“Inception” is desperately close to being a great film without ever quite making the final sacrifice required to complete the jump. The fatal flaw that keeps it languishing in the “merely very good” category lies in its inability to abandon the James Bond action sequences in favor of a little more heart and soul. If director, Christopher Nolan, had humbled himself a little and done away with the majority of the snow chase sequence (which serves virtually no purpose other than to pile on more unnecessary action) and replaced it with more of the emotionally powerful scenes involving the central couple (Leonardo DiCaprio and Marion Cotillard) – well, perhaps then I would have truly cared about this film, rather than admiring its skill from arm’s length. “Inception” teases us with grand emotion, only to yank it away in a sea of CGI and spine crushing bass notes. It is technically brilliant, but emotionally stunted… a worthwhile watch, but a mild case of what might have been.
Inception is those films that “engaged” film-goers will error for genius. Let me explain my theory on people and movies. You’ll find three different kinds of movie-watchers: passive, engaged, and intelligently engaged. Passive people will enjoy Die Another Day and like it just as much as the Bourne Identity. They do not go to the movies to think, they go to be entertained by cool effects and witty one-liners. Engaged people think they are fully aware what they’re talking about, and usually love films that happen to be edgy in plot and execution but conventional enough to comprehend, like Fight Club and the subject of this review. They presume themselves to be refined in cinema, but ,in reality, just don’t quite have the intellect, cinematically speaking, to pull it off. Intelligently engaged people will appreciate the complexity of Inception, but also recognize it is a little sloppy, self-serious, over drawn, and empty. They recognize its audacity, but don’t pretend like it is Kubrick or Paul Thomas Anderson. The reality is, most people who fall into the engaged category will try and pretend that Inception is a ‘masterpiece’ and that they know everything about movies. They don’t. Inception is smart, but it doesn’t rank anything above really good.The idea is ingenious, and Inception is capable of live off its sheer mind-bendiness for the first 45 minutes. Leo is a specialist at entering people’s minds and extracting, or in this case, planting information. The dreamworld is indeed exciting and unpredictable, that the audience couldn’t care less regarding the actual story line. Unfortunately,when the magic wears off and the extravagantly overlong climax starts (almost at the midway point), as Chinua Achebe says, things break apart. The very first issue is the eventual goal of the whole operation is really anti- climactic. So far as I could tell, they’re trying to break up some obscure monopolistic multi-national company for a rich CEO, who in turn will give them large sums of money and Leo a way back to his kids. Sound under-developed? It is. Nolan never really fleshes it out. He is too busy creating spectacularly slick effects to get caught up in silly things like crucial plot points.
Thanks Jodi — definitely some great points. That sums up the film very well indeed!