For me, Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” has been the most anticipated movie of the year — after the Coen Brothers’ remake of “True Grit” of course. The man who brought us “The Dark Knight” has followed up such a thrilling, frightening and already iconic film with a mind-bending one.
“Inception” is quite a tricky movie to talk about. The vague previews made it impossible to grasp the basic outline of the plot. The film boils down to an old-fashioned heist movie with a complex narrative structure involving layers deep within the mind. Usually plot introductions are necessary in these reviews, but this is an exception. The less you know about the story the better.
The best and most artistic portion of the film is the first 20 minutes. Like in “Memento,” Nolan immediately thrusts the audience into the film with no explanation of what is going on, but these early scenes were exciting precisely for that reason. Nolan trusts his audience to put together the pieces for a while, but eventually resorts to characters explaining all of the rules, risks, time structure and so on. Even with this over-explanation there is a high level of audience trust rarely seen in major films — much less supposed blockbusters.
The basic story starts about an hour into the film, once the rules and plot are explained. Unfortunately, once the “heist” part starts, the plot becomes strangely predictable.
The descent to the dream level in the hotel and all of the action that takes place in that setting is breath-taking in its inventiveness and suspense. I was completely back on board until the next dream level which involved a snow fortress. It didn’t bring to mind the dark, brooding subconscious of the human psyche. After the brilliance of the hotel, this final act was a major letdown visually and conceptually.
The dream world of “Inception” is unfortunately more M.C. Escher than Salvador Dali. Nolan’s treatment of the dream-state overall is surprisingly anemic and sterile. When DiCaprio’s subconscious breaks through, it is never dark or frightening, though one would expect the subconscious to be the area where the worst fears and horrors reside. Nolan claimed he originally envisioned the movie as a horror film. He might deserve more praise if he had allowed at least some horror into this vision of the mind.
DiCaprio plays a similar character in Martin Scorsese’s “Shutter Island,” both tortured and guilt-ridden due to a sketchy past involving his wife. His acting is decent here but toward the end where the emotional payoff is supposed to be, he and Marion Cotillard — who plays the malicious Mal — don’t quite pull it off. The rest of the cast ranges from barely OK (Ellen Page) to scene stealer (Tom Hardy, who plays the Bond-like Eames). Unlike “The Dark Knight” or “The Prestige,” this film doesn’t feature an iconic performance.
Structure is where Nolan, and the film itself, excel. The film is impeccably edited and structured to create a balance of confusion and excitement that few films have achieved. Where the great directors of the past have offered us more memorable images and stories, few have created a new mode of storytelling like what Nolan achieves here. The treatment of the concept of time in this film will undoubtedly be copied to death in a similar way to “bullet-time” from “The Matrix” — I pray “Inception” doesn’t spawn any god-awful sequels.
Despite all the hype about the visuals, it rarely gives us anything memorable besides the folding city and hotel corridor. Most of the film relied on borrowing from better films.
While I do have a few problems with it, overall the film is complex, exciting and thought-provoking, with an ending that will have people debating for years to come. Despite its flaws, “Inception” does expect a lot from its audience and assumes a commitment to intellectual engagement that is almost unheard of in major films. Hopefully, “Inception” will inspire more filmmakers not to dumb-down their dreams for a mass audience.
