I don't really understand the buzz about Inception. I found it very easy to follow and not all that exciting. Primer was a lot more mind bending and more interesting to boot. Inception just felt like the actors were spending the entire movie saying "look at us! This is exciting! And confusing! Now be confused!".
I don't understand people who claim it's a "mindfuck" movie. The plot is pretty straightforward and self-consistent. What it is is an extremely well put-together movie.
The runtime of that movie is 148 minutes-almost two and a half hours. Yet it doesn't feel that long. It also manages to have three different groups of characters doing separate things, without confusing the audience. The last move I can recall trying to do that level of simultaneity was The Phantom Menace, which failed horribly at that task. Therefore, I find Inception to be a very interesting movie intellectually, because I think it's fun to think about the techniques that Nolan uses to make a 2.5 hour, multithreaded movie so entertaining.
One glaring inconsistency that tripped me up for most of the "climax" of the movie was the amount of time Arthur had in "Level 2" while the van was falling...
The bridge looked to be about 100 feet up when the van started falling. It takes 2.5 seconds to fall 100 feet. So Arthur, who was one "level" down, would have had 2.5x20 seconds to figure out what's going on... come up with a plan... go back to the floor below to retrieve the charges... get back to the floor where the team is... get them wrapped up and moved to the elevator... set the charges... and finally detonate them. That took _way_ longer than 50 seconds.
Sadly, I actually did a little more research after the movie and found my estimate was even a little generous. The bridge the van was falling off was the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim Bridge in LA. Combining the published stats on the bridge with a clip from the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_4qc-JYZPo#t=17s) makes it look like the van only had ~80 feet to fall...
Your explanation reminds me of an experience I had watching Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure with an old girlfriend's roomate.
About halfway through, he started making these little dismissive groans and mumbling "no way" under his breath. They gained volume as the plot progressed until finally he couldn't take it anymore:
"No way. There's just no way they could fit that many people into a phone booth."
I actually felt the pacing of the climax was a bit messy, probably due to the time dilation, but it felt like the higher levels had little relevance. I also found the snow scene to be the weakest part of the film, probably because it was completely different from the urban environments of the rest of the film so it felt forced and jarring.
Your example of The Phantom Menace is interesting because I think the simultaneity was actually one thing that was done well in that shambles of a movie. IMO it was the poor characters and direction-less plot that failed that climax, not the editing of the different scenes.
There's a reason Inception was so popular. It was very easy to follow for just how convoluted it was. The average consumer of Hollywood just can't ever hope to follow Primer, but they followed Inception well enough to debate it, or want to see it a second or third time.
Conversely, I don't understand those who feel the need to point out that it was very straightforward, implying that those who did find it confusing perhaps weren't as intellectually capable of following the fast-action plot. It's like saying you don't understand why some people don't understand an equation just taught to them, or why someone didn't walk away fully understanding OOP after you just told it to them in the most direct way possible. This sort of plot was something most viewers likely had never experienced, so it is perfectly understandable, to me, how someone could've had difficulties following.
Apologies for the rant; I've just seen your sentiment shared here and on other similar forums, delivered in such condescending ways so as to somehow invalidate whatever entertainment any 'lay' person might've gained.
While I liked both Inception and Primer, I didn't feel that either was particularly confusing. I don't feel that Inception was designed to be a mindfuck; Primer was, but it fits nicely in the middle somewhere of that genre.
My view is probably distorted by the fact that I consume more anime than Western media - the Japanese seem to have a perverse love for making things that just don't make any sense whatsoever.
There's an official Inception game/app for iPhone. It purports to tap into your dreams, if you leave it running while you sleep.
Basically it plays a little bit of music and sound effects, and also processes external sounds and plays them backwards and stuff like that (it would pick up on you talking in your sleep). It also uses the movement and light sensors to go through different phases. There are different 'dreams' (basically sound generation algorithms) that you unlock somehow by using the app. One thing that bugs me though is, people always told me not to sleep with headphones on in case you strangle yourself, and for this app that's pretty much required.
When they said Nolan was keen on making a groundbreaking game, I really wasn't expecting this.
When I can't sleep, I need to listen to music to sleep. My wife needs absolute silence. So I always put on my headphones. I've been doing this for a few months now and the most that's happened is I've pulled the earphones out of my iPhone as I tossed & turned.
However, I don't think you can strangle yourself with headphones while you sleep. I imagine the force needed to do it is stronger than what you'll face from tossing & turning. I wasn't able to find any info on this anywhere either though, so don't quote me on that - but it strikes me as unlikely, at least in my own experience.
To each his own, didn't do it for me though.