Going in, I knew the movie was about dreams, but that was about it. I tried to keep away from learning too much about the movie. So now that I've finally seen it... holy crap. Let's see if I can explain it well enough. Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are partners who have the technology to enter people's dreams and gather important information that would be otherwise impossible to get. Cobb, unable to return to the United States to be with his children, makes a deal with Saito (Ken Watanabe), a Japanese businessman. Saito asks Cobb to perform an inception, the nearly impossible task of planting an idea within somebody's subconscious, on a business rival, Fischer (Cillian Murphy). So Cobb and Arthur must put together a new team to pull off the job. Cobb goes to his father, Miles (Michael Caine), to find an architect--somebody to build the dreamworld they go into. He gives them his best student, Ariadne (Ellen Page). They also bring in two other men, Eames (Tom Hardy) and Yusuf (Dileep Rao). But what they don't expect are the additional complications the mission brings, including Cobb's wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard).

Yeah, despite that lengthy explanation, I still think I failed at giving you a basic look into this movie. I suppose that's the outline shell of the plot, but there's so much more to it than that. Cobb has secrets that play out throughout the film. They aren't all completely difficult to figure out, though, but it still keeps you guessing.

In fact, that's one thing (of the many things) the movie does very well. For a good chunk of the film, you can never be sure if you're in a dream or not. You start getting about as paranoid as the characters, wondering if you're in a dream or back in reality... and then you start questioning which one truly is reality--the dream or... you get the picture. To take something from a fellow blogger, I'd say that to call this movie complex is an understatement.

And then you get the dreams themselves. The visuals are stunning, but it's how they're used that make them magnificent. Watching a city collapse in on itself, the creation a bridge by a mirror's reflection, the characters fight on ceilings and walls and float down hallways, and so much more... What makes these sequences even better is that even though they're dreams, they're happening with purpose. People don't just decide to start floating down hallways--no, they're floating down a hallway because another form of their body is free-falling. I'm sure that didn't make any sense, but it will when you see the film.

There's almost no reason to discuss the acting. It was all superb. I particularly liked Ellen Page (and there's a funny moment between her and Joseph Gordon-Levitt late in the film that's not worth spoilering, but I can't say I blame him). Though I think it's funny that both Cillian Murphy and his movie-father, Pete Postlethwaite, played Americans when one is Irish and can do a British accent and the other is British and can do an Irish accent. I know why they were American (it is part of the plot, after all). Just a random bit of coincidence--a note-worthy observation.

There's really not anything negative I can think of for this movie. It kept me on the edge of my seat. It kept me guessing. It was full of great action and awesome visuals (awesome in the classic sense of the word, at that). The acting was really good. The ideas were incredibly original and executed very well. And the ending was absolutely perfect. There are a couple irks that I don't want to bring up here due to potential spoilers, but they really aren't anything that knock the movie down at all. This is a damn near masterpiece, and I strongly recommend it.

Royale With Cheese


  1. If you think the questioning of dream/reality is so effective, I'm surprise you'd take umbrage with me comparing Inception to A Nightmare on Elm Street. If anything, A Nightmare on Elm Street does the same thing better because the settings are all the same so when Nancy wakes up in her room she doesn't know if its a dream or reality.

    But yea, on its own merits this is a great film.

  2. No no, don't get me wrong. I understand the comparison to "Nightmare." It was the fact that you said "Nightmare" was superior where I drew issue with.

    The point of "Nightmare" was the level of unease created by not knowing, as you weren't sure if Freddy was gonna pop up randomly or not. However, that's not the point to "Inception," so it's almost an unfair comparison, which makes calling "Nightmare" superior faulty. Also, by calling said film superior in the regard of how it handles dreamscapes, you're inherently calling the whole of Inception an inferior film in general (considering that's almost all it is). And to say the dreamscapes of Inception are in any way inferior to a 1980s slasher film is almost heresy.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.