It's a little "out there".

Rating: 6/10 (25 September 2018)

I've never been a fan of DiCaprio, though he does a convincing job in this film. I don't have a problem with him, but with how farfetched Inception's ideas are. In the film, the gang just falls asleep in proximity with wires connected to one another and wake up in each other's dreams. How does this procedure work? Then there's the notion that a person can have cognizance and causation in a dream, directing its orientation with such clarity and detail, piloting the course and molding the environment at will. This we all know doesn't happen, even in lucid dreaming. There should be some feeling of haziness and inhibition. It would be different if the events took place in a supernatural context without the need for plausibility; then there wouldn't be need for such scrutiny. However, inception is portrayed as possible by a machine/sedative, and the workings of that aren't elucidated, as it ought to be. And there's much else to probe because the film is so convoluted, overwhelmed with bizarre ideas that needed better explaining to mitigate the perplexity. Then again, I wasn't even sold on the primary concept of inception. It's a little "out there". There's too much to ruminate, during the movie and afterward trying to make sense of what you just watched. Still, it's a riveting visual exploration of the surreal.