Join Listal here 
Existing members 
Login here 
Join Listal to create lists, share images, get recommendations and much more
Review of Inception
20
1121 Views No comments

Technically excellent, yet hampered by issues

Choose file... or enter url:
"You're asking me for Inception. I hope you do understand the gravity of that request."


The critical mind boggles when confronted with the challenge of reviewing Inception. It's not that this is a particularly difficult movie to review, but it's tough to pen a critique of the film due to the subjective nature of reviews. So far, severe hostility has been expressed towards any critic who has written anything negative about writer-director Christopher Nolan's 2010 project, and therefore it's hard to be fair. Certainly, there's a lot to admire about Inception - it's a lavish, intricate mind-fuck exhibiting the filmmaking excellence that Nolan is renowned for, and it's a must-see for those who enjoy a solid, intelligent blockbuster. Despite the technical virtuosity, the conceptual scope and the phenomenal visuals, Inception is as emotionally stimulating as an early-morning lecture, and it's hampered by a number of issues.



Here's the premise of Inception described at a basic colloquial level: what if Freddy Krueger was James Bond? The narrative unfolds in a near-future setting in which devices exist to allow agents to enter the dreams of others and extract secrets. Dom Cobb (DiCaprio) is an ace extractor who makes his living by stealing deep-seated thoughts and secrets out of his clients' corporate competitors. In the film, corporate magnate Saito (Watanabe) is interested in hiring Cobb to implant an idea into the mind of evasive businessman Robert Fischer Jr. (Murphy) who's heir to a financial kingdom. The process of inception, however, is far more complex than mere extraction, and Cobb recruits a crackerjack team to back him up: information specialist Arthur (Gordon-Levitt), "architect" Ariadne (Page), "forger" Eames (Hardy), and advanced chemist Yusuf (Rao).


Technically speaking, Inception is flawless. The special effects are practically photorealistic, and the visuals in general are breathtaking. A scene depicting Ariadne testing her architectural skills results in her folding a cityscape onto itself, and it's certain to provoke murmurs of "How did they do that?". Several action sequences have been peppered throughout the movie as well, including a car chase and an instance of gravity-free hand-to-hand combat that injects adrenaline into the film. As a matter of fact, the entire second half of Inception more or less amounts to a massive, riveting action sequence of escalating suspense and excitement as dangerous circumstances unfold across numerous levels of dreamscape. Hans Zimmer's accompanying score affords a suitably epic feel, while the film is also impressive from a conceptual standpoint. No matter where you turn, Nolan has concocted a humdinger of a story.



In order to ensure that a viewer will not get lost, Nolan went to great lengths to explain all of the plot complexities, yet in doing so the writer-neglected neglected a vital human element. Out of all the characters, only Cobb is adequately developed - and even then it's only through him grieving the loss of his wife. Meanwhile, the rest of the characters are one-dimensional plot fodder that lack pasts, backgrounds, arcs, and more than a couple of character traits. They're just names with faces. In a movie like Inception, characters must have personality. All of the greatest action heroes (John McClane, Rocky Balboa, Luke Skywalker, etc) are interesting and fun to be in the company of. Inception, on the other hand, features bland, forgettable and generic empty ciphers that at no point evoke a modicum of emotion. Meanwhile, the film is unbelievably verbose, as all aspects of the plot are explained in laborious detail. The chatter is unnecessarily long-winded and at times uninteresting, which disrupts the pace. Most of the first hour is devoted to uninspired exposition, keeping the film dangerously monotone as dialogue unfolds in a clunky fashion that betrays the breathtaking visuals. Without an outrageous pace or any characters worth legitimately caring about, Inception is unable to entirely capitalise upon its potential.


Added to this, Inception is not as smart as it wants to be. Case in point: it's clear the characters can dream up a weapon of their choosing at any given time (as evidenced on a few occasions). Thus, while Cobb's team are being attacked, why didn't any of them dream up a bazooka, or a powerful machine gun turret? Furthermore, how can Cobb pull his late wife into literally all of his dreams? Recurring dreams do exist, but to this extent is ludicrous - an inexcusable leap in basic logic that nobody explains. Additionally, how often have you woken up from a dream to realise that said dream made no sense? Landscapes constantly shift in ways that make sense in a dream, but are not coherent when you ponder them after awakening. Dreams feature constant abstractions and surrealistic touches, but Inception barely acknowledges this - every dreamscape is too vivid. The dreamscapes are also devoid of subversiveness, and, most critically, of brazen creativity, both of which are essential for the visualisation of dreams.



As for the acting, there's nothing to complain about. Leonardo DiCaprio is excellent as Cobb; his acting is effortless and utterly convincing, despite his shallow role allowing him to do little more than look morose and conflicted. Across the board, the acting is uniformly strong, which makes it all the more disappointing that the characters are so undernourished. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, (500) Days of Summer) is excellent as Arthur, and Ellen Page (Juno, Whip It) is both focused and endearing as Ariadne. Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe and Dileep Rao also shine as other members of the team, while Cillian Murphy is well-nuanced as Robert Fischer Jr. and Marion Cotillard is terrific as Cobb's deceased wife Mal.


While this reviewer humbly disagrees with the majority who sing endless praise for Inception and crown it to be the movie of the decade, it's difficult to overly dislike Nolan's latest tour de force. As a piece of technical wizardly it's hard not to get swept up in the exhilaration of the film, but at the same time Inception is cold at its core, with all the razzle-dazzle denying a strong human element.

7.2/10

Avatar
Added by PvtCaboose91 4 years ago
on 1 August 2010 07:33

People who voted for this also voted for




Comments

Posted: 4 years, 1 month ago at Aug 1 16:49
Thanks, from responses by other people I thought I might physically die if I didn't experience the 'greatness' of this film. LOL
Posted: 4 years ago at Aug 5 19:06
Bravo. A wonderfully accurate review I think.

Though I would like to address something you mentioned with a theory. You mention the lack of development of the supporting characters as a" bland, forgettable and generic empty ciphers that at no point evoke a modicum of emotion". I completely agree. However, I think the lack of development was not a lack of foresight in Nolan's part but completely intentional. Why? Because It fits in with the idea that the entire adventure was just Cobb's dream.
Posted: 4 years ago at Aug 6 3:05
Interesting point, but still... What if Cobb wasn't dreaming? I don't buy Cobb dreaming as a license to overlook basic tenets of filmmaking.
Posted: 3 years, 12 months ago at Sep 3 6:50
That was fanatastic, Thnks for this wonderful review
Posted: 3 years, 10 months ago at Nov 5 3:30
Although I somehwat respectfully disagree, this is an excellent review. Great read.
Posted: 3 years, 6 months ago at Feb 15 15:23
All the "dreams" in the movie are so vivid because they aren't real dreams, they are constructed and planted into the target's mind. Of course, real dreams almost never make sense.
Posted: 3 years, 6 months ago at Feb 15 16:08
Constructed by an architect who has to construct and moderate the playing field in their minds. Dunno about you, but it sounds pretty fucking far-fetched and stupid for someone to put themselves to sleep and be focused enough to imagine the dreamscape without any glitches at all.

It would make more sense if they had actual computers or simulators or something which did the work.
Posted: 3 years, 6 months ago at Feb 15 23:25
This is Sci-fi, far fetched comes with the territory :) A computer powerful enough to construct a vivid world? That's very far fetched too. Nothing comes even close today.
Posted: 3 years, 6 months ago at Feb 16 1:03
I can accept sci-fi providing advanced technology, but I cannot buy a sci-fi giving the mind of a *regular everyday human* such ludicrous powers.
Posted: 3 years, 6 months ago at Feb 16 1:38
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/world-computer-data/ ;)
Posted: 3 years, 6 months ago at Feb 16 2:20
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/c/ce/Quadfpalm.jpg
Posted: 3 years, 6 months ago at Feb 16 5:55
LMFAO at the quad-facepalm. :D

Login or Signup to post a comment