page character completes her totem, Cobb asks to inspect it. She refuses since the perception of the totem must be uniquely experienced.They only have to be uniquely experienced so that they cannot be perfectly recreated by someone elses dreams - it doesn't matter if a dead person has experienced it, because you're not going to end up in a dead person's dream.
If Cobb inherited his totem from Mal, then this is suspect I would think.
Quote:How does Cobb get a hold of Mal's totem? Why does he then use it as his own? This seems to violate the uniqueness requirement.He finds it in the smashed hotel room before she dies. Sentimental value. See above regarding uniqueness.
Quote:So now for the wtf's. (1) & (2) make me notice the salient repetition of these ideas. The fact that (1) occurs from two sources (and maybe (2) since my memory is tapped) we can say this is coincidental or...."leap of faith" is a motif. The "waiting for a train" dialogue is ironically repeated back to Cobb by Mal before she dies for reals. The repeated shots of the shaking railroad spike foreshadow the revelation of Cobbs guilt - it lets us know that we don't know his secrets yet.
Quote:In the last scene the spinning top never tips. It is perturbed, in that we never see it fall. After all, Cobb implanted the idea in Mal, using her own totem which he later adopts as his own.It's about to tip over IMO ;)
I take this as:
A) The cliched ambiguous ending for the sake of an ambiguous ending -- letting people come up with their own interpretations, because we want to ;)
B) Cobb doesn't care any more - he's got his kids back, which is all he wanted to begin with. He couldn't be with them properly in the dream world, because they were just projections of his memories.
Also, the childrens faces are a more reliable 'totem' than the spinning top anyway - he's unable to recreate their faces throughout the story, despite wanting to.
Quote:Original post by Hodgman
They only have to be uniquely experienced so that they cannot be perfectly recreated by someone elses dreams - it doesn't matter if a dead person has experienced it, because you're not going to end up in a dead person's dream.Quote:How does Cobb get a hold of Mal's totem? Why does he then use it as his own? This seems to violate the uniqueness requirement.He finds it in the smashed hotel room before she dies. Sentimental value. See above regarding uniqueness.
But the problem is that basically everyone knows how Mals totem works (and in my opinion doesn't work). We could say Cobb is in Mal's dream, incepted with her idea to use her totem- and she successfully convinced him to stay dreaming.
Quote:Original post by Hodgman
Also, the childrens faces are a more reliable 'totem' than the spinning top anyway - he's unable to recreate their faces throughout the story, despite wanting to.
I disagree- when memory-Mal tries to convince him to look at the childrens faces, he looks away and says he doesn't want to see them because he knows they aren't real and that he wants to get back to his real children.
Quote:We could say Cobb is in Mal's dream, incepted with her idea to use her totem- and she successfully convinced him to stay dreaming.but that would mean Mal has removed herself from her dream (it's just Cobb, grandma, grandpa and the kids at the end). That would be some kind of self-sacrifice theme (hold on to your husband by removing your own existence), which doesn't really fit with the rest of the movie.
However, as both Mal and Cobb fully understand the spinning top, even if it does topple at the end, this doesn't mean the ending is real. It could be a dream belonging to either of those two (or if everyone understands this totem, it could be anyone's dream I guess).
Quote:I disagree- when memory-Mal tries to convince him to look at the childrens faces, he looks away and says he doesn't want to see them because he knows they aren't real and that he wants to get back to his real children.I took his turning away as an indication that he literally is incapable of recreating that moment (of them kneeling/playing and turning to face him) so he was forced to look away. It could be that he's capable but chooses not to, perhaps he knows that if he does perceive that projection, it will be slightly wrong and will corrupt his actual memories of them?
In the final scene though, the two children have aged and are wearing slightly different clothing. So he's either experiencing new reality, or he's chosen to invent his own version of them growing up and has given up on preserving his memories.
[edit] It's also interesting that at the start of the film, Cobb says that once an idea takes hold it's very hard to change - most people I've talked to are certain of whether the ending was real or not, and probably aren't likely to be swayed to the other side.
Also, when the sedative is introduced and they're told "The dreams become the reality, who are you to say different", perhaps this is simply supposed to let us know that there is no objective truth to the interpretation of which parts of the film are dreams/reality?
Quote:Original post by Hodgman
An interesting moment that I don't think has been mentioned yet is in the Tokyo hotel (before leaving via helicopter), Cobb sets his totem spinning and holds his gun aside his head - implying he himself is in constant doubt of reality.
IIRC he's interrupted before the totem stop spinning, adding more fuel to the alternate interpretations by making the reality of that scene ambiguous.
The way I remember it his first reality check after trying to steal from Saito but before accepting Saito's offer is successful. I can't quite remember why he does it though.
His second reality check is after going down into the chemist's basement and testing his sedative (after the old dude delivers the "who's to say" line). That's the one that's interrupted by Saito, so for all we know he could still be sleeping Mombasa, although I can't see how that would fit in with the rest of the plot per se.
Personally I think there's enough purposeful ambiguity in the film to prevent anyone from reaching a firm conclusion; if it's a dream Nolan left no obvious sign of who was dreaming or why. I've heard all sorts of plausible theories that can't be definitively dismissed and I think that's probably how the director intended it.
I just saw it. It was certainly enjoyable, but it left a lot to be desired. Note that I'm not a fan of Nolan, so I don't think Inception or, much more, Dark Knight were one of the 'best' movies of the last years. Each individual scene in DK is superbly directed and acted - well, for the most part - but as a whole, it's a mess; and of course there's the fundamental flaw that I can't possibly shake: Gotham itself, which in Begins and DK is just another more or less typical modern metropolis, and a guy in a batsuit just doesn't fit; in contrast in Tim Burton's movies the gothic,eerie and scary Gotham just seems to naturally "give birth" to Batman as a manifestation of itself in human form. But I digress.
Anyway, Inception. The idea was excellent, however the way it was explored, in the end it was a missed chance. First, way more time than it should have was spent in action sequences and chases which, in the worst cases reminded of typical action flicks and in the best, when the gravity was distorted, reminded of...well, I don't need to say it, do I? :P
Second, the whole thing about questioning 'what is real'. Ugh. I wish they hadn't done that. First of all, it's not what happens in real life, at least with most cases. Right now, if someone told me that I'm not awake but connected to a virtual reality system that simulates the physical world, I would say, who knows, maybe so. But if they told me, or wondered myself, if I'm in a dream, I would laugh. It doesn't work like that; sure when you're dreaming you think it's real and the strangest thing 'makes sense', however you never wonder if you're dreaming; actually, the more 'clearer' a dream gets, the more you realize you're dreaming. I have dreams before which I will not call 'lucid', but they were very very clear and I could control my movement and explore the environment, and in those dreams I *know* I'm dreaming, as I know right now that I'm not dreaming.
So, it would be more consistent to show that the 'subject' is having a normal(although with an environment pre-fabricated by others) dream where his subconcious has taken charge, while the extractors are lucid-dreaming and act based on their fully intact logic. Which brings us to the question then, how come Cobb's subconcious manifests itself in the dream, and why *none* of the other extractors ever had that problem(what, they lack a subconcious)? Only Cobb and the 'subject' create projections unintentionally. It really seems to indicate that the whole thing was a dream, possibly Cobb's, but might have been his wife's too, and personally I don't like that at all; the rules and boundaries and possibilities then become way too flexible that I don't really bother to pick one.
Personally, I wish it was the kind of movie which says 'I'm not going to mock you, what I display as reality will be the reality, and what I display as a dream will be a dream. But I will still blow your mind'. As I said, from my point of view, a big missed chance to see a movie where some heroes explore first hand the web that is the subconcious, or maybe even, due to a malfunction, spend years or decades there(that would be extremely awesome I think, but it would more or less require the movie be turned into a series which, either on TV or in cinema and given that the budget would remain in the same level, would be the biggest undertaking in the history of the art of moving pictures, thus probably impossible).
Anyway, I think I said a bit too much...in a nutshell: very enjoyable, of course smarter than the typical blockbuster, but never reached the depths it could have.
Anyway, Inception. The idea was excellent, however the way it was explored, in the end it was a missed chance. First, way more time than it should have was spent in action sequences and chases which, in the worst cases reminded of typical action flicks and in the best, when the gravity was distorted, reminded of...well, I don't need to say it, do I? :P
Second, the whole thing about questioning 'what is real'. Ugh. I wish they hadn't done that. First of all, it's not what happens in real life, at least with most cases. Right now, if someone told me that I'm not awake but connected to a virtual reality system that simulates the physical world, I would say, who knows, maybe so. But if they told me, or wondered myself, if I'm in a dream, I would laugh. It doesn't work like that; sure when you're dreaming you think it's real and the strangest thing 'makes sense', however you never wonder if you're dreaming; actually, the more 'clearer' a dream gets, the more you realize you're dreaming. I have dreams before which I will not call 'lucid', but they were very very clear and I could control my movement and explore the environment, and in those dreams I *know* I'm dreaming, as I know right now that I'm not dreaming.
So, it would be more consistent to show that the 'subject' is having a normal(although with an environment pre-fabricated by others) dream where his subconcious has taken charge, while the extractors are lucid-dreaming and act based on their fully intact logic. Which brings us to the question then, how come Cobb's subconcious manifests itself in the dream, and why *none* of the other extractors ever had that problem(what, they lack a subconcious)? Only Cobb and the 'subject' create projections unintentionally. It really seems to indicate that the whole thing was a dream, possibly Cobb's, but might have been his wife's too, and personally I don't like that at all; the rules and boundaries and possibilities then become way too flexible that I don't really bother to pick one.
Personally, I wish it was the kind of movie which says 'I'm not going to mock you, what I display as reality will be the reality, and what I display as a dream will be a dream. But I will still blow your mind'. As I said, from my point of view, a big missed chance to see a movie where some heroes explore first hand the web that is the subconcious, or maybe even, due to a malfunction, spend years or decades there(that would be extremely awesome I think, but it would more or less require the movie be turned into a series which, either on TV or in cinema and given that the budget would remain in the same level, would be the biggest undertaking in the history of the art of moving pictures, thus probably impossible).
Anyway, I think I said a bit too much...in a nutshell: very enjoyable, of course smarter than the typical blockbuster, but never reached the depths it could have.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
