Great Fun...but were you really confused?

Rating: 7/10 (15 August 2010)

The movie that seems to be on the tip of everybody's tongue this summer is Inception. It is one of those cross-over movies that receives critical acclaim (possibly making it eligible for a best movie Oscar) and public adoration (possibly making it eligible to make lots of money). I have heard numerous high-brow critics love it (87% on Rotten Tomatoes) and countless Facebook comments saying how cool and weird and incomprehensible it is.
And I, of course, don't get it.
Don't get mad or get me wrong. I enjoyed the film a lot and good filmmaking – nowhere near Oscar worthy – but very good. It reminded me of Oceans 11 or Oceans 13, not Oceans 12. My question for the general public is "What made it so confusing?" They spend the first hour of the film explaining everything that is about to happen. You are well equipped with dream terminology like a "kick" or how dreams inside of dreams work. We already know about Leo's inner demons and we understand how time operates different in dreamland.
In fact, I cannot remember a movie that explained itself so well. And I liked this about the movie. But based upon all the hype, I was waiting for the big twist. And it never came! I thought that maybe the whole movie was a dream of Leo's character. Or maybe, it was the wife who was alive and Leo that was dead. Again, what was so weird about the movie that it would need several viewings to understand? Was it the ending? Please! The end just substantiates the main philosophical question about the movie: perhaps our definition of 'reality' should not be so concrete. But the ending works because the viewer will perceive the reality of the situation based on what they took out of the movie. Why does the movie have to give you an answer? The director, Christopher Nolan, made Memento and The Prestige and those films, I would argue, created much more confusion (especially Memento) than Inception. Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that I enjoyed the film and I think Nolan should be proud of his effort. But it didn't leave that indelible impact upon me like a Donnie Darko or Fight Club or Magnolia or Syriana.
Perhaps the answer lies within what I call the "movie review relativity scale." Woody Allen's worst movies are better films than James Cameron's best. Yet, a reviewer will score it poorly if it does not rise to his high standards. I think when a summer blockbuster is layered, as this movie is, and creates some semblance of character depth, albeit just with Leo's character, we get excited-crazy-go-nuts.
"I went to see an action film, but I had to sorta pay attention a bit. It was awesome!" No, it was not awesome, but hopefully it can serve as a rabbit hole to explore more interesting movies like Memento or Dogville or countless other films in which you do have to pay attention for longer than a Youtube video.