If You Can't Possibly Go Into This Cold. . .

Rating: 8/10 (16 July 2010)

Devin Faraci of CHUD.com claimed that "Inception" was everything director Christopher Nolan had been building up to in his film-making career. I disagree; this was everything he has been building to with his film-watching career. That's not a knock, either.
Nolan is cutting himself short in interviews when he says he was influenced by "The Matrix", but maybe he's using that to address the mainstream audience, since that's what they'll likely accuse him of stealing from. However, the rest of us know better (especially since "The Matrix itself owes its genesis to many other films before it, as most great films do.) Despite being, at it's most basic, a high-concept heist film, it doesn't rely on, nor does it emphasize its set piece(s), the big robbery, or in this case, the big. . . placement?
Instead, this film pays off through the emotions of the characters, which is awesome because it makes the set pieces seem like small, but visually stunning discoveries. Like David Fincher's "The Game", the movie makes effort to remind you that, as grand as the action and adventure can and will become, this all still happens in the heads of "real" people, all dealing with their own issues which, interestingly enough, can effect the adventure in ways that could help or hurt their goal. If I can find one fault in this, I wish they concentrated on more than just the lead, DiCaprio's, character when it came to emotions because he's honestly washed out in that department, and for good reason. When his tragic past is revealed, it is easily the most effective piece of the puzzle thanks in no small part to Marion Coutilard, whom I've never even heard speak English until this film. But too bad the film had to wear that piece out until it barely fit.
You see, as a high concept film, the set-up requires heavy, HEAVY exposition. It takes up the majority of the first hour and, although I didn't feel it, I saw people walking out of the theater by the mid- point. Even the aforementioned emotional piece is delivered in exposition. This would've been fine since you have to know the game before you play, but the exposition extends into the third act when DiCaprio's character has to face his demons, and goes on to the point of repeating a flashback from before which was unnecessary. This is the problem when one character gets all of the emotional development.
This leads me up to my main strike against this film: it shouldn't have been a film. Not that this gratuitous level of "tell, don't show" would be more acceptable in another medium, but it, like all of Nolan's stories, would be easier to digest in comic form. This way, you get the genius of Nolan's visuals and are able to turn back the pages to review pieces you may have overlooked instead of restarting the whole damn film. Going back to what I said about the non-emphasis on set pieces, I don't expect viewers to sludge through the explanation during a second viewing just to get to the toned down but entertaining action. It's not enough, for me at least because it's hard for me to rewatch a film a re- experience the same emotional jolt as the first time, which saddens me because their is some superb film-making that I'd like to re-explore just for learning's sake.
So, overall, see it. Support original (yes, despite the influences) material from great directors. I don't want to see Nolan reduced to superhero franchise films, regardless of how good they've been. The next Batman/Superman film will inevitably be made (or rebooted) with or without Nolan, so it's incredibly important that he gets a chance to stretch his legs and make something more individual and, ultimately, most resonant. And who knows, maybe with those future successes, he can do a franchise you enjoy right instead of, I don't know, M. Night Shyamalan.