By the way, spoilers are present. This review is only meant for those who have viewed the film themselves.
Dreams are fantastical, surreal canvasses for nigh-incomprehensible yet
appreciable wonder. Thus, there's much ambition and potential in any media,
especially films, to rest their premises on dreams. It's also a daunting task
that is difficult to capture. One could posit that it is a requirement of
dream-based films to have surreal qualities to them. While dreams may, but
certainly not always, have an overlying "plot" of sorts to them, the
presentation should not be overtly mechanical, planned, detailed. With all of
this in mind, basing a film's premise around dreams is understandably
intimidating.
Inception, the Nolan brothers' so-called (post-Memento & The
Dark Knight) magnum opus, doesn't quite manage to capture the wonderment of dreams. The
film doesn't suffer too much from not achieving their surreal quality,
but it's the near complete lack of humanity of any of its characters that is unbecoming.
Oh, but the rabid, froth-at-the-mouth fanboys of this film are probably
already foaming at the corners of their lips over my criticizing this film! So
let me back up my assertions, you impassioned, self-annointed Knight Templars
of the Christopher Nolan order. I'm sure you jest, but I'm going to try and
convince you on why this film does not deserve its overwhelming praise.
First of all, it's the dreadful, obnoxious, ad-nauseum delivery of
expository dialogue that serves to, perhaps non-deliberately on Nolan's part, insult
the viewer. I'm not sure about you, reader, but I don't want a film to explain
to me the concepts of the film's premise over, and over, and over again whilst
not allowing me to care about the characters involved. I'm sorry, but if
characters can't display humanity by talking like flesh & blood people actually do then I can't fathom a hint of empathy (let alone sympathy)
for them. And when they speak dialogue that doesn't allow for character
development at all, there's no intensity to be had. Exposition in itself is not detrimental to a film, for sure, but too much of it makes the film a chore to watch.
Why was it so difficult to write some actual dialogue for Inception?
Why was it so difficult to write some actual dialogue for Inception?
As a slight merit for the film, it is redeemed a bit by the rare, rather prized
incidence of humanity in the form of real dialogue and character growth. One (of few) examples comes
from a revelation into what happened to Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio)'s late wife
Mal; in a flashback to the incident that claimed her life (and sets up why he's
carrying out the "heist" in the first place), he pleads to a
delirious, fatally dubious wife to come to grips with reality. Since one of the
over-explained concepts involves people being trapped within dreams (which are scrutinized by the function of a personally-chosen totem, serving to help them snap back to reality if they function correctly), she
didn't have the saving grace of a proving factor to prevent her death. She
sought to kill herself in a dream (as she felt she was) in order to wake up.
The problem is, she was already awake. That's great and all, but there's one problem with it: it's far too brief and thus doesn't save the film from mediocrity.
Whereas the rest of the film is a convoluted excuse to throw in slightly
surreal encounters with "projections", which are really armed goons described as being similar to
white blood-cells reacting to pathogens, only in the subconscious instead. The
Matrix had a more fleshed-out excuse to justify non-stop shooting of
passerby and armed combatants, whereas this film indulges in half-assed neuroscience mumbo-jumbo to do essentially the same thing. Whereas The Matrix upped the ante with Herculean feats of physics-defying leaping & dodging, this film plays safe with your suspension of disbelief. Inception actually suffers because of this since it lowers the
film into a simple action flick, which it actually is. Oh and, how does all of this resemble dreams so far?
Instead of what we got here, we could have had a stunning, actually human
look into the emotionally conflicted characters at stake (well, at least that
of Cobb, who is the only character we should care about and who is granted any
semblance of character at all). The struggles could have been exacerbated on
with quite a bit of emotional appeal while mesmerizing the audience with their personally distinct, equally invigorating dreams. However, that would not make for a good
thriller film, as Deirdre Barrett of Harvard University attested when
discussing the merits of the film's principle theme. Oh but the film would be
far more interesting had it gone the actually creative route instead. Would have been riskier, sure, but would have made for a vastly superior payoff if done right.
Ellen Paige is a somewhat fledgling but truly capable actress, who, so far
at least, has not succumbed to the condescending machinations that Hollywood
typically burdens female celebrities with. In spite of her latent talents, no
progress was made with this film. Instead, Adriadne (Paige) serves as the foil (for the audience) to the expository vessels in virtually all characters surrounding her. Such as
when she asks if they're in reality or in a dream, or when she tries to make
sense of the plans carried out by the likes of Arthur (Joseph Gordonn-Levitt)
or Cobb. She is the character meant to reassure the reasonably confused audience
that "this ain't so confusin'!" Oh and, since I mentioned him just
previously, Arthur is the most manipulative and mechanical character of the
merry band that we, the audience should care about. Like Adriadne, he doesn't
do his actor any justice, either. Just what is at stake for him? Sure, he's a
member of Cobb's team, but surely you could provide him ample back-story as
well since he's regarded as a main character. His struggles mean next to
nothing if he doesn't have any humanity to begin with. He's stoic when he should be concerned, and no tension can be felt in his action scenes.
What about the aspects of the film that actually resemble the alien nature
of dreamscapes? Well, sure, there are some neat special effects involved, such
as the folding street effect during the demonstration of Adriadne's ability as
an architect (one who constructs the dreamscapes to implant into the mind of a mark,
the target of an inception operation). The slow-motion freeze-frame antics of the
following effects are kind of cool, too, but they are not exactly redeeming
qualities. The more intriguing effects are not computer-generated at all, such
as the iconic zero-gravity hallway scenes which feature Arthur battling a
couple of, err, projections. And then there's a set of Penrose stairs featured
in another scene involving Adriadne and Arthur going over final details prior
to the heist. A ruined, claustrophobic city-scape of Cobb's imagination makes
an appearance and it certainly is a meritorious set, but it's too little too
late. And then the dry, calculated, machine-like feel of the scenery kicks in.
The thing that marvelled me most is just how mechanical, how planned, how
rule-bound Nolan's vision here turned out to be. It bothered me after my cinema
viewing right after its release and it bothers me even more now. I sometimes
remember my own dreams just enough to recognize margins of their overall
narratives, but this film didn't do much justice at all. It felt like
false-advertising on the part of the film, because had they been honest about
its presentation (like describing it as an action thriller along the likes of The
Matrix), then it wouldn't have been so insulting to me. All of the dream
within a dream (rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat) jargon are of only moderate
consequence at best and are simply excuses for what amounts to a tale of corporate
espionage, with tension-free gunfights and fisticuffs (because of the hollow
shells that are the characters) thrown in for good measure.
And then there's the squandering of the talents cast into this epic (I find
it difficult to call it such, but it technically is one), namely in particulars
as Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael Caine (who serves the role of his father-in-law,
also his mentor), Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Nobody
except for Cobb and Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) are granted a hint of
humanity, and again, it all happens too late and they are few & far between
(indeed, Fischer isn't as important as he was intended to be, yet in two very
brief scenes we are provided some backstory for him). I've already mentioned Ellen Paige's talents having been wasted through her character, but I'd just be repeating myself to bring it up again.
The so-called “projections” are just an excuse for this film to be yet
another action romp. Unfortunately for the film, the action pretty much falls
flat because the film doesn't allow us to care about the consequences. At face
value as well, these projections are no different from generic mooks you find
in virtually every other action film anyway. If they’re projections of the
sub-conscious, then why can’t they perform strange feats to get at their
adversaries? They die just like everybody else you ever see on film, so the
whole thing about them being akin to white blood cells of the mind is fluff
that never amounts to more than that. Ah, excuses are in full supply when
trying to justify what should have been an otherwise insightful film that turned out
to be a shooting gallery on film, with dreams and all that thrown in for good measure! Oh and because the film is set in dreams, our heroes can simply will any weapon of choice into their possession with which to blast away these otherwise generic grunts! No, this ain't no stinkin' rip-off of The Matrix at play, folks.
I hope your sarcasm detector was, or is turned on, because I may have had you there.
I hope your sarcasm detector was, or is turned on, because I may have had you there.
I'm just wondering whether the fanboys will come with their threats, seeing
as I've committed what amounts to blasphemy for criticizing the work of their
god, Christopher Nolan. If the film weren't so mechanical, dry, hollow, and
unimaginative, I’d have given it ample praise. However, since the film barely
allows us to give a hoot about anyone, the “dreams” are so literal and so far
from being surreal that they’re not particularly fascinating, and the so-called
“intellectual” prowess of the film really is just an insult to the viewers in
the form of non-stop expository dialogue, I just can’t give it that good a
score. This film was written with too much pragmatism at work, with little of anything else, and it shows in spades.
There’s a reason I left the theatre perplexed as to just what was so
special about the film. It seems to be an intriguing puzzle of sorts upon the first one
or two viewings, but after that you’re bound to piece together an
over-ambitious, inhuman, sterile piece of overrated mediocrity. Why not put a
real visionary like David Lynch up to task! Hell, put Adrian Lynne up to it if
Lynch isn't available. They'd have conceived of a masterpiece in comparison to this tripe.
In closing: It isn't terrible, but it isn't particularly good either.
