I'm beginning to wonder if Style Weekly has decided to create its own version of former Richmond Times-Dispatch movie reviewer Daniel Neman (“Dream Weavers,” Arts & Culture, July 21)? It seems that quite a few recent movies have not passed Wayne Melton's test, and Christopher Nolan's “Inception” is his latest victim. This coming from the same man who gave the mindless action film “Knight and Day” two stars, the same as “Inception.”

It appears that we live in an age where everyone wants things to make sense and criticize others when they create something that cannot be explained. Nolan has done what no one else has done before and put a dream on film without the inevitable clichAc of having the character wake up at the end of the movie and say, “It was all a dream.”

Nolan created a movie that should make most people think, and that doesn't mean it has the appearance of a thinking-person's movie. The realm of dreams is one that few, if any, people actually understand. The depth of human subconscious is grand, and Nolan gives a view of a few grains of sand on an endless beach. If the movie had tried to explain all its “technobabble,” then all it would have been was one long explanation. I have talked to many people about this movie and they agree when I said it felt like a dream because of the fact that the pace was erratic. You aren't supposed to understand all of it because the fun thing about the movie is thinking about its vast possibilities. If you showed me a person who claimed to always have lucid dreams that he or she fully comprehended then I would call that person a liar.

I think the main problem is people like to criticize Nolan because deep down they are jealous of his ability. He is able to take movies that would be garbage in the hands of most directors and create an entertaining film. If Melton thinks a person needs to have a grasp on reality to create compelling fantasy, or what he considers to be a thinking-person's movie, then perhaps he and Neman should write reviews together. Movies are an escape from reality, and it is obvious that Melton wants to join the ranks of reviewers who don't want to embrace the imaginary world that cinema brings to life.

Stephen Bury
Richmond