Always good to gain a new friend!!!

That being said, and all things being equal (sort of) ->

1. Don't forget – check out Hard Candy. You might just find a new appreciation for Page.

2. Nuff said.

3. I think I'll agree to disagree with you. My gut is a pretty good barometer for exposition and I was nauseated by the talkety-talk. I think it didn't help the film that I wasn't exactly impressed with the FX either. I like your idea of 'open for interpretation' but that falls a little too closely to directors allowing an actor to "do whatever" simply because they've delivered solid performances before. Actors need direction period. Story needs plot period.

4. Agreed – The Brits have the ensemble a finely honed thing.

5. Yup.

6. Yup.

Thanks Rodney – always a pleasure exchanging thoughts and cinema. Time->cheers<-

Allow me to respond.

1. Ellen Page – I was never that big a fan, and her role in this film felt like somebody said "we've got to get a girl into this picture" to make it appeal to the female audience a little more (as if they had to worry, because Leo's in it, right?), and aside from Juno and Whip It (a great film, by the way) I haven't found her as appealing as an actress as the rest of Hollywood seems to think.

2. Marion Cotillard – Reflecting on things, I agree with you.

3. Exposition – I guess you could say that Inception is fairly talky, but I would posit that the exposition is finely balanced in between the action sequences, much like The Matrix, as you referenced. The trouble with this film, I think, is that it essentially deals with a fairly ethereal concept (dreams, the substance of the subconscious) and a lot of people have issues with such a… how shall I put it… open-to-interpretation?…plot. I guess thats the most interesting thing for me – is that every event isn't neccecarily explained and set in stone, allowing for people to have different ideas on what's happening.

4. Ensemble – I'd disagree with you there a little, although I can see your point on the limited screen time and character development. Still, it's an ensemble film with DiCaprio in the lead, so it was always going to be about Leo instead of everyone else. I think the British tend to "do" ensemble films better than anybody, but the problem with such a film element is the reduced time allowed to each character – it's a default that can work against even the best film, and I think you may be slightly right in this regard with Inception. There's stuff there for the supporting cast to do, it's just they don't seem to be able to get out from under Leo's enormous <del datetime="2011-02-18T22:07:37+00:00">ego</del> shadow.

5. Leo – agreed: he does seem to be playing the same character over and over in each film (and I didn't like Shutter Island). Often (as was the case with casting Keanu in The Matrix) it can work for the character, and I think here he's just frustrated and on-the-edge enough to remain believable in the role, but I agree that he does need to get out of the ego-inflating stuff and go back to his roots…. rediscover his amazing acting ability…..

6. The Trailer – is indeed among the very best ever.

You do raise some good points, Rory (I expect nothing less!), but I am in agreement with you one one major point: only time will tell if Inception is the great film everyone seems to think it is, or the muck-puddle others see as a gigantic ego-stroke for Nolan.

"Is it a good film? Assuredly. Is it a great film? That will remain to be seen in the fullness of time, but hyperbole and fanboy hysteria aside, Inception could quite possibly be the best film of the year." I'm going to go against the grain and say no, this is not a good film and great never entered the room. Best of anything remains to be seen, though popular opinion and box office receipts should be noted as perhaps the most inferior quotient for the quality of a film or book. Lets face it, Howard Stern's biography was on the New York Times best seller list for 15 weeks or something like that. I read it. Well, I read the first paragraph. Muck.

I've written extensively about this film. Perhaps too much. Please drop over to Above the Line and let me know your thoughts if you want to raise the rapier. The reason I detest this film so much is a simple word: Exposition. This is the word you learn about in screen writing 101. No, not even 101. This is intro to screen writing where you don't actually get to write anything but read the master works of those who came before you. And then you add in the cardboard characters, flimsy dream nonsense and the drawn out, painfully annoying use of repetitive images and slow-motion chicanery and my head is already spinning.

And truth be told, Nolan tried to make this film prior to the Batman flick but the studios didn't trust that he could handle such a big budget project so they made him do Batman first. Given that that film was so vastly successful he was given the keys to the kingdom which, in my opinion, was the reason why so many mistakes were made in making this film and no one had the chutzpa to question Mr. Nolan. Let me summarize:

1. DiCaprio is rarely if not remotely as talented now as he was in What's Eating Gilbert Grape. I'd say after The Aviator, he's never stretched beyond the same stiff, emotionally vacant caricature of himself. Example, watch Reservation Road and Shutter Island. Same character, same suit I'd bargain, with the same emotions worn like a cheap button on a two dollar suit. He's padded the air around himself with accolades and praise to the extent the only way he might save himself is to strip down to the bone and make a truly independent film like The Wrestler – something gritty, something that forces him back to that creative place we've seen, just not in a long while.

2. Exposition. If Nolan had allowed the characters to inhabit the space of the story without the need to yap through the entire film, making sure we knew where we were and why and how and what was going to happen next. I could have closed my eyes and listened to the movie and got every bit of it without the repetitive slow motion and frequently ridiculous special FX fight scenes that were originated in The Matrix and handled better.

3. Ellen Page. Period. If she never makes another movie, at least we have Juno and Hard Candy. By the way, if you want to see a bare bones indie movie with brass tacks, check out Hard Candy. Here she's a dough eyed woman in a child's body. If only she could have wiped the "what am I supposed to be looking at because all I see are green screens" look off her face.

4. The ensemble cast never had a chance. They were relegated to miniaturized supporting roles, more prop devices and guys to be killed off so the main character can seem to be defying death (same as the guys in the yellow shirts while everyone else wore another color on Star Trek, you know, the ones who always got killed in action).

5. And Marion Cotillard, really? She portrayed a singular emotion for the entire film and even that was plastic, hard shell and uninteresting. I got tired of looking at her to be honest as there just wasn't anything going on either from the actress or the character. She was a plot device with big, round wet eyes.

Oh, and the trailer – perfect. But that's not the film I saw and I'd bet it wasn't the film anyone else saw either.

Another very detailed and interesting review, Rodney. I just very nearly completing disagree with you. But isn’t that by far more interesting? So I guess you can consider me either the first of those 12 people you mentioned or the twelfth – either way I’ll go on the fence any time to point out the massive holes in Mr. Nolan’s epic disaster movie. Maybe it would play better backwards, like Titanic?

Cheers->

Replaced The Matrix? Impressive. Most impressive.

I went in without having seen any trailers, knowing what it was about or who was in it and have to say, I REALLY loved it. I couldn't sleep properly the night I watched it cause I was thinking about it so much and how awesome it is.

I'd give it a 9/10, or at LEAST an 8.5

It's got an amazing script, awesome cast and crew, flawless production values and overall just blew me out of the water.

This is now replaced The Matrix as my most enjoyed film.

I liked your review and greatly respect your openness. Let's share opinions again!

Your new painter friend, kansasslick

You're right Judith, upon reflection my comment about Mr Berenger does seem rather mean spirited. Looking down Berenger's filmography, he's done some very good work (not the least was the astonishingly good Gettysburg, as well as Training Day and Born On The Fourth Of July), so consider my opinion changed in this regard.

With Inception, and the upcoming Faster (with Dwayne Johnson), perhaps he's coming back to the A-list standard he deserves.

You seem to have an intimate knowledge of Mr Berenson's character and motivations: do you know him personally?

I think Tom Berenger is a great American actor. I know that after the 80's, he was in some bad films but that happened to other actors. I have seen Gene Hackman in some embarassing roles! But, considering Tom Berenger's work overall as an actor, his breadth is incredible. His work is convincing and he always has a big authentic presence, including an uncanny, intuitive ability to transform himself and use samall gestures, vocal intonations, and body language so that acting is never visible. Now, there are more intelligent actors or at least actors who give more verbose interviews; there are better known actors who covet stardom. Yet, he speaks Italian and Spanish fluently and is a true history buff. His work as a whole showcases a unique portrayal of masculinity as a combination of sensitivity and testosterone…. and this he has done better than any other actor.

If you have not read the opinions of Stone and at least three other great directors, then take a tip from this visual artist/professor: Tom Berenger is unusual in his individualism and his abiding interest in history (see One Man's Hero, Rough Riders, and Johnson County Wars). He HAS wanted to own his life and his career has probably suffered as a result. But considering his role in excellent films like Betrayed, Platoon, At Play in the Fields of the Lord (Did you know that he was the first actor in the history of film to embrace full frontal nudity for most of the film in order to authentically portray the life of indigenous people), Someone to Watch Over Me, and The Field, I think your comment, "I never thought I’d say I saw a good film featuring Tom Berenger, but Berenger is actually up to the challenge of this multi-layered narrative" was mean-spirited. He is an artist; let's welcome him back to an important film with the respect and encouragement he deserves.