If only all blockbusters were like this...

Rating: 9/10 (8 December 2010)

So much has been written and talked about this movie that it's hard to say anything new about it. However I didn't want to miss my chance to talk about what I thought was one of the most inventive and challenging blockbuster of the last few years
It is so refreshing to finally see a big budget Hollywood movie that doesn't treat its audience like a band of lobotomised idiots but actually attempts to do something a bit more challenging, beyond the silly Pirates of the Caribbean or the awful Transformers movies, but it seems to me that this is what blockbusters have become in the last few years. I honestly cannot remember what's the last big Pop Corn summer movie I have enjoyed. Can anyone help?
This film makes no apologies for its labyrinthine structure and it's as if you could almost hear Nolan saying to me "c'mon, keep up! Keep up!". It is a mentally draining experience And I love it for it! But the most interesting I noticed this time is that the film is actually made in such a way that even if you don't completely understand it, you'll understand it enough to be able to appreciate the action and the basic plot with its intricate layers of dreams. You're supposed to get lost in the beginning, but never lost enough to lose your patience and then slowly you start to understand just enough to be able to cope with it So basically, the film makes you believe that you are pretty clever in being able to work it out by yourself, while in fact the huge amount of exposition helps you immensely. People have been criticising the fact that half of the movie is essentially exposition, where the characters are telling you what's going on and what they are going to do and how Well, funnily enough I though that was part of the fun. I don't mind exposition, if it's done in a clever, fast and intriguing way like in Inception. People have been criticise it for its cool and clinical approach to characters. I have been hearing people complaining about not feeling anything for Di Caprio's internal pain. Well, I don't know what to tell them about that, but I thought the scene where Marion Cotillard commits suicide was actually emotionally incredibly strong and Di Caprio's performance was pretty faultless. Yes, maybe Ellen Page's character was just a functional piece of the puzzle but actually pretty two-dimensional, but hey, does it really matter? Was I sitting there thinking "Oh My God, what is she feeling? I want to know more about her?" No!! I was completely unwrapped in the story to notice any of that and it didn't matter to me. Marion Cottilard is utterly terrifying as the ever-present ex-wife. Just her presence is enough for me to give me a great sense of unease. She's perfect in it and she's quickly becoming my favourite French actress. Cillian Murphy in his character manages to convey both strength and weakness: at the beginning you think he's got the world in his hands and at the end you almost feel pity for him and you understand his pain. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is incredibly watchable. Surely it must not be too easy to be next to Di Caprio and come out just as strong and sympathetic as he does. We'll be hearing a lot about him (but then again, I was already a fan from the time he did "Mysterious Skin"). Tom Hardy is the surprise of the film. I knew what to expect by all the other ones, but Hardy really took me by surprise and did so much with what was quite an underdeveloped character, making him likable, sharp and witty. Finally I should probably mention Michael Caine, who does almost nothing in this film, and yet, just by the fact that he's there he gives me a sense of security and serenity that it's un- replaceable. Also the visuals obviously are so stunning that you sort of want to forgive even any little character development. The CGI effects in Paris are some of the best ones and most inventive I have seen in recent times. It is so hard nowadays to still be able to amaze us with any Visual Effects and yet Nolan has been able to do it over and over again in this film. It's the combination of clever Production Design, imaginative Visual (and most of the time Practical) Effects that make it work seamlessly. The corridor sequences are just a joy to watch and the cross-cutting between the van falling off the bridge in slow motion and all the other levels is just so pleasing and works so well: it's intricate and yet so simple at the same time, so much so that you wonder why hasn't anyone done it before? Where the film falls a bit is in the final act, the so-called "James Bond moment", that is when we get to the level with all the snow. Maybe because at that point it becomes in part almost like a normal action film, and actually not a very good one either. The staging of the shootout and the chase sequences on the snow are all pretty average and slightly drawn out. Mind you at that point there are so many other things going on and you've been so bombarded by so much that you don't really mind it too much, but it is the weakest part of the film in my view. Also in a way, since you are in a dream, they should have probably pushed it a bit further. But hey, I'm really nick-picking here. I wish all the blockbusters were just 20% as inventive, challenging and beautiful to look at as Inception was. I can't wait to see what Nolan does next (erm no, I don't mean Batman 3 actually).