Movie quick take: Inception

I saw Inception this weekend and enjoyed the thrill-ride, but left with a nagging feeling that something was missing, that I didn’t enjoy it quite as much as the hype, peer reviews, and my expectations had led me to hope I would.  I realized my problem with Inception after reading Roger Ebert’s blog post discussing David Edelstein’s critical review. This line from Edelstein stood out:

“Nolan is too literal-minded, too caught up in ticktock logistics, to make a great, untethered dream movie.”

I agree with this assessment – for me, the movie was too strictly logical for a dream film. I expected and wanted fewer rules, more like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or The Matrix. I realize, the movie I expected to see was not the movie Christopher Nolan wanted to make, but I had been led to believe from the trailer that there would be more than just a handful of scenes that bent the rules of physics.

If your subconcious does wacky illogical stuff that bends the laws of physics, why couldn’t the Architect and others in your dream? I can buy the dream extractors and everything within the film except that limitation. If an Architect can build a world that’s accepted by the subconscious as one’s own dream reality, that fabricated false-world shouldn’t have to behave and look so normally. I just don’t buy the explanation Cobb gives in the film that your “subconscious projections” start to notice odd physics but are ok with a world created by a different mind.  I guess it’s a nuance of the dream technology.

I did enjoy the movie, but didn’t find it the “best movie ever.” I loved the layers, the overall plot and character development, the way it left me thinking, the idea itself of invading the mind through dreams. I guess I’m just a sucker for mind-bending special effects and visuals. (My Netflix suggestions have me pegged pretty well.)