Slow with a side of boring.

Rating: 2/10 (16 July 2010)

This film is downright boring. I literally almost fell asleep at a noon showing. I also almost walked out 35 minutes before it ended; I simply did not care about any of these characters. The effects are neat, and look pretty great, but the story is so asinine that... wait, no, the story isn't asinine, its execution is.
At its heart, this is the story of a man who regrets something that he said to his wife and through the miracle of modern technology, he believes he's able to unring a bell. That's it, really. Yet, rather than tell that story, a bunch of other nonsense is heaped in for ... I dunno why, to be honest with you.
In addition, the film sets up its own rules and seems to break them at will. "We can't do that or this will happen!" seems to be the recurring predicament and yet, when at the crossroads, they just do "this" anyway and don't suffer the consequence, or they create some back door which, according to the logic presented earlier in the film, was impossible.
As an example, there's a scene where the Page character, the Architect, is given her first "go hence" and she creates a compelling world that she managed to manipulate with ease. In fact, the Leo character comments--twice!--on how amazing she is at it. And yet, when they re- enter (or create another) dreamworld, they are all of a sudden ambushed on all sides. Their truck is pursued and shot up, etc etc. However, they've already shown that the Dreamworld does not have to obey the regular laws of physics, or anything really... why not just have things fall from the sky and crush the bad guys? When "trapped" on the middle of the bridge (someplace they need and want to be), why not just create physical barriers between themselves and the bad guys so the bullets can't hit them but they can still drive off?
Perhaps the director's answer to that question is that these are TRAINED military attackers! Uh huh, which is why 8 million of them are unable to shoot up one van driven by a chemist. The same problem occurs earlier in the film, in the real world, when a bunch of agents are chasing Leo. Why give them guns? If it's a foot-chase, I'll buy what I was shown. By arming the pursuers, all I do is roll my eyes every 3 seconds at how preposterous the escape is. It's the equivalent of showing a bomb with 3 minutes left where the screen time is still a half hour. Guess what, Hollywood: your choices had the opposite effect you intended. Our anxiety isn't heightened, but our disbelief is.
Further, when you're watching the action, you're aware that it takes place one, two and three levels deep. The further out you are from the farthest depth, the slower your action takes place. This is seen correctly when the van goes off the bridge... but if it were in fact the case, the van could not drive at regular speed prior to that... it would be slow all the time. That would be boring, you say. (I say it was boring anyway--Nolan proves once again that he's the worst action-sequence director going.) But boring isn't the issue. Time and Distance are. If it were slower, as it should be, they couldn't traverse the distance needed to the bridge.... which brings up the question that if you're the one creating the world, why not make your two destinations side by each? The hotel and the bridge do not need to be at opposite ends of the city, considering the bad guys are not going from the bridge to the hotel. There is constant reference prior to the world being created that it's a maze. No, actually, it isn't. There's nothing maze like about it.
In another scene, two of the main protagonists, who we've been shown are EXPERT in the work they do, declare the mission a failure and complete. But the Page character, who joined the team a mere few days ago, stands up and explains to the experts how it's not over and can still go on. I groaned out loud at that one, not only because it's a ridiculous thing to expect your audience to swallow, but because it meant there was another 30 minutes left.
Anyway, I'm rambling on. The acting was fine, the ideas in the story are interesting, but the film as a whole was very insignificant. There is so much needless exposition, it's laughable. (And there's a lack of exposition where needed.) In short, the film lacks grace.
It really is unfortunate that Nolan's career, from an artistic level, is tanking so poorly. Worse is that his box office is not reflecting this, which will only encourage this behavior. The man's first 3 features were fantastic but since then he's just been getting worse and worse. Though I don't think this film is half as bad as Dark Knight, it isn't a tenth as creative or well done as The Following, Insomnia, or Memento, which it doesn't appear he will ever top.