Overrated, but Better than Most of Hollywood

Rating: 6/10 (16 August 2010)

First of all, a pet peeve of mine is to read reviews that give away more about a movie than they should. I will not do this here.
At the time of the writing of this review, IMDb's overall or average user rating was 9.1. This is most likely among the highest of all movies ever reviewed on this site.
Before I paid theater prices (which are just generally too high) to see this film on or shortly after its opening weekend, I checked the user reviews posted here; which I remember as being very positive then, as well.
Much is made, in many of the reviews, about the plot twists and plot layers. It is true that the film contains deep plot layering and a few sharp twists, along with some pretty cool CG and 'slow-mo' animations.
The problem is that these are essentially all that the movie has going for it.
The underlying plot is not compelling. It is comprised, ultimately and fundamentally, of a science fiction technique for one or more trained people to enter the dreams of another, after all involved go to sleep. Each person involved in the 'dream-walking' process, including the person whose dream the others are entering, must have some idea, before sleeping, of what is about to happen. There are briefcase-sized machines involved which must be hooked up to every person who wishes to 'share' the dream. (None of this spoils any of the plot's fulcrums; this is all simply underlying premise, those things on which the plot fulcrums depend.) The above premise is the only original idea of the film. After that, it's just another action movie with a little bit of psychology thrown in. It attempts to be a psychological thriller, but it's more of a psychological action film. The basic premise is not compelling; and the plot twists and layers, which are supposed to be the parts of the movie which 'wow' viewers (and which most of the reviews actually seem to be impressed with), are neither all that original nor imaginative. The ideas behind the layers and twists are fairly commonplace, considering many thriller or psychological type films that have been made and released over the past few decades.
Christopher Nolan has, in my opinion, through films made prior to "Inception", made a place for himself among the more original and capable film directors. The first movie of his that I saw was "Memento". I think the only others of his that I have seen (before "Inception") were "Batman Begins", "The Prestige", and "The Dark Knight". Each of these is a very good - or great - movie.
"Memento" gives viewers a fair idea of the kind of plot layering and twisting that Nolan is trying to accomplish in "Inception". "Memento" uses a rather original and compelling storytelling device. Upon this the film rests, and upon this the film succeeds.
The plot of "Inception" rests upon this technique for entering dreams. This is not that compelling; and the ideas, layers, and twists placed upon this premise are not enough to pull it into the land of storytelling greatness of "Memento". They are not enough to give it the appeal or draw of the plot of the great "The Dark Knight", which constantly had viewers concerned for the citizens of its setting; and which caused viewers to always wonder what horrible, deadly scheme the story's antagonist was going to pull the protagonist into.
"Inception" is a movie that is no better than most other action movies with a psychological bent. The layers DO require a person to devote full attention to follow. The many plot elements also call for viewers to have a modicum of intelligence or a bit of learning in psychological or consciousness theory. Without these things, a viewer will not truly appreciate what is going on, and will be left to trying to enjoy the action and special effects.
Perhaps because it demands viewers' attention and thought, the movie is better than most products from Hollywood. I suspect that it is due to these demands of the film that it has been rated so highly by so many IMDb reviewers. It must be better than at least 60 or 70 percent of Hollywood's garbage - most of which which I have deliberately missed, and against which I am mostly unable to compare "Inception"; but that doesn't make it a great or "perfect" film.
In this way, the movie is almost certainly better than MOST Hollywood products. However, likely due to their points of comparison, IMDb reviewers have provided this film with a rating that is so high as to be inaccurate and misleading. It is, in the broadest land of Hollywood, above average. It is NOT good or great, or anything above those levels.
Save your money and DO NOT watch this at a full-price theater, unless you're just so steeped in material possession that you simply don't care about $8-10 or more per ticket. It is much easier to appreciate this movie as part of a Netflix queue, or at the cost of a Redbox rental - especially with a setup that will do full justice to some of the cool CG ... though, frankly, pretty much everything from Hollywood is full of cool CG these days.
Ultimately, Nolan will be remembered for "The Dark Knight", "Memento", and perhaps for future films; but not for "Inception". Over time, "Inception" will fall from the minds of film viewers, though it seems to hold a place at the forefront right now. Hopefully, he returns to form. I expect him to.