There's a lot to like about Christopher Nolan's "Inception". There's some thrilling action, some spectacular visuals, and some occasionally clever dialogue. There's also some problems with Christopher Nolan's "Inception". The characters are mostly underwritten, the premise takes some work to buy into, and it's probably a good half-hour longer than it should be.

I liked it, with some effort, but I won't think any less of you if you don't. There's a fairly cool opening action sequence, but after that the film descends into a good hour or so of exposition that bogs down enough that it stands to alienate a good chunk of the audience.

The biggest problem with the movie (aside from the mostly-flat characters) is that the dream sequences aren't particularly "dreamy". The odd strange thing happens, sure, but there's a logic and structure to these dreams that I've never encountered in my own personal dreams. I was prepared to put a little work into my suspension of disbelief, but those flat characters don't make it any easier. This movie never engaged me to the point where I forgot I was watching a movie.

It isn't a bad story, though. Nolan doesn't leave any nagging loose ends in his script, and if you've put in that effort to maintain your own suspension of disbelief up to, say, the 80 minute mark, you will be rewarded with a rather slick, multi-layered narrative and a pretty satisfying ending. But if you don't put in that effort, you're likely to find the whole thing to be kind of overwrought and tedious.

As I say, I liked it, but it's far from being Christopher Nolan's "masterpiece" as some critics have hailed it. "Memento" was smarter, sharper, and infinitely more involving. And, yes, "The Dark Knight" was far more engaging, too.

"Inception" is probably worth seeing in a theatre if only for the visuals and the action sequences. Park your brain at the door, and try not to expect too much, and you might stand a chance of liking it as much as I did.