"Inception" isn't all too insightful afterall

I saw the new talk of the town -- Inception -- last night at the Union Square Regal, and honestly, I was no where near as impressed as I was told I would have been. I spent the two-plus hours waiting for my mind to be "blown" and for my realm of logic to be so screwed that I wouldn't know which way was up, but instead I found myself being lead through on a leash.

The plot isn't all that original, if you think about it. Leonardo DiCaprio plays a "thief" who goes in to people's dreams to steal top secret information from higher-ups. The movie centers around his final mission, to plant an idea into a man's brain, something people claim is impossible (the actual act of "Inception"). He formulates a team and then the mission happens. As simple as that. Standard. Cliche in structure, almost.

Let me get down to what I found bothersome, though: Christopher Nolan needs to stay behind the camera. If he is going to try and get away with writing a blockbuster film, he needs to first learn how to actually write a proper story. The heart of any story, any script, lies within the presence of it's characters, and if the audience can hardly recall the characters' names, let alone their motives, there is obviously a lot of work that needs to be done.

Why were they there? What was their motive? Who were they? How did they get involved? What was in it for them? All of these questions are left completely unanswered throughout the film, primarily because they weren't addressed from the beginning. DiCaprio's character is the only one driven by something greater than himself and he is the only one with any level of measurable dimension. All of the other character are merely props in Nolan's CG-fueled film.

That being said, Nolan also needs to take a class or three about how to successfully write dialog. If you're going to give an audience flat, uninteresting characters, at least give them something compelling and witty to say rather than just have them read from an instruction manual.

Rule Number One: Show, don't tell. This is something that writer's are trained from the beginning. Show the story, don't just explain it through dialog. That, is called a cop-out. Yes, the effects were brilliant and as an audience, we were shown this marvelous dream world, but the exposition took away from that every time a character spoke. It was as if the characters were telling us the rules to a game we were already watching.

Rule Number Two: Trust your audience. Going with the above, exposition isn't needed because the average movie-goer is smarter than you may think, they just aren't given the chance. For all of those people who say that Inception is confusing or insightful, they simply weren't watching or listening closely, because Nolan practically beats us over the head with the rules of his world.

It's also apparent throughout the movie that Nolan did do his research -- a little too apparent. The entire time it was as if he was trying to tell his audience, "look, I'm more than action and CG." But he's not. The clever moments are so in-your-face that it's border-line patronizing. The Architect's name is Ariadne? Oh, you know, as in the woman from the Odyssey who helps Odyseus through the labyrinth? And what is her first task? To build a labyrinth. And Mal? Her name is a direct translation to bad in both French and Spanish. And what is she? Bad. That's not clever; that's cheap.

Luckily enough for Nolan, Inception does have some redeeming qualities: the effects, the art, the cinematography. There is no denying that Inception is aesthetically pleasing and exciting to experience. In my opinion, the art and CGI behind this movie easily blow Avatar out of the water. But effects don't make a movie, and Nolan should know better.

This leads me to Rule Number Three: Never fully make a movie alone. As soon as you write, direct, and produce a movie, you officially become blinded by the project. There is no outside person, no other perspective to point out flaws or different takes. It becomes just you, the writer, stuck with the same story, with no room for evolution and growth.

As far as the acting goes, DiCaprio (Cobb), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Arthur), Cillian Murphy (Fischer), and Marion Cotillard (Mal) all  gave perfectly fine performances, but  unfortunately for Ellen Page (Ariadne), this is only the second performance of her's that I've seen, and I am still not impressed. She has a lot to learn about acting before I will ever be able to take her seriously. Michael Cain was wonderful -- as always -- despite the fact that he had less than 10 minutes of screen time in total.

Inception is an entertaining movie, hands down. But it is also an overly stimulating, visual representation of a first draft script with an A-B list cast. If you pay attention and watch what you're given, Inception won't surprise you or make you think, because it doesn't give you a lot to think about.

Is that so much to ask for? A movie to make me think? I guess so, because I'm still waiting.

-E

Would I watch Inception again? Absolutely. It was entertaining and pretty too look at.

Would I nominated it for Best Picture? Not on your best day.