I enjoyed it. That being said, it didn't interest me afterwards enough to think about it, and I didn't think it was nearly as smart as it thought it was.
And the way dreams were handled in it felt unreal. I didn't feel a connection to it, it didn't make me go "Yeah, that's what our subconsious is like"
In contrast, in Neil Gaiman's Sandman there have been countless times where I've went "This is exactly what goes on in my dreams! How does he know?"
In Inception, it was more of another virtual reality more than a dream-world.
It was good, but definitely overhyped.
I think that's because people, especially younger audience have gotten used to crappy movies that don't want you to think. I keep hearing that Inception is a really smart movie because you have to think (I'd kinda disagree with that, but that's my opinion), so I guess most people don't watch enough movies that challenge you intellectually, so when they see something that is a bit different and makes an effort, they will call it a masterpiece.
Also, people keep telling me you really have to pay attention. Do they have issues with falling asleep in the middle of movies or something? It was cut and directed well enough that it never got confusing.
psychic psycho said:
The whole movie is an extended metaphor for the experience of going to the movies. Cobb is like the director and Fischer is the audience. Based on their roles the other characters can be put in similar terms; Eames is the actor, Ariadne is the writer, etc. Cobb takes Fischer through a series of fabricated events without him knowing it; similar to how a director tries to maintain the audiences' suspension of disbelief. When Fischer wakes up he is changed even though what happened was not real. Ideally, the same should happen to the audience at the end of a movie.
That's an interesting point. I always saw the theme of how our mind works as the biggest theme in it, and as I never felt that was adressed well enough, it left me unsatisfied.