Ellen Page’s character in the new Christopher Nolan epic “Inception” turns to her fellow dream raiders mid film and asks, “whose sub conscious are we in again?”
Darned if we know, Ellen.
“Inception” isn’t the best film of the summer as critics and movie fans alike hoped.
But it’s the most maddening.
Nolan’s new film requires more brain power than a Mensa meeting. It makes up for every mindless action flick we’ve seen all year, if not this decade. Audience members should do Sudoku puzzles to warm up for this mental workout.
If only all that synapse stretching could unravel the tapestry of story elements sprawled out before our blinking eyes.
Leonardo DiCaprio, starring in his second dream-saturated movie of 2010, plays a man who can enter your dreams and extract ideas from them. Or, if the customer demands it, place a runaway thought in someone’s mind.
DiCaprio’s Cobb is hired by an Asian businessman (Ken Watanabe) to infiltrate the mind of the heir to a rival, played by Cillian Murphy.
Cobb must assemble a dream team for the gig, from his regular sidekick (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to a new recruit specializing in dream architecture (Page).
Complicating matters – the understatement of understatements – is Cobb’s wife (Marion Cotillard), a woman who lives in his dreams and keeps getting in the way whenever he does his mental landscaping.
What’s frustrating about “Inception” is the care Nolan brings to the film, fusing tiny logic circuits together into one long current that can’t help but intrigue.
The love story actually resonates, slicing through the narrative haze in impressive fashion. Credit Cotillard for enlivening a woefully underwritten role and giving the film a semblance of heart.
Page’s character is a fledgling dream expert, and a quick study at that. She represents the audience’s surrogate, and Cobb is constantly getting her up to speed on how dream busting works. But his exposition-heavy banter weighs down nearly every key player in the movie.
It’s the kind of tale that requires characters to describe what they’re doing,why they’re doing it and what the impact of their actions will be. That isn’t storytelling, and no amount of Nolan’s signature razzle dazzle makes it so.
The special effects teased in the trailer are dutifully mind boggling. Gordon-Levitt’s character has the most fun, engaging in zero gravity fisticuffs in one sequence that stands as a triumph of technical wizardry.
The score by Hans Zimmer is another marvel, a series of orchestral upper cuts that keeps the film at a near-fever pace.
That’s another problem with the film. “The Dark Knight,” Nolan’s previous epic, had a similar intensity, ramping up our emotions time and again until we were begging for the Joker to offer dark comic release.
Here, you won’t find many laugh lines, and when a bit of humanity peers through the haze it’s a chance to gulp clean air – and take a pause – before it’s back to studying the inscrutable storyline.
For all of Nolan’s attention to detail, major logic holes jump off the screen without 3-D glasses. At one point someone is firing at the bad guys with a standard-issue weapon when another character suggests he “dream” up a better gun.
Voila, a massive gun is suddenly on screen. Why don’t all the heroes try that trick?
“Inception” is so bold, so brash that it spends far too much time explaining just how bold and brash it is. That’s time that should have been spent letting us get to know the characters, the story arcs and the whole messy narrative.
(Photo: Leonardo DiCaprio stars as a man who can enter people’s dreams in “Inception,” the latest film from director Christopher Nolan./Warner Bros./Photo Credit: Stephen Vaughan)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }
That’s unfortunate as I had high hopes that an intellectual mystery would actually have a satisfying resolution. I wasn’t pinning my hopes for a great movie summer on Inception but after such lackluster events as Robin Hood and Prince of Persia, by default, all the hopes fell on its shoulders. I’m still excited by the prospect of the movie, but the sheen has certainly been faded by the “grown up” reviews. I guess I’ll find out for myself this weekend.
Check back in and let me know your thoughts … I’m in the minority here – most reviews are glowing.
I thought it was terrific, and I didn’t have a problem with the narrative device of dreams-within-dreams, personally. But I love super complicated film storylines where I really have to pay attention to understand what’s going on, and where things aren’t what they seem to be. Also, there’s something important about Mal (Cobb’s wife) that I can’t really share without it being a spoiler, but Christian, we should talk. Maybe at SALT on Monday?
If this movie allows for multiple viewings and I can capture different ideas and possible resolutions then I’m in.
I fount it boring, not confusing. All of the “twists” were seen hours ahead of time. Oh, she’s dead? SHOCKER! Oh, Leo planted that idea in her head? I supposed I could have been surprised if they hadn’t hung the whole movie on him already doing the Inception thing on SOMEONE.
The movie was too long, didn’t trust the audience enough, and it was logically inconsistent (no points for “it’s a dream” logic). The only mystery in the film arose from facts purposely and needlessly withheld from the audience in order to create artificial confusion, not for any pacing or story consideration (other than they needed to make it longer so they could fit in more spoken exposition, great.). They “payoffs” wer inserted as if they were cuts from another movie (“paradox” – give me a f-ing break that shot was bad).
I’m surprised at the early response to the performances. Gordon-Levitt and Page seemed wooden, and Page’s entire character relied on the audience carrying her water.
This is Nolan’s poorest effort yet, unfortunately.
I really don’t understand all this talk of the film being “confusing” or “hard to follow”. I watched it once, and I didn’t miss a beat. If you didn’t get it, then it isn’t the fault of the film.
I have no comment on the movie, but I heard you on Mike Rosen today, you are pretty good, wish he’d replace whoever his regular movie guy is with you. (I find that guy very annoying, it’s hard to listen to him)
It really wasn’t that complicated! I mean sure the story was complex and required you to pay attention, but I found it pretty straightforward myself.
It’s really not that hard to follow. Just because you don’t have the attention span to keep up doesn’t mean you should rip on the movie for actually making you have to think instead of giving you either non stop action without a plot or a bunch of fart jokes like the usual summer movie.
Honestly, this movie didn’t seem that complicated when I saw it last night. Sure, it requires that you actually pay attention and listen for the duration of the film, but once the ground rules are laid out, everything makes perfect sense (at least within the universe of the film). I’m not sure you should claim the film requires Mensa-level intelligence just because you personally didn’t keep up with it, and certainly don’t say the script doesn’t make sense simply because you didn’t understand it.
“At one point someone is firing at the bad guys with a standard-issue weapon when another character suggests he “dream” up a better gun.
Voila, a massive gun is suddenly on screen. Why don’t all the heroes try that trick?”
THIS is your example of a major logic hole? Where did you even get the idea that the gun somehow magically appeared? It’s rather obvious from the context that the “dream up a better gun” line wasn’t meant to be taken literally. It was a quip referencing the fact that they were in a dream. The character simply had his bigger, better gun stashed away somewhere and whipped it out after seeing his accomplice fail with the weaker gun.
Even assuming he did mentally will the gun into being during this scene, it’s still logically consistent with the world Nolan set up. It’s well explained that an architect can change things in the dreams, but doing so draws the attention of the projections within the dream. This explains why the protagonists aren’t always creating guns out of thin air; they want to avoid detection. The scene in question was different. They were already under attack by the projections, so changing the dream would’ve been less of an issue.
Additionally, this movie is by no means difficult to follow. I found all it takes is listening to all the dialog (something moviegoers seem to dislike these days). Is that really so much to ask?
Inception is by no means perfect. I think it would actually benefit from a longer runtime (allocating extra time for character development) and more defined, memorable antagonists instead of nameless projections. I agree with DJWankle that it is one of Nolan’s weaker efforts, but you’ve offered some of the poorest criticism I’ve yet seen.
DJ Wankle, you need to lighten up a bit and see this movie for what it is…AMAZING. I could be overstating that but probably not. This movie is open ended and provides for so many interesting ideas, and the best part of all the complexity is it boils down to a simple message of letting go. It’s down to earth and at the same time, way beyond. The confusing parts for me were cleared up when they explained what was going on, and as far as it being boring goes…I’m scared to know what entertains you.
Based on your other reviews I completely understand why you gave Inception a bad review. You obviously like the simple classic summer movies! You found Iron man 2 plot good? It has more subplots than a soap opera! But even The dark knight some people didn’t like it! So I respect opinions!
I totally agree with you. Plus, it was too long. Confusing! Ellen Page was miscast and needs a few more years of acting experience. DiCaprio was excellent and so was Cotillard as his wife. Disappointing.
I think you just don’t quite understand it. You should watch it again. This movie is similar to The Matrix were you need to see it multiple times to catch everything. This film is engaging, well thought out to the point of making it tough to pick out “ya right” moments, and it has a great ending. Minor spoiler: plus the way they get the idea in the subject’s head I thought was pretty brilliant. Watch again, and this time stop looking for reasons why you shouldn’t like it, its not Transformers for god sake.
Really… Doing sudoko for practice and saying this movie requires genius-level brainpower? If this is how the mainstream reacts to an “intellectual” movie–and it really wasn’t all that intellectual, as you aptly pointed out the movie is clearly explained to the viewers–I hate to think what would happen if an movie that actually requires a bit of brainpower makes it to middle America. It’s incredibly sad that movies such as this apparently need to be dumbed down for people to understand plot devices and movements that really aren’t that deep.
*Some very small spoilers, nothing major*
After just seeing this movie, I cannot believe that you found so much wrong with it. I found it to be clear to understand, and there was a reason that everyone didn’t bring a gun, Leo very clearly said that the more that you change another’s dream the more the subconscious will be aware of your presence. If everyone did this they would be swarmed with people, not to mention the espionage of the second dream, where doing so would blow cover.
I think that the movie made sense if you would have just paid a bit more attention.
Sorry you couldn’t follow the movie, as it sounds. I just got home from watching Inception, and I have to say; I thought it was incredible. Not having read much about the movie before seeing it, I am shocked to find a review like this out there. I thought the movie was incredible, clever, and although very complex; the movie challenged you to go deeply into the storyline to follow the intricate evolution of the plot. If you like to watch a movie and use your brain, I would highly recommend going to see this. If you would prefer to go catatonic while movie-going, then I would suggest saving the money and renting an Anchor Man for half the price of a ticket.
@DJWankle
Slight Spoiler
If you werent confused, you were in the minority. I’m sure most ppl will have the opposite reaction, no movie can please anyone and if it wasn’t right for you then so be it.
But its obvious that you were confused….
It was never a shocker she (Kobbs wife) was dead. It was explained early on and alluded to it never hinting other wise. The shocker was the cause of her death. Which you im sure did come as a surprise to you.
In short F#(* off.
Cheers!
@ the author
Sigh,
watch the movie again,
The “bigger gun” was probable stored in that building long before they ever drove there, the girl made that reality and i’m sure they each added elements they wanted before they entered. Person A added a reasonable gun Person B added the bigger gun.
Pay attention! Whew good thing your job doesn’t rest on criticizing movies.
So… because you didn’t fully understand it upon first viewing, you give it a thumbs down? Did you also give The Matrix, Memento, and Open Your Eyes negative reviews? Give me a break, Having to use your brain during a movie is a GOOD thing, believe it or not.
*spoilers-ish*
I thought the movie was phenomenal. I’ve never felt overwhelming suspense on top of a wonderfully touching and genuine moment, several of which are delivered to us in this movie by DiCaprio and Cotillard. As for your “logic whole” when says you have to “dream” for a bigger gun,” look closer – he is holding his grenade launcher the entire time, he was just making pun-filled banter, as his character does throughout the entire movie.
to “DJWankle,”ALL mystery movies create their mystery by purposely withholding facts from the audience. That is the point of a mystery movie. THIS is NOT a mystery movie however, it is a suspenseful action flick, so while facts are withheld, the “twists” you speak of were not the emphasis in the movie. The timing and suspense of multiple dreamscapes coexisting simultaneously was what was emphasized, and Nolan delivered the suspense beautifully. How can you not appreciate that the last third of the movie took place only within the span of time it takes for a car to fall off a bridge? Furthermore, neither the car nor bridge actually exist. Brilliant.
The movie was entertaining and not too hard to understand for most normal people with average brains. Far superior to the terrible Dark Knight movie.
Unfortunately like the reviewer said, not a single character in the movie besides DiCaprio was developed making it anti-climactic to say the least.
I would rate it a solid 8/10 for the great special effects, action and complex (although not too complex plot)
Man, I think all men and women are smart enough to watch it. I think its the only arrogant once who like being trolls and call this movie hard to understand? Are you a baby not to understand a movie when rest of the people around you are understanding exactly what happened in it?
DJWankle you found this movie boring?? Check your pulse pal.
Never was the wife being dead a “schocker”, it was withheld for long and therefore can’t be a twist when you already know about it within 15 minutes.
This movie does involve using your brain Toto, but since when is that a bad thing. I can’t wait to see your two thumbs up for The Expendables.
This movie absolutely lives up to it’s hype, blows Matrix mind tricks out of the water, and will be talked about for a long time.
I can only guess that critics negatively reviewing this movie are out to seek recognition.
Actually, when the character is told to dream up a better gun, it’s because they are in his dream, he(gordon-levitt) is the architect(though page’s character designed it) of the operation.
@DJ Wankle
You try too hard to find problems with the film, the fact that she was dead was never a surprise, and faulting a movie about dreams for having “dream logic” is like faulting a super hero film for super powers, get over it.
Whoa … part of me is still stinging from the fallout here, but I’m also glad people are checking out a film that’s not a sequel/reboot and requires plenty of brain power.
A few thoughts.
Almost everyone blasting me kept their comments clean/reasonable. Thank you.
Those posting here for the first time – I have to approve your initial comment before it goes live on the site. Then, every follow up comment should go live instantly (with only a few exceptions which are tech glitches I can’t figure out yet).
Joe: Please lay off the fart jokes!
Jeff: I’m not out to “seek recognition” – being e-yelled at isn’t pleasant. And I was rooting – hard – for the film to knock my socks off.
Jake: I don’t want movies to be dumbed down — although the occasional brainless flick is never an awful thing. But I want storytelling clarity as well as intellectual fire power. To me, having characters constantly explain their actions for 2.5 hours doesn’t pass the clarity test.
Again, thanks to everyone who left their two cents.
Inception was one of the easiest C. Nolan movies to watch. The ending was absolutely satisfying. I’m not really sure how someone can walk out of the theater and shrug that movie off.
“Bold”? “Brash”? More like bloated and boring. I kept nodding off. For a movie about dreams it was crushingly unimaginative. What kind of strange inhumane conceit is it to maintain that people dream like this? Hitchcock’s Dali-like images from Spellbound were more interesting, closer to the wrinkled, asymmetrical surrealness of dreams. This was a movie made not by an artist but by a hyperactive adolescent engineer who fancies himself some kind of prodigy. What a waste of the human spirit.
DiCaprio, whom I consider a natural film actor with an innate sense of pathos, was once again placed in an untenable leading man role and in this case appeared particularly strained. And Zimmer’s score, like most of his scores, was orchestral surfeit. But Ellen Page was good; that’s about all I took from this mess.
This review was absolute rubbish. Not all audiences go around looking for “coherent fiction,” nor should works of art be expected to follow cinematic guidelines like its a mathematical equation. In fact, some of the most famous pieces of art embellish and push the standards of acceptance because its present the viewer with an entirely new way of experiencing their work.
Inception does this. Its idea is completely original, and the creative, artistic, visual, and conceptual scale of the film, with massive spinning colorful sets interacting with the emotional and physical confrontation of the characters takes the film to a completely uncharted territory. Just because you don’t understand everything thats happening at the beginning does not mean that its lacking in any sense. Leaving the audience confused in the unknown was very intentional.
Truly Brilliant, Unique, Film. Definitely go see it.
just got home from this movie and could not wait to see if anyone else felt the same way I did…and, thankfully, here you are.
When I heard it was compared to The Matrix, I was pretty pumped about seeing Inception.
I wish I could get my time and my money back. I did not like this movie at all. Just way too much going on for me to follow…and none if it made any sense. Maybe I am just too old for this type of movie and should just stay home and order pay for view in the comfort of my own home.
Leo, please, I like you….I hope your next movie is worth the cost of the ticket.
Good movie, though the trailer made it look alot more fun (but whats new).
I only had about 2 problems with the film.
1) The opening sequences was probably the only thing too complicated. After the first 10mins everything made sense. Also as the movie went on the explanations as the author put it made the first scene a bit clearer.
2) After watching Shutter Island, I got the feeling I was watching part 2 of thier test on the ‘Teddy.’.
Too much parallels : flashbacks with wife, flashbacks with kids, the ending was wayyy too predicatable after Shutter Island’s ending and it was Leo in the same persona (though Leo nailed both roles so that probably wasn’t a bad thing).
But other than that it was great. The CGI was complementary. The movie was ‘cool’. Very Matrix like wardrobes were fantastic (they were well dressed, well tailored in the dreams), the action scenes were cool like the MAtrix’s and the movie was thought provoking.
I’d give it a 4ish. Probably top 5 of 2010 as I havent been too impressed this year.
Matrix less the trenchcoats that is (think the Frenchman).
Left the theater disappointed, matrix=nerd movie
Inception is my favorite movie
decide: is the movie too complicated, or is there too much exposition? those aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, but it seemed neither, to me.
and i rather agree eith @rrpjr when he says the dreams aren’t sufficiently surreal, but i’ve been consoling myself with the thought that calling these things dreams is heuristic. this is more a conscious manipulation of someone else’s subconscious; again, the scenes from eternal sunshine did /that/ better than this movie, but that had an entirely different feel.
i thought the movie was a blast! conceptually fascinating, brilliantly executed and surprisingly easy to follow. i do agree though that more character development would’ve been great. but i cannot agree that the movie needs mensa level mind to comprehend. i also enjoyed the explanation in the movie of how this whole mental espionage thing works. it helps to form a fundamental understanding of the Inception world. of course if you haven’t been listening, you’d probably lose track of the storyline…
I do not accept this movie is at all conceptually original or interesting but I am surprised people have swarmed to this movie with a crusade to insult people who found the movie simply ridiculously convoluted.
I found the dialogue bordering on unreaslistic and dull. There is a distinct difference between convolution and lucidity and The Matrix was definitely the latter while this movie (unashamedly taking ideas from The Matrix) is the former. But it’s interesting people like movies like puzzles. Good for you, but where is the normative social critique? Where are the thematic motifs? Such things make the Matrix an interesting film to watch again and again. These things are absent in Inception.
I will never take Nolan seriously again. Leonardo DiCaprio should get a hair cut.
“At one point someone is firing at the bad guys with a standard-issue weapon when another character suggests he “dream” up a better gun.
Voila, a massive gun is suddenly on screen. Why don’t all the heroes try that trick?”
Eames is a forger as described in the film. If he can transform into Tom Berenger, he can ‘dream’ up a better gun.
If Cobb has to travel all the way to Mombassa to find Eames, one would assume that this ‘forging’ is a specialized skill and must require a great deal of training etc. thus why Arthur is stuck with his regular weapon.
***SPOILERS ALERT****
This is one of the greatest movies I’ve ever seen. I disagree that the movie ‘required more brain power then a mensa meeting’ to follow, although it depends on your mindset going in. I was expected a film similar to Memento, therefor I was paying attention to every detail. I found It easier to follow then Momento and it wasn’t until the end I got confused, but it was purposeful confusion.
The end is meant to make you go watch it again, and be slightly confused. Cobb is either still dreaming, or Nolan is using the ending as a tool for his own inception. Making you doubt the film by putting that spinning totem into your mind.
If this isn’t your cup of tea, that’s fine. However If you enjoy originality, creativity and logic this may be one of the most enjoyable movies of all time. It certainly was for me.
Lets face it, as movies go, it was quite complex and the concept was fresh. (Just because you didn’t have any problem following the storyline doesn’t mean that those who did are in some way beneath you for criticizing it for that).
But thats not why I didn’t like it. I dunno, I just didn’t feel it. The continued dips back to Mrs Cobbs I found irritating, as we already knew what was going to happen. The storyline was underdeveloped and took place over too short a period of time.
Time is another complex thing as depending on what dream you’re in 60 minutes = 3 minutes equals something else.
I enjoyed the fact that you had to think a little but the film didnt work for me.
(Loved Gordon Levitt though)
Agree 100% with this review. I can’t remember the last time I was so bored watching an action movie. Way too much exposition and explanation. I completely understood what was going on; I didn’t need to be talked to death about it.
@ Worked and rrpjr
How can you say in ANY WAY that this movie is conceptual unorignal or crushingly unimaginative?! Name another movie where people steal someone’s secrets through their own dreams? Name another movie that has people exploring dreams within dreams? Yes, I know there are movies where someone is dreaming, and then they wake up, but theyre still dreaming and have to wake up again, but INCEPTION takes this to a whole new level.
As for the dreams not being surreal enough, THAT WAS THE POINT. The main characters don’t want their target (played by Cillian Murphy) to realize he’s dreaming for the first few levels. That is why they have the architects – to create WHOLLY NEW but TOTALLY REALISTIC SETTINGS.
Furthermore, any movie that has a both a revolving-gravity-hallway and zero-g fight in it cannot be said to be unimaginative or unoriginal. That mirror-door thing that Ellen Page did? So cool.
@ Worked: I do agree that the main plot is complex enough that there wasn’t enough room to have large social critiques or motifs that commented on the characters’ world as a whole or our own, but they DID focus on Leo’s Journey well, and the theme of “what is actual reality” was adressed, as well as how dangerous and addicting this dreaming can become. Not all great movies HAVE to comment on the world around us in a superb or profound way. This was a great movie.
Thank you for being brave enough to say you did not like this movie. It was awful. I wish everyone would stop saying it’s the best movie ever. You’ve not seen many movies if this is the best movie ever.
I didn’t care about any of these characters. I couldn’t care less if they were awake or asleep. It was like a bad narcoleptic James Bond movie. Had I not been squished between way to many moviegoers, I would have walked out after about 45 minutes of this snooze fest.
I think your review is off base. I love a lot of different kinds of movies for different reasons and, while mindless fun and trite sequels have their place in moviedom, so do original movies that require suspension of disbelief and thought deeper than a summer puddle. Inception is a mostly original movie although dream-world fare has been done before. This is the best of those movies. While the Matrix isn’t exactly about dreams, it is similar and this movie knocks the Matrix off the block. The acting was better, the music was better and more importantly, the plot and construct was better. The exposition/explanation by the characters didn’t hit viewers over the head but still provided necessary information for most to gain understanding. While there weren’t any real “twists,” I don’t think any were meant. It is a movie of layers and very thought provoking. True, it requires more than a visceral response like most action movies do. One certainly could not text during this movie and hope to understand much at all. It is far better than Shutter Island (not a dream movie but a delusion movie…big difference). This is not a movie for people who ONLY like things like The A Team or need a previous movie to provide context. (And I liked the A Team for what it was.) But in a time when all Hollywood seems to do is troll comic strips, comic books, graphic novels, teen fiction, 70s and 80s movies, Broadway musicals or previous movies (hits or not), an original story produced in an original way should be respected. If a viewer doesn’t understand it fully, perhaps seeing it again might help.
This sounds spot on to me. I wouldn’t say there were any conspicuous holes in the logic, but Nolan definitely took on a messy script trying to juggle clumsy exposition of the Inception “universe” and a complex storyline.
The extremely high tension for the last 3/4 of the movie was exhausting and resulted in numbing the viewer to said gunshots, explosions, and musical climaxes. Without some breathing room, the intended impact is lost in the monotony.
What saved the story was Cobb’s arc—a thoughtful and relatable allegory about memory and letting go. In the end, this is the real subject of the film.
I enjoyed the movie a lot, the whole thing just needed some re-shuffling and more character development outside of Cobb. Some careful “show don’t tell” could have saved us from tedious exposition which only detaches the viewer from the story for the sake of logistics.
I can’t believe all these ‘I was bored’ comments either… When I left the theater I was so disappointed it was over. The last hour had me gripping the edge of my seat. To steal a line from someone else, “it wasn’t just a dream inside a dream inside a dream, it was a ticking time bomb inside a ticking time bomb inside a ticking time bomb”.
SPOILERS
Umm, if I’m honest I was a little bemused by the film. I got it but I didn’t feel a great connection to it. When walking out with my friends we were agreeing that we thought we enjoyed it but we weren’t sure.
I think for me because of it mainly existing in dream worlds, it’s hard to feel any real world threat or danger in the action scenes.
They are well filmed but you don’t, well I didn’t, feel any connection or a feeling of peril for the team. When you’ve people emptying handguns and machine guns into cars and only one person gets hit (and you feel that was added purely to add pace) it just feels a little hollow.
When the film starts in a dream, then you think you are in reality but discover it’s still a dream and then think you are in reality but it’s a further dream it blurs the line so much between what is real and dream that you lose a sense of grounding.
There’s no real detail into Leo’s life or the company orchestrating the dream walking and hence although what happening on the screen is pretty on the eye, it’s not really resonating.
An example (and this is in the trailer so not hugely spoilerish) is when a character is trying to take out a bad guy with a small assault rifle and then a crew member comes along and tells him he needs to think bigger and takes him out with this massive gun.
Now one assumes that he just had to think of a bigger gun and it appeared as he didn’t physically take it with him. Hence if you are conscious whilst in a dream, surely you could do anything. So instead of getting a bigger gun, you could drop a nuke on him or possess superhuman powers.
The point I’m making is that when you say there is no rule book, it’s hard to maintain tension by showing scenes played within the semi physical rule book that we know of but the director has said doesn’t exist. I don’t know if that’s clear.
For instance The Dark Knight was a far better film for me because they placed it in the context of a real world city and location. The scenes, the setting, the characters had more impact because you could ‘latch on’ or ‘identify’ with the real world that you knew. In Batman Begins it made nods to this but then the whole Gotham City with it’s overblown buildings, slums and intrusive monorail jarred against this and un-anchored it from the setting that you would normally place it in.
I remember reading that Nolan had always wanted to do a Bond film and the snow sequences certainly looked like that but that was the thing. They looked like them but they felt empty and going through the motions because there wasn’t a real feeling of peril. You were constantly reminded that it was a dream, it was fantasy and as such ‘bad guys’ were despatched with the resonance of a computer game.
I just feel that the film got a little carried away with it’s belief in it’s own cleverness. There is also a niggling thought that by saying you don’t like it or ‘feel’ it, you will be accused of being someone who only likes the low brow, point A to point B, Michael Bay esque films. Hence I think there is a good chance of many people saying they like it for fear for not being considered a dullard.
So although from a technical POV it was very good, acting was top notch, film score enjoyable I just felt it lacked something.
OK, I loved the film; it is definitely something every movie buff should check out. But there are huge holes in the logic. I am disappointed Nolan chose to abandon plausibility for a gimicky plot structure. Here are a couple things I couldn’t forgive:
1. the sub-dreams couldn’t work. Presumeably the box manages everyone’s REM synapse, and there is a leader (just as there’s a lead architect). That box doesn’t exist in the sub-dream, meaning they can’t possibly all still be connected.
2. the kick is a physiological reaction to gravity; they made that very clear. So how do you fake that while you’re in the sub?
3. Don’t get me started on the time aspect…