I just saw this movie last night and have been reading stuff now, finally, that I wanted to read. I found my way to this review via Roger Ebert and figured I'd post here because the discussion is so reasonable. So kudos all around for being so attractive.
Anyway, one thing that I find common to most negative reviews, including this one, is the idea that the dream worlds weren't dream-like enough. Not surreal enough, etc. Aside from a matter of taste - "I like my cinedreams real trippy!" - I think this complaint misses the point.
As one character says during the film, "You don't know it's a dream till after you wake up". I think it's implied or said that though dreams can be weird, it often doesn't seem that way till you have woken and can reflect on it. Since part of the movie's shtick is to blur the divisions between dream and reality, it wouldn't really do to have the dreams obviously be dreams. The emotional center of the film - Cob & his wife - is utterly dependent on a certain verisimilitude in the dreams.
So the audience experiences the dreams almost subjectively: It seems as real to us as it does to the dreamer. In that sense it's not really a "literal" portrayal of dreams.
Also, I don't think it's meant to be very dark, nor profound. I mean, it's essentially a heist movie with a happy ending. The question of whether one is a wake or dreaming doesn't strike me as very interesting beyond the context of the movie, and I don't think it's posed in any way to make me think otherwise.
Anyway, I guess I can say I thought it was terrific. Full disclosure and all that. It's a relief when a "real movie" gets made at this level. And I just enjoy that kind of exquisite queasiness Nolan conjures, as in Memento and The Prestige. (Personally I think Batman Begins is 2/3 really good and 1/3 so-so, and The Dark Knight is 2/3 excellent and 1/3 decent.)
Posted on July 30th, 2010 2:56pm
