Clever premise, laughably bad execution

Rating: 3/10 (17 July 2010)

I came into Inception with very high expectations. I'm a huge fan of sci-fi thrillers; Philip K. Dick might be my favorite author, and I love films that raise metaphysical questions in a science fiction context. I've liked a lot of Nolan's stuff (Memento was terrific, Insomnia was pretty good, The Prestige was mediocre, and both of his Batman's were entertaining). I consider myself very good at following along with complicated plots. The movie had gotten terrific reviews already. It seemed like a slam dunk.
At about the half-way point, I couldn't decide whether or not Inception was closer to Avatar (mind blowing visuals, mind numbing plot/dialog) or Fight Club (wildly overrated pseudo-intellectual drivel). Whichever one it's closer to, I cannot understand why so many people think that this is a good movie? Nolan takes a clever premise, if not a particularly inventive one, and creates an indecipherable, wildly inconsistent, and soulless film.
That is not to say there aren't some redeeming qualities. As I noted before, the premise is pretty clever. The cinematography is really terrific, and a lot of the sets are visually stunning (especially the final scene in the Alps). The score was well put together and was not in the least bit overbearing, the acting was solid, and the editing was crisp and well thought out.
The actual plot and dialog, however, are abysmal. I'm willing to suspend disbelief and go along for the ride. I'll play along with the fact that people are apparently capable of forming incredibly vivid and complex dreams when under the influence of a sedative, despite the fact that sedatives almost always prevent people from dreaming. I'll even disregard the fact that no real reason is ever given for why the characters in Inception are able to dream together, outside of a what looks like an old Simon Says toy in a briefcase with a bunch of wires running out of it.
But that's just the beginning. For some reason, the "architect" of the dream is able to control the design and layout of other peoples dreams. How? Your guess is as good as mine. The forger (the always awesome Tom Hardy), is capable of impersonating other people in dreams (even though he looks like himself to members of the team), without any further explanation except for his name. And even though the architect seems to be the only person capable of designing the dream, all of the members in the dream are capable of allowing their subconscious to infiltrate the design. This seems like a rather cheap plot device, as it is only the main character who's subconscious makes any serious intrusions into the dream world, as if none of the other characters have serious psychological demons of their own.
There are many other plot holes that I won't get into, but suffice it to say this movie is really a head scratcher, and not in a good way. The dialog is rather silly, and the supporting characters are completely one dimensional and exist only, it seems, to help advance the plot. When confronted with the tremendous revelation that people are actually capable of sharing dreams together, manipulating them, and that this is done routinely in corporate espionage, the budding architect Ariadne treats these revelations as somebody who just saw a particularly cool magic trick. In one particularly laughable seen, Michael Caine's character greets the arrival of his son, wanted for his wife's murder and on the lam from powerful multinational corporations seeking to kill him, with little fanfare or concern, pausing to only briefly chastise him about the abandonment of his children, and then accepting at face value a ridiculous scheme to clear his name, even offering up one of his top pupils to help.
This movie was really a disappointment, mainly because it had such great potential. Instead fleshing out the clever premise with well developed characters, and deep, nuanced questions, Nolan bounces back and forth, making up more and more ridiculous rules and twists that govern his dreamworld. This is a very superficial production; it's the epitome of all sizzle and no steak. By the end of the film, I didn't even care enough to be disappointed by the classic non-ending. What a waste.