BuboBlog (Finally) Reviews 'Inception'

(When "Inception" opened on July 16, I estimated it would take me six to eight weeks to get a babysitter. It took seven. Folks, that's called setting realistic expectations. Anyway, here's my belated review.)

Hullo, what's that I just tripped over? It appears to be a glove-like object. I wonder why it's on the floor.

I'll tell you why: "Inception" has thrown down the gauntlet as the greatest movie of the 2010s. It blends the best elements of science-fiction tale, heist film and psychological thriller — and rivals "Memento" and "The Prestige" as writer-director Christopher Nolan's crowning achievement.

"Inception" dares to be dizzyingly complex, delving into dreams within dreams within dreams. And yet, there's a clear set of rules to its universe — one that is explained to the viewer in easy-to-digest chunks. The exposition is a case study for screenwriters: It gradually reveals everything you need to know, and no more, without slowing down the film's pace. (Compare that with "The Matrix," which takes a long break after Neo reaches the Nebuchadnezzar ship so that Morpheus can explain the world to him.)

The premise of "Inception" is now well-known, so I won't belabor the details: Cobb (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) is hired by a Japanese businessman (Ken Watanabe) to break into the dreams of an energy-industry heir and implant an idea. Cobb assembles a team to help create and manage the dreams, including Ariadne (Ellen Page) as the dream architect. But Cobb has a problem: His dead wife (or a manifestation of her in his subconscious) is running wild, trying to sabotage his best-laid plans.



As labyrinthine as the film becomes, it all feels measured and calculated. It's the opposite of a movie like "Primer" — the low-budget time-travel film that's become a cult classic. "Primer" is smart and fascinating, but it's also muddled and amateurish. With Nolan, you feel like you're being instructed in econometrics or linear algebra by a seasoned professor. Yes, it's complex, but he never lets you feel lost.

And there are so many nice touches: the M.C. Escher paradox staircase; the rumbling trombones in the third act playing a slowed-down version of the song in the first act (keeping with the theme of time being slower in dreams); the creepy clink of broken glass under foot when characters enter a wrecked hotel room.

Some reviewers have complained that the film lacks enough of an emotional core. I can see this argument to an extent: It's not "Brian's Song." But the movie centers on Cobb coming to terms with the death of his wife — that's pretty heavy stuff. And it gives it as much weight as a film like "Inception" possibly could. The story is far too complex to give anything more, and that's a good thing.

The subplot with Cobb's wife bears no small resemblance to "Memento," another story of a man coping with the death of his wife. As with "Memento," it's unclear whether the protagonist was responsible for the death until the end. And in both films their guilt both drives the men forward and holds them back.

"Inception" deftly handled the old problem of adding life-or-death stakes to a scenario in which characters are dreaming. The cliche (perpetuated by "Nightmare on Elm Street" and "The Matrix") is if you die in the dream, you die in real life. In my review of "Avatar," I praised that film for avoiding this trope. Well, "Inception" also finds an original way to raise the stakes: Dying in the dream will send the characters to a state of limbo, where their real-life brains will slowly turn to mush.

Naturally, I have some quibbles:
1. The way that dreams were architected wasn't really explained. Maybe this is best left to the imagination, but it seemed like a gap in fully understanding the world Nolan has created.
2. With Watanabe's character, I had trouble understanding his dialogue. I don't feel like he was so hard to comprehend in other films ("Batman Begins," "The Last Samurai"). But this time, he was in Lou Ferrigno territory.
3. I have no problem with Marion Cotillard's forehead mole, but the fact that her character was called "Mole" made it especially distracting. (Okay, technically her name was "Mal," but it was hard to tell that from how it was pronounced.)
4. I wondered about the role of gravity in the film. When dreamers are in zero gravity, they experience the same sensation in the dream. But then, shouldn't the same have been true one dream level down as well? (This question won't make any sense if you haven't seen the movie.)

These are pretty small points — a testament to how near-perfect this film is. The nature of "Inception" also made it tough to find any continuity errors or filmmaking gaffes. When most of the screentime is used to depict a dream, it's pretty hard to tell what's an error.

As the film barreled toward the ending, I expected a final twist or reveal. Instead (spoiler warning), Nolan does the opposite. He uses an ambiguous ending, leaving us unsure if we are back in reality or just another dream. Now, normally I think ambiguous endings are a crutch for filmmakers who can't figure out how to finish things properly. (Yes, David Chase, I'm talking to you.) Endings should always surprise and delight, even if they don't supply a twist.



In this case, the ambiguous ending was brilliant. Never has a spinning top been imbued with such meaning. It forces the viewer to step back from the film's frenzied machinations and examine his own reality: How do I know this isn't all a dream?

BuboBlog Rating: 4 asterisks (out of 4).