OK so maybe the latest Iron Man was more about Tony Stark, but the author's point was that the Iron Man franchise is built on a metal suit that shoots missiles from its arms and can FLY!

Am I missing something? Inception is a simple and rather predictable "dream within a dream" story with the inevitable question at the end... are we still dreaming? I had the final scene worked out a full half hour into this overly long and rather dull movie. Might appeal to the mentally challenged and anyone who has never read a scifi story involving dreams.

I think that the point Zach was making is that Iron Man had the draw of the suit, and the franchise o'comics, behind it. A *lot* of people were very unsure about the choice of RDJ as Tony Stark, and Stark himself is not an icon like Iron Man.

Iron Man showed that RDJ was the correct choice to play Tony, but prior to the opening of the movie, what people had to go on was an actor a lot of people considered past his prime, and a suit of armor anyone who's ever read a comic could easily identify.

(Apologies for a partial posting - cats and TwoP's commenting system are not a great combination.)

My exact thoughts, Kevin. My exact thoughts. Perhaps the writer was thinking of a different Iron Man, starring a coincidentally-named actor.

Also worth noting (though not connected to the last bit) is that the bit in Fantasia was based on a poem by Goethe. It wasn't original to Disney.

Inception was a clever movie, not because it was original (it wasn't) but it took a common movie them and constructed a complex plot in time and space AND it did it seemlessly. Most sci-fi movies have major continuity errors and this one did not. Kudos Mr. Nolan for taking earlier source material and spinning an original tale without the usual narrative flaws one finds in this kinds of movies.

I agree. My husband and I also saw the movie and had the movie figured out and it played like so many other dream movies already written and made. Stephen King's version on dreams was perhaps the best. Stephen King actually does go to sleep and 'Dreams' up his next story - his dreams become his reality; and Nolan tends to play on the fact that most people 'WON'T' understand and need to see his film 2-3 times that is how he makes money. It is pathetic that a director feels a need to depend on that. Forcing the public to continue paying to understand a movie that the stars of the film itself didn't even understand. Mememto and Prestige failed in the end money making wise and we saw both as well. I actually hope this does the same as those two and people realize it before they keep wasting their hard earned money seeing it over and over again to find resolutions. Nolan and Dicaprio were both a disappointment in our eyes. We gleaned more from Scorsese's Shutter Island. From Inception, we learned the script lacked, no emotional value, less acting ability,and co-herency was hard to follow at first yet a whole lotta CGI effects. We can see the specail effects in any movie. Gee, once you finally understood what was going on and how bad Dicaprio's acting was and how good Gordon Levitt's was all there was left was a bunch of hyped CGI special effects. Gordon Levitt's acting was better in our opinion than Dicaprio's dead panning monotone - now that young man deserves an Oscar nom, not De'CRAP'rio.
As for Iron man - Robert Downey Jr. made the movie what it was. Without him the movies would have tanked. People went to see him 'IN' the suit as Tony Stark. Any moron can tell you that.With any other actor the movie would not have been a hit. Robert is Iron man.
As for Sorcerer's Apprentice, Cage is still a draw at the box office. He was beaten by a superficial movie made by the director of The Dark Knight. Without The Dark Knight - Nolan would be just any other producer. That movie was 'HUGE' for several reason - one being Heath Ledger's fantastic performance. One movie does not make you a fantastic director - not even close. The oth I believe was Christian Bale and his fan base. Nolan's name was not the draw. Now JAMES CAMERON's name is a movie draw. If this earns Oscar noms - then Avatar should have. Both were Sci-Fi and god knows Cameron deserved his Nolan doesn't!
Everyone shouldn't waste there money on this ridiculos movie 2-3 times. Wait for the DVD edition, then watch it endlessly if you have to - it will be out in time for Christmas. Right now see it once and forget about it - the hype isn't worth it. Read Stephen King's Nightmares and Dreamscapes or watch one of the many other movies just like Nolan's you just get so much more out of them!

Yes, words like "Unobtainium" sound like they are made up but so are the names of real elements. All it takes is one moron to discover and name it. Ever heard of plutonium? Or what about Thorium? What would you prefer it to be called? Something simply like hyperconductorium?

i agree with kevin no big unobtanium but a movie dat really sucked was she out of my league (gross)

Of course it's made up. However, we understand that the stuff is hard to get, so they didn't need to throw an anvil with "Unobtainable!" on it in the general direction of the viewing audience.

i gotta say, though i liked both "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" and "Inception", i liked Sorcerer's Apprentice SOOOOO much better.

I'm not @ all surprised that Inception did much better @ the box office, but i think, while a good movie, it was horribly overrated. Like that guy who commented up above, i had the final plot twist, "are we still dreaming" figured out much in advance... except for me, i saw it coming the moment i read the brief plot overview before seeing the film. Honestly, IMO, if it didnt have Leonardo Dicaprio, Hans Zimmer's Dark-knight-esque music, and "the director of 'the dark knight'" all attached to it at once, i think it might've bombed, or @ least not have been a smash hit.

Now Sorcerer's apprentice... i loved this movie WAAAAYYYYYY more than i expected to, and I'm so horribly disappointed and shocked that it bombed (as of today, it still hasn't made back its budget, even w/o advertising costs). In hindsight, i can understand why tho. It stupidly opened @ roughly the same time as Inception and Despicable me, 2 films that had MUCH more hype surrounding them. Sorcerer's Apprentice should've come out either a few wks earlier or a few wks later, and mayb it would've been @ least moderately successful.

Now as for the hacks calling it a "Harry Potter rip-off," u guys obviously dont have brains @ all, if Harry Potter is the only thing that comes to ur mind the moment u see the word "sorcerer" or "wizard". May I remind you that this film is based on an over half-a-century old musical short, which is in turn based on an over hundred-year-old poem? Hint: That's WAAAAYYYYYYYY before Harry Potter came out. Dont get me wrong, i love harry potter, but i personally liked Sorcerer's apprentice's style of wizardry better than Harry Potter's... the Harry Potter concept of having "special wizard EVRYTHING" (id est, special wizard transportation, wizard food, wizard sports, wizard drinks, wizard medicine) really annoyed me, even when i was 8 yrs old ("then they saw a goblin @ the wizard bank, then they bought wizard books at the wizard shop, and then they drank wizard beverages at the wizard pub, then they delivered a wizard letter @ the wizard post office"). Sorcerer's apprentice's concept of wizards that utilize evryday (quote, "muggle") items w/ their powers is so much cooler to me (transforming an ancient Ford into a Lamborghini, turning a paper chinese dragon and eagle gargoyle into real ones, using a form of psuedo-science to @ least sort of explain a sorcerer's powers, etc). So yeah... im so disappointed that a sequel prolly wont happen. :'-(

The best actors, I think, have a childlike quality. They have a sort of an ability to lose themselves. There's still some silliness.