Film Review: ‘Inception’ Marks the Return of Smart, Engaging Blockbusters
by John P. HanlonIn the United States, the highest grossing movie of 2008 was “The Dark Knight,” a movie with a strong story, fascinating characters and great visual effects. The highest grossing movie of 2009 was “Avatar,” a movie with great visual effects, weak characters and a forgettable story. There was a great difference between some of the biggest blockbusters of 2008 and the blockbusters of 2009.
Now, with a solid weekend at the box office and strong reviews, “Inception” (directed by Christopher Nolan, the director of “The Dark Knight”) might mark the beginning of a return to the smart special effects-laden blockbuster. ”Inception” is a smart thriller that shows that highly-anticipated blockbuster movies can have great imaginative stories to go with their eye-opening effects.
“Inception” tells the story of a team of experts who break into people’s minds to steal their secrets. “Inception”stars as Cobb, the leader of the team, who has spent several years studying how to infiltrate dreams and steal information from them.
Near the beginning of the film, Cobb is asked to enter a young businessman’s dreams, not to uncover information, but to inject an idea into the man’s mind. Cobb and his team must find a way to enter the man’s dream and deliver a thought into the man’s subconscious so that the man will wake up and make a business decision based off that idea. Along with some of his usual associates, Cobb recruits new members to the team, including a young student named Ariadne (played by Ellen Page).
Ariadne is introduced to the dream world by Cobb, who lets her into his own dream. In that scene, the concept of the film is explored in great detail. Ariadne can design mazes for the dreams and change the surroundings of a dream as it occurs. She wanders through Cobb’s dream able to quickly move streets around and create bridges simply through her own imagination. It may not be her dream but it is her world that the dream is taking place in.
The cast of this film excels in this unique and thrilling film. Alongside film veterans like Michael Caine and Tom Berenger, this film features a lot of young capable actors who make the dream world seem both real and unreal at the same time. Leonardo DiCaprio is strongly cast as the emotionally-conflicted leader of the group and Ellen Page, Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt stand out as Cobb’s strong allies who use their unique skills effectively in the dream world.
As the trailer shows, “Inception” features terrific special effects. The dream worlds are beautifully created and the effects in them are often magnificent. This is a movie that is able to convey its vision of a dream world spectacularly well. Like “The Dark Knight,” Nolan is able to use special effects to enhance the story, rather than simply to replace the story.
One of the best surprises is how smart and well-developed it is. The dream world has some rules in it but they are explained well in the film. The movie has a strong sense of its elements and its purpose and never seems to lose sight of that, even though it can sometimes be confusing. It may have some obvious flaws, including an overlong climax, but this is a smart and engaging film nonetheless.
“Inception” is a thrilling unique cinematic experience that will likely be talked about for years to come. It is what a blockbuster can look like and may well be one of the best movies of 2010.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
74 Comments
I heartily agree, gave it 4 out of 4 stars on my personal blog and I would put it neck and neck with Toy Story 3 for movie of the summer, though they are completely different. I'm not a fanboy that will attack people who didn't like it, but it was incredibly enjoyable and deeply satisfying even with the ambiguousness of it all. I'm tempted to make it part of a double feature with Salt this weekend.
It's a pity some of the cast are obnoxious Sarah Palin haters and enviro-hypocrites. Makes me reluctant to put any money in their pockets regardless how good the film might be.
I have a hard time watching movies knowing that they supports Obama and his agendas. I'll skip Inception.
I'll admit that I really had no clue what was going on the first 15 min, but then it started falling in place. Only to go sideways several more times. It's one of those flicks that it's just better to go with the flow rather than trying to make it seem logical. Really sharply edited, beautifully thought out dream sequences. Leonardo Di Caprio's weirdly shaped head still distracts me in every thing he's in, though.
- “Inception” is one of the most inventive and entertaining sci-fi thrillers to come out in years. The movie reminds me of ideas and concepts used by Philip K. Dick in several of his novels and short stories where dreams, memories and the concept of reality are major elements to the plot. I think “Inception” is one of the best sci-fi thrillers since “Blade Runner” …
I'll watch it on my home entertainment system when it comes out in NetFlix, but like you, I just can't give them the dollar after the nasty ranting. I'll give them a dime later.
Saw it, loved it. I can overlook comments from the stars because Nolan has earned some breathing room. None of his films have contained anything near a liberal "stomach punch," and as has been discussed at great length, Dark Knight may be one of the most conservative films of the last 30 years. I loved Inception, and was still thinking about it a week later. I have read people complaining about a lack of "dream-like" visuals or mind-blowing creativity in the dreamscapes. That’s a marketing problem. In the film, the whole point of the dreams is for them to be as realistic as possible to the "viewers." The dreams aren't supposed to blow anyone's mind. Having said that, there are some fantastic visuals, but anyone looking to get some kind of trippy film a la The Cell or Pan's Labyrinth is barking up the wrong tree. This is much more of an action/thriller/heist film that happens to mostly take place in a person's subconscious. In short, Christopher Nolan makes original, smart, entertaining films, without injecting politics. So some of his young actors say typically liberal, stupid things. I can't hold that against the director.
I still think Decaprio is way overated. I'll skip this movie as some of the garbage coming out of the stars mouths annoys me and I will not give them any of my money.
Its got Michal Caine in it. So you know its got to be good. ;0) (yes, I LOVE Mr. Caine's work)
Saw it and liked it, but didn't fall head-over-heels like so many. But the film is obviously playing well with audiences. The ending got a collective "oooooohhhhh" and then applause. I liked the male leads much better than Cottillard and Page, but that may be due to Cottillard saying the US blew up the WTC on 9/11 and Page giving those obnoxious remarks about Palin and Cheney.
Caine is terrific, especially in "Zulu", "The Ipcress File", and "Sleuth".
I despise everything about these left-wing hypocrites and cannot separate their a-hole factor with the characters they play.
They mock and spit on me every-time they open their mouths, it would be masochistic for me to support them in any endeavor.
I don't like these liberal actors either. Having said that, I still say, see Inception. It is an amazing movie. This is what I have been waiting for. A movie with great acting and a really good story (a very interesting non-political story). I was WOWED. And the visuals in this movie are just breathtaking. From the set, to the clothes, to the cinematography-wow. I know I have said this before, but Christopher Nolan is brilliant. The man is a visionary (what a mind this guy has). See this movie folks. This is magical movie making at it's finest. Ignore the idiot cast and see it for Nolan's brilliance.
If you saw him act in that movie with Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson and Mark Wahlberg — you know, the one where Nicholson is the head of the Boston/Irish mafia, and Damon is a cop that is really working for Nicholson, and DiCaprio is a cop infiltrating the mafia. Oh well, the name escapes me, but DiCaprio puts on a performance that simply captivates and gives you chills.
Even so, I don't want to put more money into their pockets. I'll wait for pay-per-view or Red Box. Cheaper for me, and less money in pompous actors' pockets — especially those that attack my fellow "momma grizzley", Sarah Palin.
OH I remembered the name — "The Departed". Whew!
That is exactly what I thought as I watched the movie.
Indeed, it made me think what various movies based on Philip K. Dick's works could have been if Christopher Nolan had directed them.
And if he could get rational actors . . .
Me too. Not that hard up for entertainment.
"And if he could get rational actors"
Now you're dreaming.
It may be a good sci-fi summer movie, but it is hardly original. In 1984 a movie called "Dreamscape" was released that told the story of a psychic (Dennis Quaid) that was recruited and trained to enter people's dreams. There was a plot to use a dream assasin to take out the President. In Inception, the dream infiltrators are trained to extract secrets or implant ideas. So the basic premise of Inception is the same as Dreamscape, only with a slightly different story and much better special effects. Like I say, it may be entertaining and have cool CGI, but basic story behind Inception is hardly original.
Mega-Thumbs Up for that one.
Saw it a couple days ago. I have to say, if the only reason you're holding out is because of the idiotic things members of the cast have said, don't let that stop you. For one thing, that's not really fair either to Nolan or the movie, and for another, the movie itself is not only captivating, there's nothing even remotely political about it–at least, not that I could see.
Also, if you do go see it, then pay close to attention to everything that happens from the very beginning. The ambiguous ending of the movie requires you to put it in context of all that came before it, and even then, you'll probably want to see it a second time to better understand it. Someone described the storyline as a "Rubik's Cube": once you think you have it figured out on one level, there's five more levels to think through.
I disagree with this line of thought. I don't see the value in skipping a movie like Inception based on the deranged political leanings of some of the cast members. It would be one thing if they were recruited specifically because of their lunacy, but nothing about Christopher Nolan suggests this sort of thing. In fact, the movie itself is apolitical, which is one of the nearly infinite number of things I adore about this film.
Back when "The Pacific" was aired on HBO I saw a lot of similar commentary because of Tom Hank's flapping gums. People boycotting because Hanks is dumb. Well I watched the Pacific, and I never once got the impression that Hanks's world view shaped the narrative of the series.
It's a shame, because both Inception and the Pacific were outstanding works of art that deserve an audience.
I agree. I'll avoid films that carry a particular message I don't like, but not otherwise excellent movies that just happen to star libnuts.
It's a gorgeous looking film, and you see every penny on the screen. I know I'm in the minority, but I found it very slow going, with the big reveals just as easy to predict as they were for me in "Shutter Island," and way too long overall. With the exception of Tom Hardy I didn't really care much for any of the characters. (I actually think Salvador Dali's dream sequence in Hitchcock's "Spellbound" in 1945 a much better, trippier cinematic dream immersion than anything in Inception.) Inception does have a terrific score, though. And Joseph Gordon Levitt looks adorably yummy in his well-cut suits. But none of that kept me from fidgeting and looking at my watch a LOT, figuring out how much time was left–definitely a sign that I wasn't enthralled.
Also–for people who keep saying that they're going to keep money out of the pockets of actors they don't like by not seeing it in theaters–you DO realize that the actors are almost always paid up front, don't you? They got their money when filming began, out of that enormous $200 million dollar budget. So you're mainly taking money from Warner Brothers and your local theater owner, not directly from Leo or Ellen or Christopher Nolan, who cashed their checks months ago. You might be taking a ding out of residuals down the line, but Leo will still be able to fuel his jet purely off his fee paid by the studio.
I may be in the minority here, but I found it less than inspiring. Here's why:
1. The characters spend the entire movie verbally explaining the world. Any story that cannot stand on its own, is not a compelling story. This was the weakness of the Matrix sequels. The original was amazing, while the sequels were weighed down by their own conceit.
2. The relationships among the characters. It felt was contrived and lacked substance. I just didn't feel the tension. Michael Caine had a throw-away role that really wasn't needed. Tom Berenger's character seemed fabricated as well. And the plotline picked up seemingly inconsequential characters throughout the movie. I felt no emotional reaction to the relationship between Fischer (Murphy) and his father, nor with the relationship between Saito(Watanabee) and Cobb(DiCaprio). In short, I felt no emotional empathy for any of the characters.
3. The special effects. This is supposedly a dream world, so the sky is the limit with what you can do. The dreams all take place in boring linear landscapes, with very little creative inspiration. The dreams were too real — too boring. Unlike the Matrix, the effects were anything but groundbreaking. And the ending was predictable.
4. DiCaprio suffers from the Tom Cruise Syndrome. In other words, DiCaprio is always DiCaprio in every movie (save for maybe What's Eating Gilbert Grape). His mannerisms are the same, and he rarely deviates outside of a given range of emotion. Plus, on a personal note, I find him to be an annoying, egotistical liberal.
Sorry, but now that ticket prices are upwards of 12 to 15 bucks in my town, I tend to be a little more discriminating.
Welcome to the minority. Spot-on criticism. I think Nolan used Michael Caine because, well, if you know him why wouldn't you? Nice to see he kept a bunch of his Bat-alumni: Caine, Watanabe (again criminally underused, IMHO) and Murphy.
I was sorry to see Caine in the cast, especially since his film, Harry Brown (Netflix will have it next month) was thrown into the black hole of very limited distribution. Surely he doesn't need the money.
As for this film, no way will we pay to see it now or watch it free in the future.
This is a great movie. Saw it opening weekend mid-afternoon and it was packed. I can tell by the audience reaction that everyone liked the ending.
I did have this observation: After the movie, my fiancee went to the restroom and I waited just outside. Two older couples (50-60) came out of the movie. They just looked at each other and say how weird it was. One commented, "well the paper gave it four stars". I overheard them agree that they didn't like it because it was so "weird".
This thought popped into my head: Maybe older folks won't like this movie as much because it's much different that the typical fare that their age group is used to. This isn't a simple good vs bad or romantic comedy or action blockbuster. There is a lot going on. It's not a straight ahead story and it leaves you with many questions. So, are movies like these, basically almost everything Nolan does, too out there for older audiences? Is it too generational or modern for those who are used to simple stories and plots in movies?
I'm not saying older people won't get it, but my 77 year old dad is an old time movie buff and he would think this movie is "weird", meaning, "I don't get it?"
I can understand avoiding a preachy movie like "Avatar" based on your political convictions, but to avoid this movie because you don't like the actors' politics seems a bit ridiculous. This is in no way a political movie. If you're going to have this attitude, you might as well hate most paintings, music, film, literature and architecture.
If they lose money hiring lefty actors, they'll hire some who can keep their vitriol to themselves in the future.
Great photo collage!!!
But where's Tom Hardy?
I havent' seen the movie, yet, but it sounds a lot like "Dreamscape."
Well, they're not exactly losing money on this, are they?
Yes, I understand it is not a political movie. I know it seems ridiculous to you. But we have so little in way of protest of these hollywood leftist actors can't you just let me have the power – as little as it is – to voice my displeasure of them and their views by not supporting this movie financially. I know the actors get paid no matter how much the movie makes, they won't know little ole me didn't go see it. I feel better knowing I said "no, not this time" to hollywood. It's nothing more than my little protest, small as it is. If you saw it – good. I'm not saying everyone has to do things my way. We all choose to spend our money where we want. And I don't hate paintings and the other things you mentioned, but I may choose to not spend my money on one. I wonder how many liberals have pruchased and read books by Rush, Hannity, Ingram and other conservative writers.
No — because you all are contributing your hard earned dollars to their bottom line.
I think by the time you hit a certain age–or have just plain seen/read enough– you've encountered so many of the same plot devices and motivations so many times over that layers of effects, however well done, don't enhance the experience. I'm a mere *ahem* 43, and I found Inception a beautifully made collection of themes I've encountered before, and I've read/enjoyed comics/sci-fi/fantasy/thrillers since I was a kid. It wasn't overly complex at all (heck, it could win an award for most expository dialogue EVAH).
Totally correct Tex. Things would change if people realized that. I won't even allow those on my no-go list into my home on DVD or the TV. Foolish useless gesture? Probably, but there's not much more an individual can do.
On a very basic level, yes, it involves entering and affecting other people's dreams.
However, it is simply better on all functional levels – story, acting, pacing, cinematography, score, and so forth.
Think of it as the difference between a made for TV movie on the SyFy channel and the original Star Wars.
I'm 45, but same, same.
Remember, there are no new plots. Creativity and innovation are in how you use existing ones to entertain.
So…
Did the top stop spinning?
'Pacific' like its predecessor started "sorta" strong and had a amazing second episode~ but then the narrative slammed into exposition time for the rest of the following episodes and never looked back.. it's Bad News when the real life soldiers and the narrative at the beginning are far, Far most exciting then the following 40 minutes afterward. Even worse; not only could I get into the tiresome following episodes for it, every episode starts with numbers and nothing but Numbers instead of actual titles relevant to the episode watched. 'the Pacific… Episode IV'! was awful in so, so many ways to type out~
Or "The Cell" with J-Lo
I saw Inception (in IMAX) with my family this week, and really liked it. I can't think of anything about it that I didn't like …
But then I heard that the second assistant to the Best Boy once said that he didn't like In-n-Out Double-Doubles! That's it, I'm not putting any more money in these people's pockets! Sheesh …
Hah! What a stinkin' commie! (But everyone knows the One True In-N-Out is Animal Style!)
It's always a pleasure to see Sir Michael, but he doesn't do a whole lot in "Inception."
So, 76United, I suppose it's appropriate in this context to ask your age? I promise, no snarky "you kids today" replies.
I wasn't all that impressed. I was, however, very tired when I saw it and probably didn't enter into the movie as much as I would have done. I didn't find it hard to follow at all. I came to profoundly dislike DiCaprio's character for risking the lives of others for his own purposes which I felt were overplayed. I mentioned that characters have to want something in relation to the Sorcerer's Apprentice trailer, but what DiCaprio *wanted* and had to have and had to risk all (and everyone) to get was overplayed to the extent that by the beginning of only the second descent (not a spoiler, though that won't make sense to someone who hasn't seen it) I felt that I knew the punch-line. To the film's credit it did almost convince me I was wrong after all, even though I wasn't.
The ideas about the dangers of inception were smart and interesting. The frame for those ideas should have tried less hard to be clever.
Total Recall
Part of why I didn't like it was because I was *too* familiar with the basic tropes of science fiction and couldn't take my analytical hat off long enough to enjoy myself.
Rush, Hannity and Ingram may be bad examples because their books are political. Maybe Beck's Overton Window would be a better example of a book, which is fiction, that those on the left would not buy to read because of who wrote it.
Gee, it's really nice of you to make fun of people who have a different opinion on where to spend their money. Given the cast in it, I don't think it's so hard to understand why some people may not want to support this movie financially. You saw it – good for you – I don't belittle you for doing so.
I will not waste my time on stars that are filled with hate. If a star that believed the Jews deserved to die in the Holocaust starred in a movie would you still see it????
I watch almost NO new movies. TCM is the place to be and I am better for it.
Todays Holly Wood can go to hell and I will not help support anti-American bull shit.
They have crossed the line and you should not pay for the privilege.
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just say NO to this movie!!!!!!!
useful idiot II
If I ever see Christopher Nolan at some convention, that's the first thing I'll be asking him!
????
After reading some of your comments, I know this is probably the best you have insult-wise. So I'll just reply back with thank you…JACKASS.
I'd like to go check it out, except that dicrappio kids in it………………..i'll take a pass. thank you anyhow.
useful idiot
you are the definition of a useful idiot. Keep supporting these liberal actors and pay for the priviledge
of losing your freedom.
I bet you pay for insults too.
As opposed to being a useless idiot like you?
finally a good person with brains!!!!!!!!!
the sad thing is you don't even realize how stupid you are. The libs just love idiots like you. You pay them cash which they use to get people like Pelosi elected.
How more stupid can you get? I bet you have plenty of stupid in you.
They love idiots like you more. You blather inanities that they use in ads to get people like Obama elected.
Truly, a useless idiot.
Yeah, I don't begrudge the casting of those three at all. But you're right; they were way under-utilized.
Are you serious here? Did you actually just compare a stars dislike for two politicians too someone saying it was okay to kill millions of people in one of the worlds most horrific events?
Dicaprio is right now without question one of the top 3 movie stars in the world. He countinues to do amazing projects and a ton of diverse roles.
I agree. This may go down, to me as one of the greatest movies I never saw. That actress not only insulted Sarah Palin by calling her stupid and ill informed, she called the millions of people who share a lot of Mrs. Palin’s believes stupid and ill informed. She might know these people as the “movie paying public”. It is like she is looking right at me and say’s “You’re a stupid ignorant hick. But your still going to see my movie…Right?”. Let me think on that. Ahhhhhhhhhh NO!
My Lady,
Never let the bastards get you down. Ever.
JD
****SPOILER??****
Really. ***SPOILER***
To my viewing, the top clearly began to wobble before the screen went to black, but I think it's a bit ambiguous so you can project your own wish for Cobb.
Thank you Joe.
Liberals rule, you guys just are so stupid it makes me feel good.
Leo is a GOD!!!!!
Leo just plain is a stupid ignorant person. You are just another useful idiot. Lenin would be proud.
Honestly, I've come to the conclusion that since 99% of Hollywood is nothing but raging liberal idiots, it doesn't make any sense to me to not see a movie that I think might be good just because the actors said something stupid. If the movie itself was trying to promote some message that I disagree with, then I wouldn't support it with my money.
You must be logged in to post a comment.