Inception

Writer/Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard
Review: 2.5 stars (of five)

Christopher Nolan’s new film sports a dense, literally multilayered plot, great visuals and inventive, practically executed special effects and powerfully tight direction and editing. It has a lot going for it, all under the control of the gripping filmmaker who gave us Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Prestige.

The bulk of the film explicitly takes place in dreams, and Nolan deliberately brings a dreamlike quality to the narrative. Take the beginning: We arrive en media res and nothing makes sense. Considering that minutes 20 through 130 will be jam-packed with clunky exposition, this confusing, alienating opening gambit seems odd. Until Leonardo DiCaprio explains to another character that the way to tell whether you’re experiencing a dream, rather than waking reality, is if you find yourself in the middle of a place or situation but can’t remember exactly how you got there. Ahh …

The film is worth seeing for its inarguable qualities, and it’s one that plays worthily on the big screen. But it has too many flaws to be called a success. Summing up its virtues as “Big ideas! Looks great!” let’s move on to the flaws.

Infinite Exposition: It never freakin’ stops. In my screening, there was a point at which, as characters sprang yet another major conceptual wrinkle on us, groans and pained laughter rippled through the audience.

Misfocus: It’s a caper: DiCaprio is assembling a crack team of brain hackers to pull off an amazing con—inside the victim’s mind! The scheme is insanely involved, life-threatening and complex, with constant reversals and twists. But here’s the thing: It’s not what the movie is about. We don’t care about its success or failure, except as it affects the personal journey of Leo D. The amount of time, exposition and complexity foisted on the big Maguffin con plot is vastly out of proportion.

Overcomplexity: The plan involves three different levels of dream-invasion, and a fourth is added in desperation. It becomes tiring to follow. Simpler would’ve been waaaaay better.

No “Heart”: The movie is emotionally dead. Since the central character mystery is about a tangled romantic relationship, about the loss or estrangement of love, you’d like the payoff to make you feel something, like a glimmer of interest in the tangled lovers, maybe?

Ambiguity: Not tying everything up neatly is often a strength, but after fighting through the dense caper plot to see DiCaprio through to his personal conclusion, Nolan predictably leaves the central point of contention between Leo and Cotillard (critical to interpreting the whole film) unresolved. But if you’re going to do that, the movie should set you up so that there’s an emotional payoff for the audience, a thrill to the possibilities that ambiguity presents. Here, it’s just annoying.

Nevertheless, it’s goddamned ambitious filmmaking. Nolan’s failures are always from trying too hard (the end of Memento), or including too much (the end of The Dark Knight). In a world full of Jonah Hexes, Nic Cage movies and Karate Kid remakes, failing because you tried too hard is a goddamned breath of fresh air, you know? It’s just a shame that, no matter how cool the visuals and the firecracker string of ideas, Inception just doesn’t add up to a complete, satisfying experience. Some would finish that sentence with, “just like a dream,” but dreams don’t cost you $10 plus popcorn.