Original, but not without flaws

Rating: 7/10 (6 May 2015)

By the time Inception arrived in theaters, Christopher Nolan had pretty much become a household name, having directed some very popular films, including resurrecting the superhero genre with the success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Now, I went to see Inception with a friend and had a lot fun watching it. But then again, I also had fun playing Mass Effect 3 the first time before realizing just how much that game sucked compared to the previous two games in the series. The same thing happened with Inception: I had fun and was impressed with certain aspects of the film whilst watching it, but upon further inspection, I felt a growing sense of disappointment. But I'll get to that, as I have to first get the mandatory plot synopsis out of the way for the handful of people who still haven't seen the film.
Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his team are experts in infiltrating people's dreams. They are threatened/hired by Japanese businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) to infiltrate the mind of the son of a wealthy businessman who owns a large energy conglomerate. Because the son is the heir, he could dissolve the company if Cobb and this team succeed in planting this idea in his head: inception. The film is basically a reverse caper style film: instead of trying to steal something, something has to be put into place.
Now that that's out of the way, I thought I'd list some of the things I liked about Inception before delving into its flaws. What I liked most were the action sequences. It certainly wasn't the story or the endless plot exposition. No, Inception is at heart a blockbuster and it's at its blockbuster-y best when cars are turning, causing a hotel hallway inside someone's mind to also turn. Sure, there are some lackluster action scenes (that ski chase), but the rest are quite creatively done and it's all due to the film's concept of inception. I also adored Wally Pfister's cinematography. He gave the action sequences an elegance that was only accentuated by the editing (see the car chase/hallway fight scene).
There's something I want to discuss concerning Inception's popularity. Something that kept being repeated over and over again when Inception was released, was how this was an intelligent blockbuster and that precisely sums up both its pros and cons. Yes, it is an unusual blockbuster, but at the same time, save for some nice practical effects during action sequences, it's also so banal and uninspired in terms of story, characters and execution. Also, I think the 'intelligent blockbuster' identity says something more about the audience than the film. It just screams, 'we can enjoy our typical summer blockbuster, whilst making ourselves believe that we are watching something intelligent and that we are intelligent for doing so'. At that point, the film itself becomes irrelevant and it seems to be more about the audience's apparent need to justify their desire for summer blockbusters. 'No, no, it's not just a typical blockbuster. It's really deep.' Yeah, deep in terms of dream layers maybe. Plot-wise, however Speaking of which, I never really understood all the constant talking of the film's "complexity" and "intelligence" when the film is actually really straightforward. This is hardly 'requires repeat viewing' material. Even when someone brings up the 'was Cobb still dreaming or not' question, I tend to think: who cares? Also, that question speaks volumes of how, in the end, this film has nothing interesting to say really.
When you picture an action film about dreams, you start to imagine the possibilities: all kinds of surreal, symbolic imagery, perhaps hinting at characters' fears and subconscious desires. There's a reason the film's posters kept depicting the fantastic images of cities folding in on themselves. But the amount of times Inception delivers on that front can be counted on one hand. You can of course argue that the film explains (as it tends to do) that these dreams are worlds created by Ariadne, so that there's limited interference of the subconscious. They are controlled environments more or less, but I think that misses the point. That is simply using the story to justify the idea that the film wouldn't have been a success if it was all about the randomness of the subconscious. I can understand that too much randomness can conflict with creating a sense of forward momentum, but at the same time you're dramatically underutilizing the filmic possibilities for depicting dreams.
I think that's what it boils down to: wasted potential. This film could've been so much more daring, but it's constrained by its blockbuster ambitions, its straightforward reverse caper style narrative and Nolan's own penchant for ideas but lack of involving drama. Again, I don't hate the film even though it really must sound like I'm bashing it. And I know it's unfair to critique a film for what it isn't. It's just that, when your film deals with dreams, you will automatically be judged by how much you visually play around with that concept and saying that Inception doesn't play around with dreams and the subconscious enough is quite an understatement. If Nolan had dropped the boring, uninvolving melodrama and the reverse caper style narrative, it would've freed up so much room for visual experimentation and all kinds of involving drama. Then it would have really been a film about dreams. As it is, Inception is a very typical (though enjoyable) action flick disguised as something it actually isn't.