Nolan has created a provocative piece of cinema, flirting with masterpiece -- but is it?

Rating: 8/10 (20 July 2010)

Inception is one of the more enjoyable films that I have seen in some time. It falls somewhere between the Matrix (methodology), Vanilla Sky (multi-layered realities) and the Usual Suspects (densely-plotted, begs more than one viewing.)
The result is a thrill-ride that will leave most viewers pondering long after the credits have rolled. It is both provocative and at times mesmerizing, albeit a bit over-thought at times.
Though the idea of "dream hacking" is hardly new, Nolan's layers to the idea make the concept seem quite fresh and the result is something unique. Instead of relying on one "plane" of consciousness or dreamscape, Nolan has included "levels", which dictate different levels of a dream and each team member has a role to serve in navigating its murky and at times unnerving landscape to accomplish their mission. Timing is critical at every level and the story is weaved together rather well, though at times it can feel a little overwhelming.
In fact, the only complaint I have about the film is that at certain moments it bogs down under the weight of its own complexity and at times, unnecessarily.
Part of this is because Nolan is a little unconventional in terms of how he handles exposition. Instead of laying out the rules of the world in one part of the film, he chooses to add more rules as the film progresses.
In a more conventional scenario, consider the Matrix:
1. First part, we are as disoriented as Neo and do not understand what is happening.
2. Second part, the rules of the world are laid out by Morpheus and suddenly we understand what is happening.
3. Finally, the action takes place with the audience in the full know of the established rules.
With Inception, these rules unfold throughout almost the entire film, much like the plot points. The result is a double-edged sword: On one hand, it keeps the film moving swiftly and you continue to have "ah-ha" moments. On the other hand, it makes one feel like scorekeeping is in order to keep everything straight as you watch it.
It's not so much that Nolan gives us TOO MUCH INFORMATION, as much as it that he gives us CRITICAL PIECES OF INFORMATION in VERY SMALL WINDOWS of screen time. This means one ill-timed bathroom break could compromise your entire understanding of the film.
Even paying strict attention the entire time, there are still times when details lost because we're too busy absorbing info.
Another common complaint is the "ambiguous ending", which has sparked raging debates. I personally don't mind such endings. I like coming to my own conclusions, but that's just me. Unfortunately though, I found more ambiguous moments throughout the entire film, which doesn't work as well. Again, the "rules" get fuzzy at times, which one should always be avoided when doing science fiction, especially as layered as this.
That being said, you still feel like you've seen a "complete film" at the end, and it should resonate one way or another, good or bad. No one and I mean NO ONE can dispute Nolan's ambition here. It's one of the most ambitious concepts and films I've seen in years.
PERFORMANCES
I don't consider myself a huge DiCaprio fan. I love much of his early work but don't remember him in a memorable role since Titanic (I have not yet seen Shudder Island, which I am told he is good in.) I thought he was very strong here, with much of Nolan's script playing to his strengths.
Supporting performances were exactly what I expected -- nothing Oscar worthy, but perfectly capable. Cillian Murphy is teamed up with Nolan again, and serves his character well. I feared Ellen Page would be a weak link in the film, but I was wrong. Also refreshing were the performances of lesser known talents such as Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe and Dileep Rao. Michael Caine also has a small part and it's always good to see him.
My biggest disappointment was Marion Cotillard, who I thought was rather one-dimensional here. But that may have been more of a symptom of her role.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
In standard Nolan fashion, Inception is generally gorgeous and well- shot. I love the fact that Nolan relies less on CGI than the average Hollywood director and still understands the value of organic action, scenes and stunts.
MUSIC
Frankly, I was under whelmed with the score, but less because of the score itself and more so because it seems too loud and overwhelming at times. There were even times when I couldn't even hear dialogue. This is either a mixing/editing problem OR possibly because I was sitting at the back of my theater and it seemed too loud.
IN CONCLUSION
I found Inception to be exciting and captivating, and easily one of the better films of 2010. Where does it rank among the all time greats? I cannot say. I do consider it a top-flight science fiction film, but I struggle to think of it as a cinematic masterpiece because I really do think it out-thought itself on too many occasions.
Do I suggest you go see it? Absolutely, no questions asked. In parting I'll leave you with....
RECOMMENDATION FOR FIRST TIME VIEWERS:
1. The first 10-15 minutes are a little disorienting. Be patient, things will fall into place soon enough.
2. As mentioned above, try and avoid bathroom breaks. It really can be the difference.
3. Sit in the middle or front of the theater. As mentioned above, either by design or because of my theater, the music was too loud at times and dialogue was lost.
4. Be prepared to be absorbing a lot of input. You won't have much time to process that input until the film is over.