>>Has anyone seen Inception?
>>
>
>We all shouted at the end, when they cut away from the spinning top when it was about to tip over.... did it, or didn't it ??? Is it real, or is it a dream???

Ah, the ambiguous ending from the sixties is back... no vengeance.

But this is not ambiguous. He doesn't wait to see whether the top will fall or not, he goes to see his kids, who are about zero minutes older than he remembers them, have the same sunshine on them and generally are still in that same scene as any other time they are in the movie. The scene of spinning was cut not to leave the end ambiguous, but because it had to be cut somewhere. Following the logic of the movie, it could last hours.

Somehow the lucid dream defenses just had to be an endless string of expendable bodyguards, not a simple reminder that you are in a dream. But such a reminder won't give reason for the extra thirty minutes of fight scenes.

The actual flaw in the logic is the very attempt to make a movie which happens in a dream, and yet it behaves like a movie, with just a few bits of unreality inserted. These few token properties don't make it a dream yet, it's still obliging to the logic of a movie: the unity of place, time and happening. This is an action movie, happening in a space in a space in a space, which is, for the duration of the plot, called a dream but it is not. It's too consistent, too logical, and the logic is more that of Hollywood, of plot progression, than that of either a dream or anything SF. And, besides, the plot is a mcguffin - the quest to get the young heir to defect is only a plot device to get the main guy to deal with his dead wife.

All in all, nice, well done, a nice caper. I may even watch it again, though I think it won't be the same pleasure - the flaws in the logic won't be covered by the effort to follow the plot (which I didn't mind, as it made it less predictable).