MORE ON 'INCEPTION'
Hi -- this is a spoiler alert.
Last week, the only criticism of Inception that I had was about the film's inability to really push the boundaries of geography and physics (this would be, after all, for the sake of a basic level of "more entertainment.") In fact, a lot of people had the same issue with Nolan's seemingly stasis view of the physical nature in his fictitious world.
After watching it again on Sunday, I realize I was wrong to criticize it. Dead wrong.
If we were to be exposed to clear definitions of what's considered "reality" and "a dream," that would negate part of the film's purpose in having its audience perceive which is which. To give it away would be, frankly, really fucking stupid.
The only reason nature gets raped in the film's exposition is because we need to see Ariadne pilot her architecture capabilities. This limitlessness is nowhere else seen so that our perceived control of "reality" inevitably gets questioned at the film's ending.
Now the only criticism of the film I have is that we never really get our own totem, or control, of what is considered reality. To dismiss the claim that "it's all a dream" is equally dismissive of an argument that Cobb's totem falls. You can't dismiss either.
So, at first viewing, a seemingly easy-to-swallow narrative turned to an exponentially bigger guessing game in second viewing.
I wish more films like Inception were made.