Movie Review: Inception

**** of **** (4 stars out of 4)

What is the best way to approach a film? It is a question that has been asked for a long time, with no clear answer provided. Some suggest that a visceral approach is the way to go, while others insist that films should have great intellectual appeal.

Fortunately for us viewers, “Inception” has decided to avoid such debate by giving us the best of both worlds. It is a film that engages the mind and captures the heart.

“Inception” is no more about dreams and corporate espionage than it is about one man’s struggle to escape the prison created for him by his past.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a skilled thief, the best in the dangerous art of extraction: stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state when the mind is at its most vulnerable.

Cobb’s rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved, including his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) and two children. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible—inception.

Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, and Dileep Rao) are hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) to pull off the reverse; their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one. If they succeed, it could be the perfect crime. But lurking deep in these dreams is an enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming.

Pardon the cliché but to say more would do the movie injustice. Like most good films, the payoff is most fully experienced after taking the journey. And for “Inception,” this journey is like no other I can recall.

Director Christopher Nolan leads us on this journey with great skill and grace. But this is to be expected for someone who has been working on the script for ten years.

His skill and grace are best demonstrated by the fact that despite the constantly shifting nature of the story, the thread between Cobb and Mal provides an emotional anchor of sorts for the audience. Acting as a constant for Cobb, their relationship is the linchpin of the story.

Since this movie works because of this thread, much credit is due to both DiCaprio and Cotillard. Their work magnetizes the viewer, drawing us deeper and deeper into their story. The dynamic between the two is about as real as anything I have seen on film.

With these efforts from Nolan, DiCaprio, and Cotillard combined, this may be their finest hour yet. But combined with the terrific work of the other actors (most notably, Tom Hardy), composer Hans Zimmer, cinematographer Wally Pfister, production designer Guy Dyas, etc., “Inception” is truly something special.

Despite this praise, I do not think the film offers profound insight into the nature of reality and dreams, nor does it try to. Trying to tackle such subjects in a 148 min. movie would most likely lead to unsatisfying results.

Instead, this movie offers us a wonderful portrait of a man struggling with the separation of his dreams and memories from his reality. And this struggle is what allows for the film to have both its visceral appeal and its intellectual appeal.

Since I have longed for the day when I would discover a film that tugs equally at my mind and my heart, “Inception” is a dream come true.

The heart of the film.

The 3-D Gimmick

Sorry in advance for no pretty picture. This will also serve as my first column for the new year (or under the new regime) of the CW (the Crimson White), the UA student newspaper. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject...

Hollywood is at it again. It has introduced yet another technology in hopes of enhancing audiences’ experience.

Like sound and color before it, 3-D is being met with the usual schism that accompanies such technological advancements. This division is usually along the line of which part of “show business” should be emphasized.

For studio heads, 3-D represents a wonderful business opportunity. Like the film advancements that came before it, 3-D offers moviegoers something innovative. It is not something that has emerged in too many homes—well, for now. The allure of 3-D is great way to draw in audiences.

However, filmmakers (the “show”) and studio heads (the “business”) clash over whether this desire to increase profit will hurt the quality and the future of movies. If studios decide that 3-D is the exclusive path they should take for movies, then filmmakers become limited in having the freedom to makes movies as they desire. It is this lack of freedom that could put a damper on the film industry.

Opponents of 3-D offer many of the same, although valid, reasons. Viewers can experience headaches or nausea. It adds little or nothing to the experience. In addition to these, an excessive surcharge is added to ticket prices.

I must confess I am sympathetic to the 2-D cause. 3-D has its place in the entertainment business. But I am convinced that it should remain a secondary option instead of becoming the sole future of movies.

I do not think it would be fair to omit that “Avatar” is a great example of how 3-D movies can be an astonishing visual ride. (James Cameron has proven that he is a great choice to lead the 3-D movement.) But 3-D adds nothing more than that, and the story does not become enhanced in any way.

What does 3-D do for movies like “An Education” or “Sideways?” Nothing. One could say that the color palette is improved, but this is not so. Images in 3-D are dimmer than those in 2-D.

An advocate of 3-D may claim that those films are obvious examples of films that do not benefit from the technology. So let us examine a movie that is a little less obvious: “The Hurt Locker.”

“The Hurt Locker” is a war film with its fair share of action. The cinematography essentially gives the audience a rat’s eye view. Increased depth could really give a whole new dimension to war films.

However, when I think of “The Hurt Locker,” the phrase “palpable tension” comes to mind. This movie, for better or for worse, decided that it would stake itself upon a premise of suspended tension. The payoff is rarely the explosion or lack thereof; it is a film that winds up showing just what it is that makes some soldiers addicted to war. In other words, the payoff is the wait.

So, the movie has some moments of action. But since the core of the film is staked upon a premise that is really not enhanced by 3-D technology, it seems as if 3-D should look elsewhere.

The worst offenders are the numerous movies (“Clash of the Titans” and the planned rerelease of Cameron’s “Titanic”) filmed in 2-D that are converted to 3-D. For “Clash,” it was apparent something got lost on the way to the theatre.

One of the biggest problems with my argument is there is no way to quantify whether or not 3D adds to the experience. It differs for everyone, and even then, different people may like it in some instances and not others. All we know is what we like, feel, know, etc. Opponents cannot prove that 3D does not add to their experience, just like 3-D supporters cannot prove it adds to their experience. We are just stuck with what we know to be true for us.

I do think most people would agree that 3-D does not enrich certain films or genres. I just cannot help but think that their number is so great as not to warrant the wide-scale expansion to 3-D as the dominant medium for motion pictures.