This film critic was one of the rare souls who didn’t bow at the altar of “Inception” last year.
So watching the film a second time let me re-evaluate my initial review and see if its knotty story – how’s that for an understatement? – felt more satisfying than before.
It did, but not enough to scotch my criticisms of a film which will still snare a few Oscar nominations later this month.
Watching “Inception” again meant paying more attention to details that seemed innocuous the first time around. When Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) takes that metal top out of his pocket and gives it a spin, you know you better listen to every syllable he says about it. And I actually was able to keep tabs of one subconscious level from the next, even though they were stacked on top of each other like pancakes.
What I appreciated more the second time was the tick-tock precision of writer/director Christopher Nolan’s saga. It took a decade for him to create “Inception,” and it’s one of the few films in which every twist follows a rigid internal logic. Too many movies today throw trick endings our way to goose our interest, but they often make so little sense there’s almost no point to them.
In “Inception,’ the story hews closely to its own world. It all makes sense – once you accept Nolan’s fantastic realm as your guide.
The film’s nagging flaws don’t disappear upon closer inspection. The dialogue is so exposition heavy that we never really get to know these dream warriors as people. And the core relationship in the film – the bond between Cobb and his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard) – remains emotionally inert. Why couldn’t Nolan have included a few scenes of the pair sharing a romantic connection? Instead, Mal is typically seen giving Cobb fits or shrieking at his dream machinations.
Great movies often resonate, they leave an emotional mark. After seeing “Inception” again my mind didn’t linger on the story or the characters.
None of this deflects how ambitious and awe-inspiring “Inception” proved in an otherwise forgettable summer movie season. In an era of dumbed down blockbusters, “Inception” made us think and treated audiences with respect. It’s not a great film, but it’s a great attempt at original, thought provoking theater.
(Photo: Leonardo DiCaprio stars as a man who can enter your dreams in “Inception.” Warner Bros.)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
“Great movies often resonate, they leave an emotional mark. After seeing “Inception” again my mind didn’t linger on the story or the characters.”
I would agree with you except that something obviously compelled you to view the film again. If it was because you didn’t care for it the first time and, upon discussing it with others you’re wondering why, then it makes sense.
Sometimes no amount of critical analysis can answer the question as to why, and I think this film fits this. What it all boils down to is “I liked it”. Plain and simple. I can agree that there are flaws and perhaps plot holes, but the fact remains that “I liked it”, and sometimes that should be enough.
and, for the record, yes, I liked it.
I saw the film with a group of friends – that was the catalyst. And whenever I disagree with 90-plus percent of the critical community I like to give the film in question another shot.
ropeofsilicon.com led me to this video essay(http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/the-inception-of-movie-editing-the-art-of-d-w-griffith) showing D.W.Griffith’s pre-INCEPTION development of parrallel editing:
http://www.fandor.com/blog/?p=2135
re: INCEPTION: “I liked it,” too. I like time-travel/alternate reality/what if?/puzzle kinds of things, and INCEPTION was very entertaining and well-made.