Fails to build on its promises, remaining barely more than an action flick

Rating: Null/10 (18 July 2011)

OK, this is weird.
I am a big fan of sci-fi movies, of Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Prestige, Batman Begins), AND of DiCaprio in his recent roles. I SHOULD have loved it. But I've now watched Inception 3 times, twice expecting to like it more than I did the first time, but the magic didn't really happen.
So what went wrong ? I have in mind an official review which said "Every ten years, a new movie redefines science-fiction ; we've had Star Wars, Blade Runner, Matrix and now, Inception" (this is not word for word). What... seriously ? How does "Inception" redefine anything ? Where's Star Wars' scope, Blade Runner's dark poetry, and the Matrix series' mind-blowing SFX and (somewhat blurry, I know) mystique ? There is none of that here. Sure, the movie TRIES to inject some interesting ideas such as Limbo, where you can live a whole life in a dream state, but it never uses fully (very, very far from it) the implications of those unique concepts.
What we get is an almost purely action-oriented movie where people only stop shooting and shouting to explain (quite well however, given the difficulty of the task) the extremely complicated structure of the multi-layered dream they go through. It is SO convoluted that it really takes a lot of skill to keep the viewer in the loop, and they managed to do it, thankfully. But all those constant technical explanations make the whole experience more like attending a math class than watching a movie. The whole movie is based on numbers (specifically, the importance of how long you can stay in each dream layer, down to the second).
So, without the subplot involving DiCaprio's late wife, which at least brings some emotion, Inception would have NO soul at all. None. It would just be a collection of action scenes and constant reminders of how much time there's left in such and such dream layer. What ? Did you say "Cillian Murphy's complex relationship with his father" ? Please. The inception he's a victim of, is as much of a scam for him as it is for the viewer. Far too basic, nothing interesting here.
The acting : quite good, what can I say. Although almost nobody but Di Caprio had anything interesting to say, they did their best. But I know I will always resent that movie for using the extremely talented Ellen Page in a totally insignificant role ; if you've seen her in "Hard Candy" and "Juno", you know what I'm talking about. WHAT is she doing here ? If the role had been given to someone who had no experience of acting, it would have made no difference. In Inception, Page is nonexistent. Not her fault though. Blame her useless role and bland lines. By the way, poor Michael Caine too.
The settings... Ugh. Now, they REALLY worked hard to find the worst places they could think of to shoot this movie. Going down the dream ladder : a rainy city + a claustrophobic hotel + a frozen wasteland with a kind of Russian base guarded by a ton of baddies in snow gear + finally, another wasteland (Limbo) with ugly concrete towers, which are, whether crumbling or intact, supposed to be the paragon of what DiCaprio and his wife where able to DREAM in 50 years ? And he's supposed to be one of the best "dream architect" ever, when his supreme achievement is THIS ? No eye candy anywhere, never. Sure, it shouldn't have to be systematic, but... never ? and for no reason ? At some point, a character complains : "Couldn't somebody have dreamed of a goddamn beach ?" I'm with you mate. Basically, the movie is ugly when there is absolutely no reason for it to be, contrary to other movies where ugliness is justified. Its horrible settings serve no purpose (especially what I called the awful "frozen Russian base", straight out of some cheap "Alias" episode).
The special effects : again, nothing spectacular. Except the early scene in Paris where Page bends the world. Yeah... keyword "EARLY". It makes you think you'll get other moments like that (hell, THAT unique moment is even on every "Inception" poster !!). Well, there is strictly NO voluntary alteration of the laws of physics any more after that. Only uncontrolled ones, and very rare at that. And none in the second half. Another example of how to let a good idea go to waste. What's the point of stating early in the movie that you can do anything in the dreamworld, and then proceed to do... absolutely nothing ? Oh, that's right : the characters are afraid of the "projections", who get mad when someone is messing with the structure of the dream. Cool, that explains it. Let's not do anything then. That has to be my biggest grief.
So why 6/10 and not 3 or 2 ? Because the actors are good (although with insignificant roles to play except for DiCaprio's, but again, not their fault) ; the inception concept is good ; the movie still works well as an action flick.
But it breaks no new ground on any level whatsoever. You want to watch a good (albeit deliberately goofy) movie which really makes you think about the terrifying danger of losing touch with reality (with the same "dream within a dream within a dream" idea, by the way) ? Watch Cronenberg's "eXistenZ". Or "Strange Days". These are not wall-to-wall action movies trying to look smart. They take their time to build an atmosphere, and they actually ARE smart. Want more action and SFX than in those two (though with less intelligence) ? "Matrix" or "Avatar". "Inception" has little better to offer on any level. It's just average.