Dreams unfettered by the messiness of dreams!

Rating: 3/10 (24 July 2010)

I have a pretty high standard when it comes to the re-interpretation of dreams (or the workings of the mind in general) by filmmakers which is likely due to the fact that I myself am a dreamer. There is nothing more irksome than these half-conceived, mostly contrived dalliances that are gobbled up by the ever passive viewing public as if they were shedding a bright light on the subject. I could go on about how not one of the characters is developed enough to overcome the films main flaw of not being LIKE A DREAM or how Nolan couldn't seem to make up his mind which movie to make; the more psychologically gripping tale of multiple lives lived in an endless cascade of dreams or the non-stop, high octane espionage tale which would have been super fun if it had actually taken place IN A DREAM (but keepin' it real, the action sequences we did see were pretty standard). I won't, however, because I can't let go of the glaring inadequacies of Mr. Nolan's literal, linear, unimaginative, and perhaps disinterested efforts to delve into the dream world proper.
While walking out of the theater, I got into a quick chat with another member of the audience. I stated that, :in the main the film was predictable" and he replied, "I think it was supposed to be". Really, since when are dreams predictable? Mein Gott! We're getting soft. People, we're not supposed to walk out of a movie concerned with this both known and unknowable subject matter rock-steady. On the contrary, we should all be wearing deeply puzzled yet deeply satisfied looks on our faces as though we'd been led across some great gulf and left there to work our own way back.
The takeaway message here is that it takes more than the latest CGI to deliver a reasonable simulacrum of the sub-conscience. And for the proof of that remark one need only look at the work of Michel Gondry and of the master, David Lynch. Your mind will reel indefinitely.