Fact File
Year Released: 2010
Genre: ???
Run Time: 148 minutes
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writer: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, and Cillian Murphy
Synopsis: Dom Cobb (DiCaprio) is a thief who enters the dreams of others to steal secret information. But instead of stealing an idea, he is forced to plant one at the behest of a powerful businessman (Watanabe).
Review by Chris Dickens
Inception, by the end, feels like a really sexy girl you’ve taken on a lot of bad dates. You know you’ll sleep with her, but Jesus, when? And how much more is she gonna talk?*
The best way to see this movie is to note the time it begins, and at that moment, in the comfort of your home, begin reading a spoiler-alerted lengthy Internet explanation of it’s maze of sci-fi rules and exceptions to rules and rules within rules (ignoring where it contradicts and flat out breaks them at its own whims of convenience), and then, when you’re pretty sure you’ve got a handle on it, go catch the last half hour–which is fucking brilliant. You won’t miss much this way, and I would argue that you’ll enjoy the Good Part more.
You’ll have skipped the two hour onslaught of talking-head info, the scene-intrusive asides that halt the plot to explain, explain, explain. Nor will you be any less emotionally invested for not having witnessed the reasons for Cobb’s fuckedupedness (dear god, more complicated explanations, and ones that are meant to carry emotional weight to boot!) that the supposedly emotionally-withdrawn, info-withholding Cobb (DiCaprio) inexplicably doles out, with very little prodding, to a hip young architecture student, Ariadne (Ellen Page),whose profound interest in his fuckedupedness is also not really clear or convincing.
I’m all for intellectual, complicated movies. In fact, I kinda prefer them. It’s what drew me to Inception in the first place (OK, and the slow-motion shots of crazy shit goin’ down). But what this film gets wrong, and very surprisingly given that it was directed by Christopher Nolan (the director of Memento!), is precision, efficiency, and–dare I say it?–an artful approach to dispensing information (which is exactly what Memento got so right!). It just relies too heavily on the payoff of all this info, and expects the viewer to forgive that most of it is relayed in awkward, scene-stealing, show-stopping (in the bad way) bytes.
What’s worse is that it usually feels entirely insincere when it does so. We’re in a scene in which things are happening, but oops! They’re things that the viewer needs to understand; so we’ve got this newbie, Ariadne, along–someone who, by God, should have been caught up on this shit before she was brought along on a complicated and dangerous mission–but let’s just ignore that little bit–after all, it’s clearly the only reason her character exists. She’s basically Doc Watson**. She’s there for one reason: to have shit explained to her, so that we, inadvertently, get it too. It’s a classic move, a necessary one at times, and it can be put to good use if it’s not done to death. These constant interruptions often feel like a bad TV show, in which the writers have worked in constant reminders of the plot, just in case you forgot while going for another Ding Dong during the commercial break. Except here, it’s always New Info, and you begin to feel like the ding dong (sorry). There’s a barrage of the stuff. An avalanche of Shit You Need To Know.
I happened to have watched Memento again just days before I saw Inception, just a coincidence. In Memento, Nolan is also dealing with a complex plot and with a man who is emotionally unstable. The emotional element is tied, just as it is in Inception, to the complex plot. But in Memento, they unravel together beautifully, efficiently, artfully. Is the audience at moments confused? Undoubtedly. Does it effect their enjoyment or the eventual payoff? I would argue that it doesn’t (but that it does in Inception). The two elements (complex plot and reasons for emotional fuckedupedness) bloom and unfold like delicate origami. But in Inception?
Just give me the fucking manual already.
At least George Lucas*** had the foresight to open his films with text that no one needed to actually read to feel involved. You thought, as the long history of the universe was scrolling away from you, I should probably read that, but eh. Why? Because it was clearly not crucial to your enjoyment of the story. That’s why it was moving away from you so fast.
Remember Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? Complicated, dreamworldy, sci-fi stuff: dispensed efficiently and tastily, like Pez candy.
We didn’t go see The Matrix to understand the effing rules of its universe, and when it had a thing to explain, it did so in ways we wanted to watch. To be fair, Inception did so too, at times. The coffee shop scene with Ariadne, for instance, in which Cobb points out to her that they are in fact in a dream, which he proves to her by showing the city folding in on itself and fruit exploding in slow motion, mid-air, like something that might happen in outer space. Beautiful, efficient, entertaining; and informative! If only there weren’t so much else to explain! Every scene requires a new explanation of a new or old or bent rule. So much so that when we get to the Good Part, we cannot help but find holes in it–to look for them. That’s just what happens when you burden a sci-fi plot with explanations. We no longer buy it, man!
And if a movie has to spend it’s bulk building the boat, then you know what? Maybe the boat is too damn big.
But for all of my complaints, I still cannot say that you should skip this one. The payoff comes late and it’s hard-won, but it has Nolan’s signature awesomeness all over it. It’s beautiful and, well, it’s just really, really neat. It’s fun to talk about afterward, and to lie in bed thinking about (just don’t expect it all to add up, really. The more you think about it, the more holes there are.). Unfortunately, Nolan seems to have fallen for its neatness–his really cool idea (and it is really cool)–a bit too hard. And he clearly expects us to ignore how much his sexy idea talks and talks and talks.
*Forgive the crass metaphor; I’m really nothing like this hypothetical playa I have evoked, folks. I’m a very sweet man.
**I’m actually not all that familiar with Sherlock Holmes stories, and this is probably not fair to poor Watson. Sorry.
***Forgive me for invoking his name after the recent shit he’s put out.
Posted by bloviationnation 
Bloviation Nation 