Review of Inception (2010) by Jesseb. — 16 Jul 2010

I think I've finally had it up to about here with Christopher Nolan. If you have ever seen a photograph of him, you might come away with the impression that his cranium is a tad larger than the rest of polite society (literally).

This is not to speak badly of a person due solely to a physical quality which one possesses (as I have a gigantic boulder of a bald noggin) but to make the point that every inch of that fabled dome seems to be filled only with himself.

Nolan, with the aid of his screenwriter brother, Jonathan, gave to us what many consider to be the grand achievement of the super-hero genre film to date, "The Dark Knight". I know what we are all thinking, "it doesn't take much to be the best of the bunch in that arena of film making.

" You are probably right, although there have been those rare exception, such as the aforementioned "Knight", which have exceeded the expectations of the viewer and brought us somewhere else rather than the local comic books store.

With his latest directorial effort, "Inception", Nolan takes us on a trip through the imagination... literally. The story is of a man named Cobb (Leonardo Dicaprio) who works as a kind of secret agent for hire.

He does all of the same task which would be called upon by any other spy, accept his playing field is not that of a world landscape, but that of the subconscious, and the men which chase after him do not belong to any organization, but are the projections of the host mind's subconscious which one deploys in order to guard one's self from mental harm.

You see, Dicaprio, and crew, have the ability to dive into a sleeping person's dream and thus wade around their subconscious, extracting information which somebody else thinks it's important enough to pay someone off to steal.

This may all sound rather confusing upon glancing over a simple synopsis, but I found the story all very decipherable-- perhaps too decipherable. "Inception" refers to the idea (you get it, "idea") that one would, in theory, be able to penetrate the sleepers mind and, instead of stealing an idea from the dreamer, one plants an idea in his head, making it as if the idea generated itself organically without the aid of any outside source.

But who would want a skilled spy, such as Dicaprio, to a thing as that? Ken Watanabe (The Last Samurai, Batman Begins), who else. To get into the plot is just what this film would take the pleasure in having me do, because really, this film is nothing but plot.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that, a film having a heavily plotted structure, but when the plot is the only thing that matters in the film, neglecting to develop characters and anything else beyond that which brings you from point A to B, I tend to get a little cranky.

I got especially cranky while watching this flick. When you watch as many movies as I have (and I am sure that some of you have seen many more) you tend to learn things about the standardized structuring of a film which is used almost as a blueprint while a screenwriter crafts the tale which he wishes to weave.

This is particularly true in a mystery-- nothing is discussed in the film unless it will have some sort of payoff in the end. This unfortunate blunder causes one to immediately catch on to the wool which the director would wished to pull over our eyes.

Don't worry, I'm not going to give anything away. What is extremely tiresome is when one catches on too this little ploy, this ruse, and spends the rest of the time in the theater counting down the minutes until he or she is either proven correct or incorrect.

I was correct... that is, I was correct ten minutes into the movie. I had many issues with this film, some having to do with what Roger Ebert calls the "idiot plot," a term which refers to the characters having to be somewhat dim in certain situations in order for the truth of the mystery to pass them by.

For instance, upon exiting the dream of a failed mission, Dicaprio and crew wake up only to have the man whom they were attempting to steal from wake up as well and pull a gun on them. Now, imagine for a moment that you are undertaking this potentially dangerous mission with a group of your friends.

The person that you are thieving from is asleep right next to you and, if by chance he finds out that you are doing him wrong, he may well become rather upset with you. Would you not take the two seconds out of your busy schedule to pat him down and make sure that he is not packing heat? Of course if you take away the gun before he wakes up there will be no fight and suddenly Hollywood execs begins to see those dollar signs peeling away from their eyes.

Another problem that I had was that I did not like Dicaprio in the role. I found my eye much more attracted to actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, a very appealing and intense young actor who has real star quality.

I could have watched him for two-and-a-half hours, no problem. And yet another issue I take with the movie is the use of actor Pete Postlethwaite,one of Britain's finest Shakespearean actors, used only in two scene and in both he is confined to a hospital bed and is rendered practically useless as he is little more than a vegetable.

If you are going to hire an actor as good as Postlethwaite than at least give him something to do. But them main villain in this whole mess is the use of plot itself. I knew I was in trouble when the film was ten minutes in and they already started explaining the plot to us.

Don't tell me about the movie, guys. Just show it to me. I think Nolan is often times too preoccupied with the concept of control. He seems to think that he is the supreme magician who carries all of the secrets to a great show within his own self containing head.

He condescends to the audience, making futile attempts at diverting our eyes thus perfecting his "masterful" illusion. Yet in his arrogance he forgets that his audience comes equipped with a fully functioning brain which is made curious by the attempts at diversion and looks past the unfruitful wavings of the wand only to discovers that what they are witnessing is not magic, but a man who thinks that he is one step ahead of the rest.

This, of course would sound very familiar to those aware of Nolan's work, as it seems very close to a synopsis of his 2006 film "The Prestige". In fact this is Nolan's true artistic obsession, going all the way back to 2001's "Memento" a film which tells itself in reverse, from end to beginning, and would seem an amazing achievement, but when examined closer, it is only found to be a cheap gimmick which does not hold up.

"Inception" is not the worst movie ever. In fact, a great many people may very much enjoy it. There are some fantastic visuals and... well... the visuals are good. The story-- rather, the various plot points which have been strung together in order to make some semblance of a story, is not as revolutionary as everyone seems to make it out to be.

It is definitely no "2001: A Space Odyssey" or whatever great film which this has been compared to, it is a popcorn flick which would have you think that it is more intelligent than it really is because it introduces topics which are somewhat out of the ordinary, but have been addressed multiple times in far better movies movies and in literature.

If you really have a hankerin' for movies about dreamlike realities, try watching "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" or even "The Matrix". I know while I was in the theater today, I was wishing that either of those movies were rolling instead of this one.