Download Inception 2010 Movie Legally, download Inception 2010 film, download Inception 2010 direct link, Inception 2010 download movie, Inception 2010 download, download Inception 2010 HD.
Crime, Thriller, Action, Adventure, Mystery, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
Christopher Nolan
Ellen Page as Ariadne
Tom Hardy as Eames
Ken Watanabe as Saito
Dileep Rao as Yusuf
Cillian Murphy as Robert Fischer
Tom Berenger as Peter Browning
Pete Postlethwaite as Maurice Fischer
Michael Caine as Miles
Lukas Haas as Nash
Tai-Li Lee as Tadashi
Claire Geare as Phillipa (3 years)
Storyline: Dom Cobb is a skilled thief, the absolute 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. 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 have 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 no amount of careful planning or expertise can prepare the team for the dangerous enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 14510 Mb h264 128 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 640x272 px 1463 Mb mpeg4 1243 Kbps avi Download
DVD-rip 720x304 px 2106 Mb mpeg4 1987 Kbps avi Download
iPhone 640x272 px 1645 Mb h264 1552 Kbps mp4 Download
You are not as stupid as Christopher Nolan thinks you are.
Unless you call this movie a masterpiece. Then you are.

Damn 1,000 word limit. Gotta make this quick.


The film is 2.5 hours long, yet feels like 5.2, and there are a few reasons for this. One of which is the fact that a preponderance of the first act is amateurish, conflict-free exposition, which does not bode well for repeat viewings.

The "learning about the dream world" scene is atrocious. No conflict. Both Leo and Page's characters already knew what was being explained. The similar "learning about the matrix" scene in The Matrix did it right by having one character not know anything. Plus, there was conflict. Neo gets his ass kicked and fails to make the building jump. Much more entertaining.

There's another problem with the whole section of bending the landscape where Leo explains the negative aspects of altering the dream world. The closest we get to seeing the dream world altered was Leo becoming Mr. Charlie, yet the most that happens then is a bunch of extras turn and look at Leo. That's it. The idea was not exploited. You literally have to go out of your way to miss that opportunity. Hell, that Mr. Charles scene is shorter than the scene that explains why altering the dream world is bad!

Let's not forget this whole idea of one corporation one-upping another has absolutely no personal ramifications for anyone on screen or in the audience. It would have greatly amped up the internal conflict if Leo had to struggle with the notion that helping the guy who could help him would endanger someone else close to him, or us, or someone else. ANYTHING could have worked better than an energy contract that means less to me than my neighbor's bath mat. Come on.

The totems were handled very poorly. All we need to know is their purpose. We don't need to know anything else, yet the film keeps piling on needless information.

If this is a heist film, where is the threat of being caught?

A van falls for an endless amount of time. Joseph Gordon-Levitt floats bodies down a hallway for half an hour, real-time. The guy from Bronson does his thing, whatever the hell that was. These are not complex tasks or events, but rather straight-forward in nature. Dragging them out for a solid chunk of the film is what creates the glacial pace and makes a long film seem even longer.

Inception has no real villain. You can make a case for Cotillard, but she is an internal enemy. She never takes a "physical" presence and never threatens anyone except Leo. Everyone else is dealing with faceless assassins. That makes it feel distant from the rest of the action. It doesn't even have anything to do, emotionally, with Leo's goal of getting home to see his kids. None of this is tied together. Leo didn't even know what the hell was going on with Cillian and never even knew of the outcome until after the fact. He's separated from the physical manifestation of his goal for a majority of the film. I ended up not caring if the plan succeeded. If it was all somehow tied together, the audience would be able to experience that great emotional catharsis that everyone was talking about...but that didn't happen.

In fact, Leo is so separated from the actual plot that you can literally put Levitt in his place and not even need the hero in the dream world at all! Hell, you can even put Page there, since all she does after designing the boring and lifeless dream worlds is hang out with the guys and tell Leo he's crazy. I really wish she had something else to do besides play the part of the fifth wheel.

Leo's lack of involvement in the main action of the story creates a 'so what?' moment when the problem is solved for him, and I can think of absolutely no reason why the hero should not be the one to conquer the main conflict. Brody kills the shark in Jaws. He doesn't send Hooper and Quint out to do his dirty work while he stays behind to deal with his fear of water. It's integrated. The hero is forced into dealing with the physical, and in turn, but learn to conquer his internal fears before he can conquer his external opponent. This is Screen writing 101, Lesson 1, and Nolan got that wrong. That's why I don't believe the reports that he spent 10 years writing the script since it only took me 148 minutes to figure out exactly what was wrong with it.

Not to mention the conceit that to enter someone else's dream and control it means that you would have to control your own subconscious, which they state elsewhere is impossible. Way to go, genius.

Pretty much everything this film does wrong, The Matrix does right. Watch that instead.

PS: The 'taking a scene from the middle and putting it at the beginning' gag reached its peak effectiveness in 2002 and has absolutely no place in modern films. It's getting as bad as that tired old 'It's all a dream' scenario. Oh, wait...
No, not intellectually: there's tons of thought (or at least editing) going on in this film. But there's no characterization, there's no heart (Leo's one anguished cry of "Jesus, noooo!" isn't "heart," it's badly directed overacting), and, worst of all, there's no morality.

I'm an ill-tempered, outspoken, foul-mouthed termagant (that by way of explanation for those about to call me a right-winger, a teabagger, or a prude), but when I watched this thing I was dumbstruck not on an intellectual level (oh, golly gee, we're dream-diving! Like in "The Matrix," only inside brains instead of a mainframe! Wow. Uh, sure.) but on a moral one. See, the film has NO PROTAGONIST. It has criminals, it has those who facilitate those criminals' activities, and it has a victim. That's all.

And, yes, I had-- and have-- a real (or is that "real"-- see, I'm of the camp that thinks the whole sorry mess took place in Cobb's bigger mess of a head) problem with that.

Almost no one (I would have opted for a plain, sweeping "No one," no "almost," but I recall one review among dozens and dozens that hit on what I'm about to say) seems to see anything wrong with the idea that Cobb and his crew are (ostensibly-- pretermitting for the time being the perpetual argument regarding whether the whole sorry scenario is or isn't a dream) performing an act of mental violation on an innocent man. Why is this? The action isn't that impressive (even the infamous hotel-corridor sequence)-- yes, Nolan does "loud" and "in your face" very well, but the Bond films have been doing more breathtaking and cleanly shot action work for four decades now. (I actually laughed out loud when Cobb and Arthur, decked out in pimp-fashion leather coats and stocking masks, shouted threats at kidnapped Robert Fischer in a dream-warehouse-- not, of course, to be confused with a warehouse of dreams (that might invoke imagination): what, you couldn't just have your goons strong-arm a kidnappee in the "real" world, Nolan? This is as creative as you can get?) We can't just proffer "Cobb must see his kids again at any cost!" as an excuse-- or can we? (I would certainly hope not.) Is it because Fischer is a Caucasian businessman, and therefore intrinsically deserving of attack in this economically volatile era? (The argument that Fischer's business rival Saito is somehow bravely trying to prevent Fischer from forming a monopoly is weak at best: that's what anti-monopoly laws are for, and, by agreeing to attack Fischer on Saito's behalf, Cobb is merely enabling Saito to form a monopoly of his own. And, seriously, inception and/or extraction would be ridiculously iffy forms of espionage. Break into the safe inside my skull, Cobb my boy, and enjoy the five hundred verses of "I'm 'Enry the Eighth, I Am" I've got planted there.) Or is it, possibly worst of all, because Cobb and his goons "kindly" leave Fischer with happy thoughts of his coldhearted father? (From monopolies to psychiatry, then: if Robert Fischer has daddy issues, that's what analysts are for. Cobb and his stampeding creeps are in Fischer's mind to commit a crime; any "resolution" they provide him is a byproduct of that crime, and resoundingly, cruelly false.)

We might argue that Cobb and his crew are anti-heroes, but they're not. "The Dirty Dozen" are anti-heroes, criminals and psychopaths nonetheless working for the forces of good by fighting an evil greater than themselves (that evil being the nasty Nazis); Dom Cobb is nothing more than a thief (and, despite the ad copy, not a very good one) perpetrating an insidious act of mental rape against an innocent man (and, by extension, all those who rely on that innocent man's business for their livelihoods). Why all the sympathy for this thug and his crew? What's the catch? When children are involved, or when guilt (real or imagined) is in the mix, are we just supposed to chuck morality out the window...? (The last sad thing, I guess: No one on the team, not even newbie Ariadne-- and, granted, she's likely either a figment of Cobb's imagination, like the story as a whole, or a plant-- questions the "right" of what they're doing. Not only does this make me deeply uncomfortable, it's incredibly shallow writing. An opportunity for character development, tossed. But that's classic Nolan, isn't it? If he can't cover it with an iconic grunt-- "She was lovely," Arthur deadpans to Ariadne, when Ariadne asks what nasty dream-shade Mal was like when she was alive (heck, Arthur, she's still, technically, "lovely"; we were looking for maybe just a touch of explanation here regarding her relationship with Cobb and the team, big boy)-- it doesn't get covered.) Or, in the end, are we just supposed to excuse the immorality of the situation by saying, "Ha! It's all a dream anyway!"? Very much bothered by this, especially since this behemoth has gulped down some one billion dollars in box-office take worldwide....

... and that's why I'm giving it two stars. Cillian Murphy looks very nice in his natty suits, and he cries very prettily before Nolan realizes that-- horrors!-- someone is emoting on screen, and jerk-cuts away. Marion Cotillard does her best to squeeze dimensionality from yet another one-d Nolan-woman part; as Mal, she's a sad, psychotic, lovely mess. One star for each of them. As for the rest of it: what a pathetic reflection on values, and what a lousy story. Excellent snow-job, Mr. Nolan, but no star for you.
Insanely Brilliant ! Nolan has outdone himself !!
What is the most resilient parasite? An Idea! Yes, Nolan has created something with his unbelievably, incredibly and god- gifted mind which will blow the minds of the audience away. The world premiere of the movie, directed by Hollywood's most inventive dreamers, was shown in London and has already got top notch reviews worldwide and has scored maximum points! Now the question arises what the movie has that it deserve all this?

Dom Cobb(Di Caprio) is an extractor who is paid to invade the dreams of various business tycoons and steal their top secret ideas. Cobb robs forcefully the psyche with practiced skill, though he's increasingly haunted by the memory of his late wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who has a nasty habit of showing up in his subconscious and wreaking havoc on his missions. Cobb had been involved so much in his heist work that he had lost his love!

But then, as fate had decided, a wealthy business man Saito( Ken Watanabe) hands over the responsibility of dissolving the empire of his business rival Robert Fischer Jr.(Cillian Murphy). But this time his job was not to steal the idea but to plant a new one: 'Inception'

Then what happens is the classic heist movie tradition. To carry out the the task, Cobb's 'brainiac' specialists team up again with him, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), his longtime organizer; Tom Hardy (Eames), a "forger" who can shapeshift at will; and Yusuf (Dileep Rao), a powerful sedative supplier.

There is only one word to describe the cinematography, the set designs and the special effects, and that is Exceptional! You don't just watch the scenes happening, you feel them. The movie is a real thrill ride. The action scenes are well picturised and the music by Hans Zimmer is electronically haunting. Never, in the runtime of the movie, you will get a chance to move your eyes from the screen to any other object.

Leonardo, who is still popularly known for Jack Dawson played by him in Titanic, should be relieved as his role as Dom Cobb will be remembered forever. His performance may or may not fetch him an Oscar but it will be his finest performance till date. The supporting cast too did an extraordinary work. Christopher Nolan, ah! what a man he is. His work is nothing less than a masterpiece and he deserves all the awards in the 'Best Director' category. If "Inception" is a metaphysical puzzle, it's also a metaphorical one: It's hard not to draw connections between Cobb's dream-weaving and Nolan's film making, intended to seduce us, mess with our heads and leave an ever-lasting impression.

To conclude, I would just say before your life ends, do yourself a favor by experiencing this exceptionally lucid classic created by Nolan!

My Rating: 10/10

Thanks & Regards
Inception didn't bring anything fresh and original like everybody's claiming it has and calling this an intellectual movie is an insult. It tried, but it didn't succeed due to poor, nonsensical writing.

The soundtrack doesn't match the movie, it's too suspenseful in a movie with no suspense whatsoever.

The mission is something I can't really connect with and I don't know who can really.

There was really no sense of any danger at any point as it was all in a dream(s) and the limbo idea didn't make any sense. And by using that limbo concept on the character you couldn't care less if he lived or died, come on, who would care about a multi-millionaire asshole that's trying to get even richer by destroying his competition? He couldn't go back to the US because "They think I killed her"? Is that how the law works now, there was no evidence that he killed her, no witnesses, nothing, he would never be convicted for it, Leonardo, go back and go to court please ;-) They could have used more imaginative dream worlds instead of Dark knights Gotham city in day time, James Bond ice Fortress style and a Matrix like corridor (hallway).

The faceless subconscious militia, booooring. Or maybe the problem is that the subconscious of all of these people have no imagination. How come there was no crazy dream like scenes in a movie about dreaming? My dreams are much more interesting than the scenes of this movie...

I could go on and on but I just want to lower this high rating, because 9 out 10 is 3 or 4 more than this movie deserves.
"9 out of 10"...Are you actually serious right now?
Just to start off, I read about 20 pages of reviews of this movie and had a few things of my own to add. I actually had to register to IMDb so I can explain why this movie is so bad. Seeing that this piece of garbage is rated 9 out of 10 made me wanna vomit. But enough about that, let's get to the serious issues with this movie.

1: Leonardo DiCaprio has not changed his role for the last 5 years. Am I the only one that notices this? He always plays some guy that has deep seated emotional issues relating to the loss of a loved one. Can he play anything else besides the loner that lost the love of his life and now has psychological scars that go so deep they hit the street he's standing on?

2: Why didn't they shoot his stupid wife anytime she showed up? He wasn't the only guy on the team that knew she was out to mess things up. Why not say, "Hey guys, if you see my wife shoot her because she's going to get us all killed. She's not real and is already dead, so go ahead and blow her away so we can get back to work."?

3: The dream world was the dullest I have ever seen. "Oh man...M.C. Escher stairs, a train driving down the street, buildings that go sideways and upside down..." That's all they could come up with? "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was more imaginative than the supposed "dream-world". I'm pretty sure most dreams have more random stuff than that happen in them. Where's the off-the-wall imagination? I don't think anyone that says they had "the weirdest dream" explains it as, "Well the world was the same, but a train showed up." "And?" "That's it. Everything else was completely normal." Weak.

4: If I wanted to watch "Call of Duty," I'd play the game. All of the shoot-out scenes looked like they were taken from "Game Informer" magazine screen shots.

5: How come when they went to Limbo, it was in DiCaprio's mind? Can anyone explain that? Is there just one Limbo that in all this movie world's history of dream exploration, but only he and his stupid wife got to and did stuff in? Or was his team (two of whom knew how messed up in the head he was) too dumb to say, "Why don't we keep you out of this and go into someone else's head just in case this turns out badly?".

6: As far as 9 out of 10, (really folks?) go watch "Citizen Kane," "Lawrence of Arabia," or even "The Dark Crystal" if you want a good movie that can stand-up to even the most mediocre critical observation.
One of the most overrated films ever! The most un-dreamlike film about dreams I've ever seen!
What do David Lynch, Luis Bunuel and Wes Craven have in common? They have all created far superior films about dreams on a fraction of Christopher Nolan's budget. For a film about dreams everything looks so dull and drained of color. Inception never feels surreal like a dream. It feels like ridiculous PG-13 action sequences strung together by character's explaining it's all a dream within a dream etc. When watching this film, I thought of far superior films about dreams and alternate realities, Bunuel and Dali's "Un Chien Andalou" (1929), "The Blood of a Poet" (1930), "The Wizard of Oz" (1939), Hitchcock's "Spellbound" (1946), "Meshes of the Afternoon" (1947), Dr. Sues' "5,000 Fingers of Dr. T" (1953), "Le Jetee" (1962), Fellini's "8 1/2" (1963), "Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors" (1963) Fellini's, "Juliet of the Spirits" (1966), "Who Wants to Kill Jesse" (1966), "Valerie and her Week of Wonders" (1970), "Viva La Muerte" (1970), "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" (1972), Tarkovsky's "Solaris" (1972), "The Hourglass Sanitorium" (1973), "Eraserhead" (1977) "Altered States" (1980), "Time Bandits" (1981), Pink Floyd's "The Wall" (1982), "Forbidden Zone" (1982) "Videodrome" (1983), "A Nightmare on Elmstreet" (1984), "Dreamscape"(1984), "Brazil" (1985), "Paperhouse" (1988), The B-movie "Beyond Dreams Door" (1989), "Santa Sangre" (1989), "Jacob's Ladder" (1990), "Kurosawa's Dreams" (1990) "Total Recall" (1990), "Naked Lunch" (1991), "Arizona Dream" (1993), John Carpenter's "In the Mouth of Madness" (1995), "12 Monkeys" (1995),"City of Lost Children" (1995), "Lost Highway" (1997), "Dark City" (1998), "The Matrix" (1999), "eXistenZ" (1999), "Being John Malkovich" (1999), "The Cell" (2000), "Waking Life" (2001), "Donnie Darko" (2001), "Muholland Drive" (2001), "Demon Lover" (2002), "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" (2004), "Strange Circus" (2005), "The Fall" (2006), "The Science of Sleep" (2006), "Pan's Labrynth" (2006), "Paprika" (2006) and the list goes on and on and on. 100's of French and Asian films; hell, even the "Nightmare on Elmstreet" sequels.

In "Inception" Leonardo Dicaprio plays Dom Cobb, a dream thief who can enter people's dreams and steal top secret information. Like his character in "Shutter Island" (which had better dream sequences) Leo is obsessed with his dead wife and longs to go home to see his kids. He's given a mission by a corporate boss to enter a rival's dream and implant false information. By completing this mission, he'll be able to go home to his kids. Dom hires an architect played by Ellen Page to create false dream worlds. Then there's his agents, who are one dimensional rip offs of characters from "The Matrix" (A far more entertaining film) For a film about dreams, you'd expect a little Fruedian sex or nudity. Oh no we don't want are dreams to go beyond a mass-marketed PG-13 rating. Or how about at least abstract surrealism or stream of consciousness dialog? Instead we have all the character's taking time out to explain everything to Hans Zimmer's overblown music. In the words of Ariadne "Wait, Who's subconscious are we going through exactly?". That's odd, a shootout on skis, "James Bond" style and Look I'm floating like in "The Matrix" (Lets not get to bizarre or fun) Maybe, I'm being critical, because I'm by no means a fan of Christopher Nolan. "Momento" and "The Dark Night" were good films, but should never be mentioned in the same breath as HItchcock or Kubrick. People really anger me comparing Inception to "Blade Runner", or "2001, A Space Odyssey". Even "Avatar" had more heart and soul than "Inception". In "Avatar", I actually cared about the characters and felt like I was in a different world. In this film how am I supposed to care for rich corporate suits who want to steal secrets. How about having an Exxon executive jumping in the dreams of a BP executive? If it's all a dream within a dream within a dream of one dimensional Hollywood characters, why should the audience care? And why take 150 mins. to tell a story, when it could of been done in less than 2 hrs.?

On one note, the special effects were impressive and the film did have great acting. I think this film could of been good if it was more colorful and dreamlike and maybe 45 mins. shorter. "Inception" fell cold and flat of having a heart and soul. Why do films now look gray, poo brown or washed out in color? Movies used to be so much brighter. Compare this film to "Suspiria" (1977), "What Dreams may Come" and "Edward Scissorhands" and you'll see what I mean. Spending $200 million dollars on a film that could of fed a 3rd world country for 10 years, is more of a nightmare than a dream. All that money spent and it still looks visually boring, artless and dull. As a person who practically makes minimum wage and lives off Ramen noodles, I watch sci-fi and fantasy films for an escape. Why would I care about a rich corporate rival who has a bad relationship with his father? Boo-hoo! In the end I felt like I was viewing the unimaginative dreams of Wall Street brokers. This is a film made by a room fool of people, rather than an artist with a vision. A mass marketed product like fast food, masquerading itself as nutrition. For this film to be in IMDb's top 5 is a joke; this is mediocre at best. People are saying that this is better than "The Wizard of Oz", "Pulp Fiction", "Blue Velvet" or Citizen Kane". I must be dreaming, no I kicked myself and this is for real.
A nightmare.
This movie is a disaster on many levels, but where it fails most miserably is at attempting to put dreams on screen. This movie is the most un-dreamy movie ever made, and as critics have said since the beginning of moving pictures, watching a movie is like dreaming with your eyes open. Colin McGinn covers this in great depth in his book "The Power of Movies", in which he discusses the spatio-temporal discontinuity in films: the camera can record a given scene and then leap to another place and time entirely. This is what movies do! Nolan treats this heavy-handed hopping about as if he's discovered something. What he's lost is the mysterious, moody, enigmatic quality of dreams, the tremendous emotional wallop. "Inception" is so detailed, so measured, with constant explication, that nothing is left to the imagination. How ironic is that? And to fill a movie about dreams with carefully designed car chases, gun battles, and mayhem of all's anti-dreaming. I've never watched a film so awake, so aware of itself, so full of itself. A hundred years from now when cultural historians look at this era of Runaway Bigism - Big Government, Big Corporations, Big Bodies! - they can use over-blown and spiritually empty films like this (and "Dark Knight") as good examples of what ruined the country. Wretched excess.
I will try not to repeat some of what others have so brilliantly written in some reviews. I just add this in order to contradict the hype that has allowed this movie to be ranked so high in IMDb. The same has been happening with other movies, and that is a shame for IMDb, which is becoming unreliable.

I want to stress the fact that the only complexity in this movie is trying to figure out how you can invest so much money in a script that continuously makes a fool of the average critic intelligent viewer! The story is not complex. It is deliberately confusing in order to conceal its stupidity. Nothing that really matters is explained in the movie.

And there's so many embarrassing clichés (the recruiting of the team, the episode in Mombassa, the assault of the ice fortress, many of the action sequences)... the average viewer must be disappointed!

And the dreams - which serve as the scenario to most of the movie - are populated by the utmost lack of imagination.

Finally, there's the score, louder and louder, building a suspense that is never there, for everything is a dream, and we do not quite catch what there is exactly that can go wrong...

Well, all in all, the movie is an insult to the average intelligent viewer and, having been directed by Christopher Nolan, an ultimate disappointment.
Inception = deception by insipid reviewers
I waited patiently to see this in my updated home theater on Blu-ray with anticipation and excitement, mainly based on the high scores given it by IMDb and the knowledge that it had everything; cast, sound, scenery, story, etc. OK, it looked impressive, it was loud enough, but after 2 ½ hours my jaw was on floor in utter amazement at how stupid people can be praising this trash - lemmings. But maybe it's explainable: The ten star reviews here are from those either involved directly in the marketing of this film or 9 year old boys using their parents credentials to praise an adolescent epic or… I suppose idiots who swallow tripe and enjoy making recommendations to others about how yummy their tripe tasted. The latter I almost doubt as the intellectually challenged might have difficulty in forming sentences and operating a computer machine so just who are these thousands of reviewers praising theatrical garbage? It absolutely has to be my first guess; Armies of trolls hired by the makers of Crapception.

I can't even get myself to offer my reasons for disliking this film as there's nothing to review but I'll try: The repetitive overlapping of scenes seemed more to me like a demo video testing the CGI production equipment. The complete absence of explanation as to how someone can actually share a dream I feel was the biggest hole, and the hole just got deeper and deeper and more deep and then deeper still resulting in probably the most shallow of scripts ever produced for that much money.

I typically like DiCaprio but the Cisco girl; Ellen Page was annoying, felt like I had a bad Juno dream during a TV commercial selling conferencing equipment and a horribly dressed adolescent was trapped in my dream spun mind. OK, that last sentence could have come straight from the writers pen of this horrible script.

Not all is lost however, a valuable lesson was learned in how I will now use IMDb. I feel I can no longer rely on the score of films here and will, instead, sort reviews by lowest rank and make my viewing decisions from there. My biggest disappointment is the watering down of what once was a great resource for movie choices: IMDb. Since I'm a movie addict I've relied on IMDb since its inception, pun intended, but with Inception's 8.7 score I now see the source data is tainted and the source unreliable. IMDb might be able to fix this by taking measures to identify the reviewers and allow us to sort by them: Kids, adults, trolls, (multiple reviews from a single IP address for example) OK, maybe it's not that easy, the WEB is fraught with mistruths and deception for insipid products and offerings so why would my favorite web site be immune from this condition? I give this film 2 stars for pretty colors and loud noises.
What a convoluted mess!
I'm not even going to waste my time writing a review, it would get lost in the "dream world" of positive reviews. Those who are making this out to be something profound or mind-boggling are also delusional.

All it is is a muddy film with tons of plot holes and slightly better-than-average special effects. I am completely amazed at the comments about this being something more than it is. "The Matrix" was far, far better, made far more sense and offered far more insight into human nature, love, etc.

Nolan has made a "cluster f__k" that must have subliminally messaging going on in some theaters cuz nobody in our theater enjoyed it very much. The acting is superb. There's one really cool scene of Paris defying gravity. Other than that there is nothing new and there is little or no logical plot line. It is just as my title says, convoluted. I'm a writer and this is the kind of stuff I delete from my novels when I begin to stray or run on.

There's one review here that understands what is going on with the people who have fallen for this nightmare... he says "There are movies for stupid people. There are movies for smart people. Then there are movies for people who like to think they're smart." He has hit the proverbial nail on the head. This is a movie a few, likely stoned college fanboys go to see, start a conversation about "what if..." and create something out of nothing. Any intelligent person begins to have serious trouble coming up with answers that truly fit the massive questions in Nolan's script. To pass it off as "well, it's all a dream" is just a cop out. The movie doesn't really work. The dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream is just a way for him to cover his mistakes.

This movie deserves a high 7 at best. In time, it will drop considerably on this site... perhaps to near #100. But that will only be due to Nolan fans. True movie buffs will never fall for this fantasy. It's ordinary storytelling and a "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" script.

Go back to schools everyone. Stop doing drugs. This is not a fine wine... it is carbonated fruit punch. And your drooling all over your shirt!
Download Inception 2010 Movie Legally: Clinton: I love to download movies Inception with this site and I am sure that this is the best film in 2010, and most importantly legally! * Lucille: Download Inception 2010 english subtitle, download Inception 2010 full movie HD, download Inception 2010 for mobile, Inception 2010 full movie download, Inception 2010 film download, Inception 2010 download MKV, download Inception 2010 MKV, download Inception 2010 BluRay 720p, Inception 2010 download AVI, Crime, Thriller, Action, Adventure, Mystery, Sci-Fi Inception 2010 trailer download. * Carrie: Well, youre funny, always movies from Christopher Nolan was super, and the film in general Inception super duper! Download Inception 2010 movie HD, download Inception 2010 full movie, download Inception 2010 full HD, download Inception 2010 full, Inception 2010 download full movie, download Inception 2010 movie. * Bridgett: Important for me to download movie legally and in MKV format other does not interest me in 2010. Inception 2010 download DVDRip, download Inception 2010 MP4, download Inception 2010 online. * Irene: I love the game artists Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Marion Cotillard, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Caine, Lukas Haas, Tai-Li Lee, Claire Geare, Magnus Nolan legally movie Inception. Download Inception 2010 BluRay, Christopher Nolan Inception 2010 download BluRay, Inception 2010 movie download, download film Inception 2010, download Inception 2010 WEBRip, Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Marion Cotillard, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Caine, Lukas Haas, Tai-Li Lee, Claire Geare, Magnus Nolan Inception 2010 download HD, download Inception 2010 DVDRip, Inception 2010 downloads, download Inception 2010 AVI, USA, Denmark Inception 2010 download link, download Inception 2010 BRRip.