Spoiler-Free Review – Inception
The most surprising thing about Inception is how complicated it is not.
The dream world has rules. And they are spelled out in the first act of the film about as clearly as you could ever request of a film. It’s well handled, though this may be the new Basil Exposition film of the decade. There is a load of dialogue trying to make sure that you know exactly where you are and what is going on… except for the few moments when the film really wants to surprise you. The bulk of the lifting here falls to Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Page.
At its heart, Inception is a 60s heist movie. Your hero needing to do one last job to get out from under The Life. A gathering of expert co-conspirators, who seem like misfits but are geniuses in their specific realms. The laying out of The Plan, leaving just enough out to keep the audience wondering. There are even a load of bank vaults, though the vaults are inside of dreams.
And that is what makes this movie more than The Italian Job with bigger names and better scenery… dreams.
Dreams.
Much more intriguing espionage in the mind than a blonde at a bar manipulating the mark. And for me, the most interesting conversation about the mind comes from Tom Hardy’s Eames, who is the only character who really touches on subtext in the entire film… which sometimes seems odd for a movie about dream manipulators. Eames is given the job of speaking to the philosophy of leaving something behind instead of stealing something.
The other element of rare subtext in the movie is the music that sometimes plays mid-dream – you’ll know why when you see the film – for which Nolan used Edith Piaf… which is really weird. I took it as a reference to Cotillard’s character, but it’s one of those elements that seems too bent to keep because of her so famously playing Piaf. Likewise, Hans Zimmer and Nolan should have probably reconsidered some of the score after hearing how Robbie Robertson put together modern classical for Shutter Island.
In any case, being inside of dreams offers Christopher Nolan: The Director, the chance to go wild with the visual palate of the film. And he does. Yes, it’s very Matrix. But Nolan gives it his own style. When, late in the film, a door opens and, for a second, I though we were visiting The Architect, I was not the only one to let a gasp/laugh out in the theater in which I saw the film. But it wasn’t him. And the moment felt more like a Tarkovsky riff than a Matrix homage.
Epic landscapes, an endlessly shifting world, sometimes Escher, sometimes DeMille. I was surprised to be reminded that Nolan is not a great director of action. His skills are with bigger visual ideas than cars crashing or chasing. Nolan is an IMAXian. Even an image like the clown mask being held on the street by a grubby looking thief that has not yet been identified as The Joker… it’s familiar, yet not… and make giant on the screen, has remarkable power.
As you watch the film and even thinking back to The Dark Knight, it is apparent that the director who Nolan worships is not Kubrick or Tarkofsky or The Wachowskis, but Michael Mann. The clothes, the gun blasts, the cool air around the good/bad men, and the general view of women as fantastic furniture, even though Nolan: The Writer likes to have women being tough as men at times as well. But Nolan is more ambitious visually than Mann ever has been. Mann is a writer first… Nolan a director.
While we are nearby, let me harp on the one real failure of the film. Marion Cotillard is, as she was in Public Enemies, gorgeous wallpaper. It seems that on La vie en Rose, she found the one man who didn’t see her as an object, and he helped her win a well-deserved Oscar playing an often ugly woman. But she still isn’t a full actor in English. And even more than Michelle Williams in Shutter Island – a movie that you will hear a lot about in comparison to this one… fairly – she fills the space she is meant to fill, gives it her best, looks great, and that’s about that. She is – and this is no spoiler- a memory in this film. So there is a degree of ethereal that fits perfectly. But because the screenplay never really builds her character out, even as her story is eventually laid out, there is never the emotional weight coming from her and her relationship with Leo’s Cobb that blows the movie up to the next level. Her character is part of the structure. And when the movie clearly wants the audience to feel deeply, some will, but I suspect that many, like myself, will wish to feel more… much more.
I believe that the lack of emotion in the film – as has been a hallmark of all of Nolan’s films – is why some people are confusing it for something in the realm of Kubrick. It’s nothing like Kubrick. Remember, Kubrick’s dream film is Eyes Wide Shut… and he never does anything more than hint that you are in Doctor Bill’s dream. There is no real connection to The Shining, which if it were at all connected, would be an entire movie about the Marion Cotillard character in the real world. (If you haven’t seen Inception, don’t hurt your head trying to figure that out.)
But I digress…
One more negative point before getting back to the pleasures of the film…
The Nolans need a good and trusted script editor, because they just can’t stop themselves from overweighting their third acts. In the case of Inception, in a term you will understand best after having seen the film, they go one layer deeper than they need to and as a result, big holes start showing up in the narrative for no really good reason. Writers who are as skilled and intelligent as The Nolans always have an answer, between themselves, to “What the hell was that all about?” questions. And I am sure they have those answers well thought out in this case. But while another viewing may clarify a detail or two, I don’t expect it will suddenly seem necessary to make the last 30 minutes so much more complicated than the rest of the film. I know it makes for a great circus moment… but they had enough to have a great moment/moments without going quite as far down the rabbit hole of complication.
It’s the old Hitchcock thing about allowing the audience to participate, projecting, rightly or wrongly, about what’s coming next. The Nolan’s are masters of this… until they seem compelled to add a bunch of new vegetables to the stew without enough time to fully cook them. It’s not that they aren’t the highest quality veggies. It’s that a full, beautifully cooked meal is laid out in front on you, and you are eating at a pace, knowing you want the great desert and after-dinner drink and cigar that will top off the meal, and all of a sudden, you are presented with more sides that you feel compelled to eat, but you know are going to stuff you past the point of discomfort.
In any case…
Inception works quite well as a heist movie. By the end of the second act, it was a bit shocking that the film felt so complex, yet was so traditionally structured, aside from the dream idea. It would be unreasonable to say it is just a heist film. There are a lot of beautiful things flying around, often in slow motion. But the core is the core… and that core works better than anything attached to it.
DiCaprio is solid from beginning to end. But he is a little stuck in the Jim Phelps role. He has a side arc of his own, with Cotillard, but it’s really a side arc.
For me, it’s Hardy’s Eames who made the strongest impression in the film. He doesn’t always get a lot of time to stretch out, but every second of screen time is well used.
Ellen Page is in a role that could have been filled by a hundred different types, meaning that based on the character we see and her dialogue, the role surely could have been played by Morgan Freeman or Mark Ruffalo or Jay Baruchel or Queen Latifah. Page makes it her own and it’s a pleasure to watch. She doesn’t fit neatly into anything she has done before and she navigates a lot of expositional dialogue without ever giving in to it. She just stays focused, finds a motivation for the line, and pushes forward.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt gets to GQ it up and also never fights to steal scenes… he just owns his space on screen with cool and when ingenuity is called for, you believe his character is completely ready to deliver.
Ken Watanabe continues to be a strong screen presence in everything he does. But he ends up – like Michael Caine and Cillian Murphy here – being a somewhat passive piece of this movie.
I love seeing the supporting team in Nolan movies. Dileep Rao is always good. Great to see Pete Postlethwaite and even more, to see Tom Berenger. I’m betting there will be many conversations about Lukas Haas’ role in the film after the movie is over… and half the people won’t even realize he was in the movie. (He is. And it’s an important role.)
The thing about a really good heist movie is that there is always a strong clock. And in the case of Inception, Nolan has created one of the great clock devices of all time… dreams. When dreams start to deteriorate, it’s a thing of beauty. When you come to understand the time issues, terrific.
There is more to discuss, but better to wait until people have seen the film. I’m not 100% sure how I wrote 1500 words without spoilers, but here we are.
Go.
So you liked it? I’m sorta confused as to whether or not you like it a lot or are greeting it with a shrug of indifference? You say it works but that doesn’t mean it’s your cup of tea.
Still, looking forward to it!
Well, Poland just isn’t into the superlatives. So his positive reviews, such as this one, aren’t filled with the reassuring pushes to GO SEE IT NOW that so many other reviewers feel is their duty.
Inception sounds like a cinematic buffet, and boy howdy, I’s be a HUNGRY.
Good review, Dave – qualified rave that has me looking forward to seeing it, even more.
I see what you’re saying about Couitallard and I think you said the same about her, last year, for Public Enemies – she’s got great presence, but just has not seemed to master the language, yet.
But you’re not alone in this, I do NOT see all of the grousing about Nolan’s direction of action scenes – yes, some of his fight scenes are a bit tight, but wow, the guy knows how to film a compelling, extended chase like no one’s business.
The stuff with the Batmobile in Batman Begins and the Batpod/truck in Dark Knight was fantastic stuff – seriously, being in Chicago and knowing where he filmed, I don’t know how the hell he pulled some of that stuff off, especially the stuff filmed in Lower Wacker. And he had no Second Unit Director….
The fact that he is finally doing some above-ground chases in new locations has me pretty excited.
I don’t think the movie will do great on opening weekend because nobody understand what’s about. 50 mill at best. Also bad casting call, Elen Page is on the verge of b.o. poison, Juno overkill. It’s the Megan Fox of indies.
Wouldn’t a $50 million opening weekend for Inception be pretty good? You can’t compare it to The Dark Knight. $50M would be Leo’s best opening.
Given the budget (200 + PA), $50 million would be a failure. A film opening success is measured by its cost. Same as, a $250 million opening for a film that cost a Billion would be a failure.
I don’t think $50 million would be a failure. Disappointing in light of its huge budget and P&A? Maybe. But not an outright failure.
“A film opening success is measured by its cost.”
Is that always true now? Nothing else is factored into it?
How often does a movie rises up after a disappointing opening weekend? It happens, but not often. Avatar is the first that comes to mind, is there many more? That would be an interesting stat to investigate.
Titanic? Scream?
No, a $250 million opening for a film that cost a billion would be a huge success that would also lose money. You can have both. I don’t get why people talk about how a movie isn’t a hit because of cost. A “hit” to me has to do with whether audiences go to see it, and audiences are generally pretty unaware of how much a movie costs. The whole runaway budget problem is that you can *have* a hit that nonetheless doesn’t turn a big profit in the first place. Which is ridiculous, I agree, from a monetary perspective. But the public going out and seeing a movie to the tune of (let’s guess for Inception, say…) $230 million (total, not opening) would be a hit.
Also, it could totally get there off of a $50 million opening which would be pretty terrific for a brainy movie sold primarily on the stars and director (!).
Also, I’m assuming the big budget for this movie is seen at least partially as an investment for the next Batman, so if they don’t make a ton of money on it, well, maybe they’ve made Nolan happy enough to direct a movie with a guaranteed domestic take of $400 million or so.
“Also, it could totally get there off of a $50 million opening which would be pretty terrific for a brainy movie sold primarily on the stars and director (!).”
As Gary Oldman says in The Professional, “Bingo”!
Kelby,
“A film opening success is measured by its cost.”
Where did you get that from? Grammatical mistakes aside, your reasoning is utterly erroneous. What of platform releases? A film’s opening is only a measure of its advance marketing and its success is not measured against its cost. I think you should look a little longer at how the film performs. I dunno, something like the TOTAL at the end of its box office run. Or even WORLDWIDE.
That sort of assumption will delude people into thinking that a film is a flop simply because it does not open the way the HYPE has demanded. In your universe, Titanic ($28m) was a flop. As was Lord of the Rings ($47m). And the first in The Matrix ($27m). And please, don’t try to blow off on inflation adjustment. Your reasoning is off, off, awful.
Twilight opened to 280 worldwide last weekend, huge success on a budget of 68. Just looking at the numbers. Not brainy, no arty. Ok. Still a success. Inception wont make anything close to Twilight, even if it’s a better film. A film success can’t be judge only on its critical reception. Films are made with cold cash, not with compliments and praise.
With this and DP’s Toy Story 3 review, I feel like I’m listening to a human anatomy professor describe a beautiful woman. Too clinical for my tastes.
A $45 million plus opening is perfectly fine for Inception. It may find those Batman Begins legs to get to $200 million, which is a success for any unknown property.
Nolan came well under the $200m budget. $160m to $170m at last glance.
Dave reviews movies like old men at a jewish deli.
Far too much time is spent nitpicking the insignificant details. They may enjoy the meal, but there’s too much attention paid and time spent on what didnt work.
Well, he did want to keep it spoiler-free, so maybe he couldn’t focus on the good stuff without ruining the movie. I feel like many of the reviews that tried to stay spoiler-free already gave away too much and I regret reading them. Even comments about Lukas Haas being important kind of spoil it for me (I know, I know, I only have myself to blame for reading advance reviews).
Dunno guys. I like DP’s reviews because they’ve usually got analysis going for them, as opposed to most reviews i see on the net. Most critics describe the film (panning or praising throughout). Then they tell you whether or not to go see it. And sometimes they compare it to other films, either the director’s own or what it made them think of. Whether or not I agree with DP or enjoy his style, at least he usually makes a point of saying something beyond like/dislike.
Now the thing with Inception is you can hardly really discuss it until everyone’s seen it, and as of yet noone has. So we’ll use up a thread but good come next weekend
Here’s my reality, Anghus.
None of these details are insignificant. You can look past them. Many people who will agree with them won’t even be conscious of them. But film is 24 frames a second, not random. A film is both the sum of its parts and more or less than the sum of its parts.
Many of the raves on Monday spoke about how this is a breakthrough for Nolan because it’s so emotional. I disagree. And again, I think it’s why Kubrick was invoked. The only thing in the movie you are meant to feel is cold. And if my hot corned beef is cold, it goes back. It doesn’t go back for the pickle being too pale.
In this case, the meat of the sandwich meat is fine… but the mustard, which the director chose for me… not tasty the way he seems to have intended it to be. Some will throw out the sandwich because of the mustard turning them off. Some will love the meat so much that they don’t care about the mustard. Some will love the mustard, even if I don’t. And some will be okay with the mustard, but pay little attention to it because they want to eat and get the hell out of the restaurant. Etc, etc.
But the mustard isn’t insignificant. That is an insult to the chef.
“Tarkovsky riff”? As if I needed to get more excited about this….
But the mustard isn’t insignificant. That is an insult to the chef.
In that way, I read this more as a critique than a piece of criticism. Criticism is for the viewers at home. Critiquing is for the artist themselves, and while Nolan may never lay eyes on these words, I know as an artist I’d be fairly appreciative for this kind of substance.
The fact that many reviewers will be posting two reviews, one spoiler free the other not, is heartening.
I really like that David goes in for heavier aesthetic analysis.
but it’s not a review. It’s a critique and who needs a critique as much as they need a review?
These are Nolan’s best action scenes. ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE indeed….and loved Zimmer’s score.
I also liked Zimmer’s score a lot. At the Q&A I attended this evening, someone asked about the Edith Piaf song; Nolan said he had always had that specific song in mind, particularly because the first few bars are so distinctive… He felt this would be easy for the audience to recognize, so he could start messing around with it. Once Cotillard was cast, the odd coincidence of her and the song struck him, but he felt it was a bit of fate and a hint of good luck, so he kept it.
Interesting, I thought the Edith Piaf song was specifically because of Marion.
Anyway, I
I thought the rules were actually fairly consistent, although that did mean an exposition-heavy front end to the film. Another comment Nolan made was that the heist genre is the one genre where exposition is actually part of the fun; he did, however, mention he only wanted the heist to be the jumping-off point for Leo’s emotional arc.
I agree that the movie kept telling you things…however, mixed in was always an image or sequence or bit of sound design that I found oddly affecting. Since this is a spoiler-free thread, I can’t really go into details.
I also agree that the ridiculous hype that was initially spouted online might end up hurting the movie a bit. It’s not the equivalent of 2001. It’s not a singular masterpiece. (Neither was THE DARK KNIGHT). But don’t sell it short either — it’s an intelligently crafted, original, and FUN bit of genre filmmaking…how often do we get that in a blockbuster these days? Outside of Cameron, Nolan is practically the only game in town who writes and develops his own blockbusters, and does so intelligently and with striking vision.