Inception
Movie Review
"Inception"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: A-
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, July 16, 2010
Directed by:
Cast:
Not to sound like one of those super-cool hipsters, but I've been a Christopher Nolan fan since "Memento," which I thought was the best film of 2001 and maybe the whole decade. You people who didn't start loving him until he made some Batman movies ... well, I'm better than you, is my point.
"Insomnia," "The Prestige," and the Batman films were all worthy followups, but it's with "Inception" that Nolan re-achieves artistic greatness. Like "Memento," it's a fascinatingly complex story about memory, perception, and the untrustworthiness of our own minds. It's also extremely inventive and entertaining; highly intelligent but not baffling or inaccessible. Like the other great film of the summer, "Toy Story 3," it wins points for trying to convey difficult, ambitious themes, and even more points for actually succeeding. Many films try to do a lot less than this and still don't meet their goals.
We learn in the first 10 minutes or so that people have developed technology allowing them to get inside your subconscious mind and poke around in your dreams. Ideas can be stolen this way, so it's appealing to governments, militaries, and corporations that want to get a leg up on their competitors.
Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are "extractors" for a company that undoubtedly charges a great deal of money for their services. It's no easy thing, gaining access to someone when he's asleep, plugging yourself into his brain, and so forth. (Think "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," dealing with dreams rather than memories.) And so far, you can only take a person's existing ideas. You can't plant a brand-new one, i.e., create "inception": the person's subconscious will realize it's being messed with and evict you. Inception is impossible. OR IS IT????
The capital letters and extra question marks may have clued you in to "Inception's" central plot line. It's a lot like a heist film, except that instead of breaking into a bank, Cobb, Arthur, and their cohorts are breaking into someone's mind. You wouldn't think this would be as dangerous as a bank job -- what's the worst that can happen when you're in a dream and nothing is real? -- but you'd be surprised. Tom Hardy, Ellen Page, and Dileep Rao play members of the team with various areas of expertise; Ken Watanabe is the client who has hired them; and Cillian Murphy is the target.
Nolan, who also wrote the screenplay, lays out the rules of his world deftly. A ton of exposition is needed, yet it never feels like exposition. Things are explained plausibly, and in just enough detail for us to get it -- the last thing Nolan wants to do is over-explain himself. The information is parceled out carefully, not all at once, but not in a way that's maddening or cryptic, either. Again, I marvel at how many films with concepts far simpler than this one never make sense at all, or else only make sense because they repeat themselves clumsily.
The special effects are also noteworthy, in that they are 1) very good, and 2) related to the story. Nothing is done just to show off. (OK, maybe the low-gravity sequence, just a little. But holy crap, it's cool.) Much of the film takes place in various people's subconscious minds, and these dreamscapes are presented like real life, only weirder. The people and objects are familiar; they just behave in unusual ways. Manipulating reality like this can be more exciting than using CGI to create dragons or monsters, and it's more in line with what our real dreams are like anyway.
There is an emotional side to all of this, too. Dreams can be therapeutic, our subconscious minds helping us heal our conscious wounds. DiCaprio's character has grief issues that are at least superficially similar to those of his "Shutter Island" character. But the film's flaw is that it doesn't have the emotional impact that it ought to. Even though we spend a lot of time in these people's heads -- literally, almost -- there's still a certain detached coldness to it all.
Mind you, the overall excellence is more than enough to compensate for this shortcoming. It's not a deal-breaker -- not for me, not when it's surrounded by such narrative agility and thrilling set pieces and ingenious plotting. I'm eager to see it again as soon as possible. I haven't felt that way about a movie since ... well, it was only "Toy Story 3," a month ago. But still!
Grade: A-
Rated PG-13, a little mild profanity, moderate violence
2 hrs., 28 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 37 comments
July 16, 2010 at 2:16 am
Just caught a midnight screening. Thought it was absolutely incredible. We left the theater STUPID because our minds had been so completely and thoroughly blown. Inception makes The Dark Knight look like JUST an action movie.
July 16, 2010 at 8:33 am
Nolan is the writer/director that M. Night Shyamalan only wishes he was. Nolan does however owe a good deal of credit to his brother Jonathan who sometimes gets co-writing credit but often works closely with Christoper in getting the story right. I haven't seen Inception yet but looking forward to it this weekend.
July 16, 2010 at 7:10 pm
This movie definitely moves into the pantheon of great films I have ever seen. How Nolan consistently creates such brilliance is beyond me. I saw the midnight screening last night and my mind has been spinning ever since. Watch the movie and then try to explain what you just witnessed to someone who hasn't seen it yet. You can't. You'll be at a loss for words. It cannot be explained, it must be experienced. Inception is a true marvel to behold, a masterpiece in every sense of the word. Gotta disagree with the A-, Eric. This is an A++ all the way.
July 16, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Ok, run don't walk to see this. I have not had my mind blown like this since I played catcher in a pony league baseball game tripping on shrooms. This was brilliantly executed and refreshingly sharp. Visually stunning and supremely intense. It was so cool to see the media of film flexed to a new capacity. Cinefiles rejoice!! A man named Christopher Nolan walks the earth and there's a movie studio paying him to tell us what's inside his head.
July 17, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Absolutely fantastic film. What keeps amazing me the most about nolan(among many other things) is how complex the story and structure can be in his films, yet how easy it is to follow them and be immersed without any feeling of loss or confusion. That, and again, there is no product placement. Thank you christopher nolan for that. The best movie so far this year. A.
July 18, 2010 at 7:05 pm
I wasn't going to see it, because I had read some very bad reviews.
Then I read your review.
Which I'm so glad I did, because today I saw it.
Mind-blowing. Absolutely.
July 18, 2010 at 10:09 pm
"I'm better than you, is my point."
That actually made me laugh out loud.
I think Memento is brilliant but horribly bleak. My perception of Inception is different from yours, though--I think it does have quite a lot of heart. True, it's still a very cerebral (yet approachable) film, as you said, but the emotions of the climactic moments worked for me.
July 19, 2010 at 10:09 pm
I trust your reviews nearly 100% of the time, and you hit the nail on the head again. I also agreed the movie was amazing, but it was rather emotionally stunted. I just was never convinced to care too much about any of the characters...not even in the scenes that were meant to be emotionally jarring. I think it has a lot to do with Leonardo DiCaprio's real life persona and being aware of it that I can't believe he'd be upset about anything, but you could say the same thing about any actor, really.
July 20, 2010 at 2:32 am
I don't really get how everyone and Eric is just gushing over the "intelligence" of this movie.
The CGI I can understand, that was great (naturally, considering the money they spent on this movie).
But the story? It really wasn't that mind-blowing, especially because most of the plot was spoiled by the trailers.
Through most of the movie my immersion was being ruined by terrible explanations for whatever was happening, plot holes, or other generally poor writing.
I've spent probably 1-2 hours now discussing what I felt were the movie's problems with my friends who have seen it, and I'm not usually someone to so specifically call out a movie like this. It was just THAT irritating.
I don't think the story was very well crafted at all, and the "rules" of the movie's universe were bent and broken whenever they needed a plot point, which I *HATE*.
A movie doesn't have to be illogical and inconsistent to be fictional and interesting.
Maybe it was good enough for the average American consumer, but personally that kind of depresses me, thinking about the level of intelligence that I'd need to stoop to in order to ignore the holes in this movie.
July 20, 2010 at 10:39 am
You know, Russ, I thought you were making a respectable and well thought out point until you said "Maybe it's good for those SHEEPLE in the general public, but I am ABOVE such nonsense!"
July 20, 2010 at 11:22 am
Loved the movie, especially after watching it a second time. Sure Russ, there are holes in the plot; show me a movie without some. But the genius of Chris Nolan is that his movies are so engaging and well-crafted that you just don't care about inconsistencies. Even if this movie flat-out sucked, it would deserve mention just for the sheer audacity of it.
July 21, 2010 at 1:53 am
Russ watch it again there weren't plot holes I was comepletely blown away the first time but at the end I still thought it might have some plot holes and mistakes but after seeing it a second time I can assure you that everything in this movie was explained, and it did follow the rules it set up in the beginning you just have to pay complete attention to every word and action or you'll miss key points. after seeing it for a second time I can confidently say this is a true masterpiece
July 21, 2010 at 5:58 am
I can't wait to see this! I'm not too cool to enjoy things, you see. ;-)
July 21, 2010 at 10:12 am
I'm with Russ on this one. Maybe the movie was just built up to much for me to ever like it, but I honestly have no idea what people are talking about when they say their minds were blown. I agree that the film was well crafted and I respect it for being ambitious. I'm sure I could forgive the plot holes and the weak explanations if it had all amounted to something meaningful, but this one just really failed to connect with me on any level.
July 23, 2010 at 12:45 am
@ Michael: Yes that was supposed to be inflammatory.
@ Brad: It doesn't have to be perfect, but when even the first time through the immersion is constantly interrupted by poor explanations and /facepalm moments, that's definitely not something that happens in every movie.
@ Ryan: I'm definitely not paying twice for a movie that I didn't like the first time. Especially not something that's 2.5 hours long.
-----
The effects were certainly great, but I don't enjoy something purely for the eye candy. I hated Avatar, to use a recent example. My comments about the average American were related to that. Most people seem happy to pay for an expensive movie solely because it had a $100+ million budget and pretty CGI, but I personally won't enjoy it unless there was some intelligent thought put into the plot/characters.
That or it rips off of the thought that other people put into the IP (comic book movies, LotR, etc).
July 23, 2010 at 1:24 am
It's not enough for Russ to dislike something; he also has to sneer at the people who like it. He has that in common with Armond White.
July 24, 2010 at 12:07 am
Eric, I've never felt that Armond sneers exactly, he mourns melodramatically, anointing himself with the ashes of the civilization he believes is destroying itself artistically and morally. Eventually it ceases to become film criticism and becomes a cruel pantomime of pity and penitence.
July 24, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I really liked it, but wondered if anyone else thinks what I think..
>>>>>>>>>>Spoiler:
The last scene when Cobb spins the thing it's spinning semi shakily. Then after he walks over to his kids it shows the thing again and it's spinning very steadily. Then of course it starts to show signs of slowing, but it's already past when it should have stopped from his first spin.
July 25, 2010 at 4:03 am
Russ, how about some examples if these suppossed problems and plot holes?
July 26, 2010 at 12:53 pm
RE Adam: I felt like it wasn't explained how Mal was getting into all of the dreams. Weren't the other people in the dreams projections of the dreamer?
Another of my complaints is how the movie brushed over morality. What they were doing was wrong, but the movie didn't want to deal with that so it made it seem like what they were doing was a good thing for both the world and for Fischer.
I have to say that though I didn't enjoy it at the time, Inception has stuck with me pretty impressively. I keep thinking about it, which makes me like it more and more.
July 27, 2010 at 6:49 am
Tinabanina,
(Spoiler alert for everyone else)
It wasn't Mal that was getting into the dreams. It was Cobb's projection of her. The fact that this projection was so malicious was due to Cobb's guilt of having performed inception on her, therefore influencing her suicide.
The film was in part a caper movie, like "The Italian Job" or "Ocean's 11." What the characters were doing in those movies was wrong too, but tell me you still didn't enjoy them? We're not asked to agree with what they are doing; we are simply observers watching the feat unfold.
July 27, 2010 at 10:32 am
Thanks for your response Adam, but I'm still unsatisfied.
Of course she's Cobb's projection, my issue was that the projections were supposed to belong to the dreamer.
I have no problem with people doing bad things in movies. I enjoy lots of movies of this sort. What I thought was silly is that it seemed like Inception didn't want to relish in the fun of being bad, but instead lull the viewer into feeling warm and fuzzy about doing something wrong.
July 27, 2010 at 11:44 am
My understanding is that while there is one person who is the primary dreamer, the others are all sharing the dream, too, and can thus project their own baggage into it. It's not a problem if the dream-sharers are mentally stable. Cobb is the only one with issues that are screwed up enough to be uncontrollable, so he's the only one who projects disruptive things like Mal and trains. If Arthur or Eames or someone were similarly messed up in the head, they'd be contributing stuff like that as well.
July 27, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Thanks Eric, I accept your explanation. I don't believe he projected the train though. I thought that was an example of Fischers training to prevent people from getting information from him via dreams.
July 27, 2010 at 2:55 pm
No, the train was definitely Cobb's doing. He has train-related issues -- head on the train tracks, "You're waiting for a train," he even flat-out says "I don't like trains" at one point -- and Ariadne was alarmed because it meant his subconscious was getting even more out of control than before.
July 27, 2010 at 5:26 pm
That makes sense Eric. I was forgetting about the other instances of train references.
July 28, 2010 at 5:49 am
I didn't know we could ask Eric questions directly here. Fantastic!
Okay, can someone explain to me the timing?
Wasn't the conversion like: 10 hours on the plane in real live=1 week in the first dream=i forget how many months in the second dream=10 years in the third dream?
And then since the van chase which was supposed to take a week was over in like 45 minutes everything got cut short right? Yet they wake up 20 minutes before landing at LAX.
Am I stupid or just missing something here? (Okay just answer the second question.)
The whole thing was excellent by the way.
July 28, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Tom - For me, there are two possibilities:
1. The sedative continued to sedate them after the kicks out of the dream for the 10 hours.
2. We know that Cobb and Saito were in limbo and in the dream for a period of time that was not entirely revealed. Perhaps it was just their part of the dream that ended 20 min before LAX.
July 29, 2010 at 2:15 am
OK I'll take that. I guess the Number 2. option seems most likely considering the age of Saito's face when Cobb finally speaks with him.
July 31, 2010 at 4:03 pm
No, the movie just glossed over the fact that 1) They were sedated for 10 hours, it was impossible to wake up (hence, limbo?). 2) The flight attendant was obviously instructed to wake them up at a pre-determined time (similar to the young boy on the train in the beginning).
This time was obviously as close to the landing time as possible, since they wanted to have as long as they could in the dream (proof of this is that EVERY OTHER TIME in the movie they waited until the LAST POSSIBLE MOMENT to wake people up).
Thus, the protagonists spent a week in a dream where they could barely survive for a few hours (at most) during the movie, with projections attacking them the whole time. This is conveniently glossed over.
-----
There are many other problems with this movie, but the whole premise of dreams and projections being so close to reality (and yet not) is absurd. No one is a lucid dreamer? Or even a normal dreamer who doesn't focus on everything being exactly like reality all the time?
Chew on that, and the whole zero gravity thing was inconsistent, unexplained, and poorly implemented. I've got more, but I don't have the desire to type it all out in a comment box at the moment (maybe later).
-----
"It's not enough for Russ to dislike something; he also has to sneer at the people who like it."
Of course. :) Not the people themselves, just their ability to be entertained by popcorn movies and CGI. Which I don't share (at least not when I pay for it).
August 5, 2010 at 2:23 pm
I don't have time to post an essay, but here are my two cents.
I enjoyed the movie the first time around, and my first impression is that it is a great film. Certainly it is the best I've seen this year. I do plan to see it again to see if I can poke some holes in it.
All that said, Russ, you lose all credibility when you compares this movie to Avatar. Avatar is a weak story for the feeble-minded with nice scenery. Like it or not, Inception is not even in the same category.
August 15, 2010 at 11:12 am
hahaha! Armond White! I need to read his review.
This is indubitably the best film of the year (..along with Toy Story , ofcourse)
August 16, 2010 at 1:28 am
I can't believe how many people think this is the best film of the year. I just thought it was meh, not mind blowing, just ok. The acting was good though :o/
September 7, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Has anybody else noticed that the lead role in this movie has apparently been to a "Leonardo CiCaprio"? I thought it was that other Leonardo...
*wink* We all still love you, Eric.
September 7, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Dagnabbit! It's supposed to say "has apparently been GIVEN to a..."
December 12, 2010 at 10:14 am
This movie was a bore! The few things I saw in the preview did not depict what the story was about. It sort of makes me feel that everyone is being led to a world where nothing is real, that all of life is just a vision on your blackberry. No one can experience owning a real car, a real job, a real life, a real home , a real fireplace with a real fire in it that you can feel the warmth.
Four levels down of nothingness. Interesting idea but no substance to work with. Mindless shooting and crashes does not make a good story.
January 3, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Russ, your gripes about the inconsistencies of the movie are precisely squat until you start crunching numbers to show proof that there were in fact any inconsistencies at all. Simply saying "they totally screwed up the timeline" doesn't make it so.
Another point to make: They explained the lack of gravity, why it only affects one layer, and even talked about the complications if they hit zero gravity prior to the kick. Your gripe about consistency of gravity is vague at best. Please, state your gripes more directly if you care to bash a movie, or simply say "I didn't like it, my reasons are my own." Complaining about a film by finding vague faults that you make up sounds more like an idiot than a person "above such things."