There's a whole lot of coolness in Nolan's "Inception". Yes, it's a film that makes you pay close attention to the details because it's a bit like a puzzle you're putting together while you watch. I also think it's a film that you're supposed to like if you want to be considered a "smart" film watcher. So, at the risk of being tagged an "Inception" hater, I will say I liked this movie but for me it didn't live up to its pre and post release hype.
I've now seen it twice and do understand the story, but I just don't think dreams are all that interesting of a subject. Plus, some of the made up "dream-rules" bugged me. There are different lengths of time within levels of dreams. Really? And the clock time within dream levels is approximately the same? I also didn't know how they kept using the "dream machines" within the dream levels. And SPOILER...if the top keeps spinning then the entire film never touched reality? SPOILER OVER. Now that I've griped, there were some moments that I really enjoyed, like Gordon-Levitt's gravity-defying fights in the hotel halls and some of the visuals when architecting dream worlds.
My personal preferences make it hard for me to really like this movie as much as the majority does. I'd recommend it based on its stunning visuals and terrific direction. However, the sleepy dream worlds presented here were kind of a yawner for me.
The Dark Knight may have been the film that catapulted Nolan into A-list status, but it was this film that made people sit up and take notice that the director was going to have a life beyond Batman. Rather than playing in someone else's world, Nolan has managed to create a fascinating world (or is it worlds ?) of his own. The concept of dreams vs reality has been explored before, but rarely to the effect that it is here. The cast are all great, particularly DiCaprio and Cotillard, but even more importantly is Nolan's script and the editing, which never lose the audience despite the competing narratives within the film and which leave you feeling completely satisfied even with the intentional ambiguity of the final shot. Indeed, the final hour of the film is one of the greatest sustained sequences committed to film, that keeps raising the stakes and Nolan's efforts to try and capture difficult sequences in-camera rather than using CGI is rewarded with stunning imagery as well as tense and exciting action beats. Hopefully a sign of things to come, not only from Nolan after his work on The Dark Knight Rises, but also from Hollywood blockbusters in the future.
The Good:
The Bad:
Verdict:
Inception is Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece and an action movie worth several re-watches.
To date the best film I have ever seen in my life. I still don't give it ten stars because I lack reasons and by "reasons" I mean seeing more films as good as this one to justify "Inception" being the best of the best. Fair, right?
Something that Nolan did not know how to do in "Batman Begins" was to maintain the protagonist's internal conflict, something that remains in place until the end of "Inception." Cobb is warned and tested by Ariadne so that he understands that has a problem and must solve it: let go of the memory of Mal and accept the blame for his death. It is only until the end, in limbo, where to see his children again he accepts his wound and grows. This is how you keep your viewers hooked until the tape ends.
The concept is also very creative and is executed masterfully. Book sagas could be written where the magical system is based on the whole question of dreams. The concept is taken to the extreme with things like inception and a dream within a dream. And with that same level of construction, Nolan manages to effortlessly explain the entire system he built without it feeling condescending or breaking the viewer's immersion.
"Inception" is the best Nolan film I've seen so far.
While "Inception" undeniably boasts a ground-breaking concept and stunning visuals, it isn't without its flaws. For starters, the film is marred by its overreliance on expository dialogue. The bulk of the narrative is dedicated to explaining the rules of the dream world, which not only slows down the pace, but also reduces the element of mystery that could have made the plot more intriguing.
Also, the characters, despite being played by a star-studded cast, feel underdeveloped and lack depth. Cobb is the only character with a well-explored backstory and emotional arc, leaving the rest of the team feeling like mere tools to advance the plot.
Moreover, the film seems to be more interested in constructing intricate dream sequences than focusing on emotional storytelling. It is a magnificent spectacle, no doubt, but the barrage of special effects sometimes overpowers the human element, making the viewer feel detached from the characters and their plight.
Finally, the movie's convoluted narrative structure can be a turn-off for some viewers. While it's clear that director Christopher Nolan intended to challenge audiences, the labyrinthine plot can be confusing, making it difficult to follow and fully engage with the story.
In conclusion, while "Inception" is undeniably innovative in its approach to storytelling, it falls short in terms of character development and emotional engagement. It's a thrilling ride, but one that could have benefited from a little more heart and a little less spectacle.
"Inception" is a film Christopher Nolan had wanted to make for many years at the time of its creation. Understanding that he needed more experience to be able to pull it off, he ended up directing his first two highly-acclaimed Batman projects to understand the process of crafting such a massive movie. It paid off, as "Inception" is an ambitious release that has continued to receive praise ever since it came out.
The narrative revolves around exploring a person's subconscious through dreams, and it does a fantastic job at doing as much with this concept as it can. Thematically, it unfolds bit by bit, with Leonardo DiCaprio's portrayal of Cobb providing an enticing humanity that runs parallel to the fast-paced suspense. "Inception" doesn't waste a second and it requires a great deal of attention at times, but it fully rewards its viewers for sticking through.
Besides Cobb as the protagonist, I found myself attached to the rest of the cast as well, even those that did not receive substantial development. Interestingly, "Inception" functions as a heist film at its core, and each person plays a specific role that makes them stand out. Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) was surprisingly interesting and I ended up caring for the conclusion to his arc. Marion Cotillard was excellent as Mal Cobb and played very well off DiCaprio.
The action in "Inception" is magnificient to watch, relying on its incredible special effects that are appropriately trippy and unconventional. Even a decade later, it stands the test of time and dare I say looks as modern as it did back then.
My major issue with "Inception" comes in its last act, where I believe it begins to come across as genuinely pretentious. It loses its grip of logic, moving from sci-fi into pure fantasy. The ending is decent, but I'm not certain it fully lives up to all of its potential.
I loved "Inception", I've never seen a film quite like it. It was genuinely a fascinating concept that I found to be brilliantly executed, even if it did fall apart a little by the end. A must-watch for Nolan fans and I'd highly recommend it to just about anybody else, especially science fiction and action fans. Just know it is anything but a casual watch, you'll want to take in everything you can from it!
"Inception" is a solid and extremely entertaining action film that is based on an interesting concept, which is something rare for this kind of blockbusters. However, it's nothing as deep or arthousey as Nolan wants us to think. Its biggest flaw is that it tries to do too many things at the same time without fully developing any of the ideas. Dom's backstory is beautifully told, but the role of their children, as well as the mystery behind Mal's death, felt a bit too rough and cliché. The dynamics and side-effects of the dreams are explained multiple times throughout the film, but some passages still felt forced or just rattled off by the writers. The running time could allow more focus on emotional depth as well as character development. Yet, a lot of is gets sacrificed by the addition of a lot of superfluous action scenes, like the neverending mountain fights or the chase in Kenya. These are probably used to make the film easier to digest for casual viewers, but added nothing to the plot nor felt visually appealing or particularly adrenaline-filled. The ending is left ambiguous not for real narrative necessities but just to avoid taking risks but still keep the talk going.
Don't misunderstand me: it's a fun and entertaining film that is masterfully shot, excellently acted, and even lets you think a bit. It just lacked the depth that such an ambitious concept needed and felt a bit overrated.
Christopher Nolan's winding, twisting dreamland epic is just as revelatory today as it was in the theater a few years ago. Nolan clearly took his time with this script, a full eight years in the making, and it bears gorgeous fruit in the form of a rich, bright analysis of lucid dreams, shared consciousness and the very roots of influence in an individual psyche. Those are some pretty heavy concepts to just toss around in a Hollywood blockbuster, but through careful elaboration and a few very stylish test cases, it manages to efficiently explain the ground rules and get on to telling the story without bucking the casuals or alienating the intellectuals.
With all sorts of hidden truths, cleverly-masked winks and subtle hints at deeper meanings, there's also much more here than can be absorbed in a single viewing. Although the run time falls well north of two hours, the groundwork is so enveloping - and the plot so fast-paced - that the minutes just rip by without any regard for the clock on your wall. It's a fantastic effort, and a great indication that large-scale, big-budget American filmmaking is still capable of bringing the goods from time to time.
Based on the flood of "____ception" memes that hit the 'net after this film came out, I expected… more.
As the cardinal rule of filmmaking says: "Show, don't tell." Inception does an awful lot of telling. It (or its characters) never shuts up.
I will grant this: The visuals are incredible. From Ariadne's first ventures into the role of architect (the street-bending is aces) all the way down to Limbo. It's really too bad the writing wasn't equally nuanced.
Admittedly, Inception doesn't have the worst info-dumps ever. I just watched an episode of The X-Files, "The Erlenmeyer Flask", that had a scientist piling basic DNA science onto Agent Scully (a medical doctor) for the benefit of viewers who hadn't gotten to the DNA chapter of biology class yet. Now that was bad. Inception isn't quite that blatant about its info-dumps, but they do exist.
Putting off writing this review by a few hours really let me get tired, so I'm not inclined to write as much. But, it's also taught me that the plot isn't particularly memorable. The basic idea is simple, and things play out pretty much exactly as expected (broadly speaking). The details aren't that interesting, and the only plot point that surprised me (Dom actually being "responsible" for Mal's suicide) wasn't worth the overly long build-up.
Oh, did I mention this movie is two and a half hours long? It's too much. (About 7 minutes of the 148 are devoted to credits, and can be skipped if you wish, but that's still a long film.) I checked the clock several times wondering just how much longer this ordeal would last. Fortunately the falling van gave me a decent point of reference, so I didn't have to check as often.
Mostly, I'm disappointed at the lack of substance. I expected some real profound shit, based on the hype. I didn't get it. Some people say you need to watch this film several times to get everything that's going on, but I don't think so. This is a one-and-done movie with some pretty action scenes and inconsistent treatment of its own mechanics. (Seriously, why do the gravitational effects from the van swerving around only penetrate one dream level?)
Although I feel this movie is grossly overrated, I enjoyed it a lot. It's definitely not a flawless movie and I wouldn't call it genius, but it does make you think. Even if there are some inconsistencies in the world they've created, it sure is an interesting world to watch.
And you can't really ignore the directing expertise from Christopher Nolan, and same goes for the classic score from Hans Zimmer. The ominous theme mimics that of a slowed down version of the song that they use to wake up from the kicks. And considering this movie explains that time slows down for each level of the dream, I'd say that's genius.
I do have some problems though. In the film, they establish Limbo is virtually a place of no return: if you go there it's basically like suicide. But then later, when they actually go to Limbo, they're just like "Peace", and jump off. Apparently, all you need is a suicide and a defibrillator, and your gunshot wound is cured.
And then there's this thing, where Mal kills herself, and it basically sets of the plot of the whole movie before it even starts. She basically frames him for murder, but she's in a different hotel room all together. Possibly even a different hotel chain. So how does this frame him for murder? Wouldn't they have records in her checking out two different hotel rooms? Wouldn't they at least have some security camera footage of her at the desk? I don't know why Leo had to run away from all this, it seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. wouldn't have any of his shoe or fingerprints in the other room at all, and she trashed the room that he was in, to make it seem like he threw her from there, but a forensics team can't figure it out? He'd have to throw her pretty far for that to be possible, and that doesn't explain why two rooms would be checked out. I'm open to conversation about this, so someone can explain it to me, but I really don't get it.
Overall, overrated but a great movie nonetheless.
Review by shmosbyVIP 4BlockedParent2024-05-03T12:22:46Z
When I first saw this movie, it blew my mind wide open. I'd never seen anything like it before. It opened my mind to what a movie could be.
Nolan's best movie. A perfectly constructed puzzle box that uses the conventions of a one-last-job heist movie to tell an intensely emotional story of guilt, love, regret, and redemption. It's also a movie about dreams, the subconscious, the nature of reality, and cinema itself.
All of Nolan's favorite themes are on display here: the obsessed protagonist, the dead wife, father-child relationships, timey-wimey shenanigans, men in suits, and globetrotting Bondian action.
Constructed in classic Nolan fashion: neverending exposition, outrageous practical set pieces, Pfister's golden cinematography, Zimmer's intoxicating score.
Yet Inception manages to avoid virtually all of Nolan's usual pitfalls. It's complex, sure, but it works even if you don't follow everything (unlike Tenet). It seamlessly marries sci-fi concepts, action, and emotion (unlike Interstellar, with its thematic whiplash of hard science and sentimentality). The cross-cutting at the climax feels perfectly earned, rather than an artifice used to create suspense. And the acting and line delivery is so good that you barely notice the clunkiness of Nolan's dialogue.
I love all of Nolan's movies, but I doubt he'll ever top this.