Filmmakers and audiences have long been intrigued with films that dare to play “mind games,” manipulating us through hypnosis or drugs, through mental illness or rogue computers, through sleep or lack thereof.

The joy for fans of the genre is in the illusion of reality—our perceptions can be thoroughly hoodwinked (as all basic rules of physics and sensibility are tossed out a cinematic window) and we allow any skilled filmmaker to whisk us to the brink of our sanity.

The problem, for most of us deeply rooted in reality, is we’re not so easily convinced. When an illusion is truncated or badly rendered, we snap back to our familiar grounding with a start then ridicule a film for an “incomplete ride.” In other words, playing mind games with an audience is no easy feat.

Director Christopher Nolan has given us perhaps one of the best “mind game” efforts in a good while—and I say perhaps because some won’t buy the notion or the resolution. Frankly, I can forgive them their pessimism.

“Inception” can be confusing if you’re unwilling to accept a few basic premises.

In Nolan’s vision, Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, a dream weaver of sorts, a man with the ability to manipulate your dreams and steal whatever secrets they may hold.

It’s basically a cops-androbbers type thriller that takes place out of state—out of the state of consciousness, that is. Its agenda is surprisingly simple (for genre fans): By manipulating dreams to such an extent—by implanting himself within a dream existing within a dream existing within a dream—can Cobb run free through his victim’s psyche (and the audience’s)? Can he suspend disbelief to such a degree that we’re willing to play along with whatever scenario he creates for us?

Simple . . . and yet not so simple.

The genre has its gems, of course: Hitchcock’s “Spellbound” in ’45 and the brilliant “Mirage” (1965); “The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T”—a truly odd film written by Theodor Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss); “Dark City,” “What Dreams May Come” and “The Cell”; “Pi” and “Nightmare on Elm Street” and, for that matter, “The Wizard of Oz.”

It’s fair to say that “Inception” could have borrowed ideas from some or all of the above films. But filmmakers have been pushing those edgy psychological buttons for a long while now, and I also think it’s fair to say that director Nolan manages to stretch the envelope quite nicely on his own. Yes, it’s an intriguing and thrilling journey. But only if you’re willing to play along.

If you can’t sit back and enjoy the boundaries of this specific ride, I doubt you’ll enjoy the terrain. “Inception” may be simple in plot, but it’s complicated in its manipulation, in juggling our well-grounded perceptions. It’s a film that demands attention, and if you miss certain nuances, you’ll be lost.

It’s okay, by the way, to get somewhat lost in this one. I suspect Nolan hopes we lose enough to snap back to attention more than once or twice. He throws in a reality check every now and then (doesn’t he?). In that regard, I think the film works quite well.

Since “Inception” takes place mostly inside certain folks’ heads (doesn’t it?), I think the less you’re told about its content, the better. Ever attempt to explain a dream to someone else? Uh uh, it doesn’t work. However, if you’re comfortable with films like “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” or “The Matrix” (both near-perfect efforts, I believe), then I think you may be enthralled— even exhilarated— with “Inception.”

My only concern—my simple question—is whether the plot holds up to the rollercoaster ride that leads us to our ultimate destination.

It’s a legitimate question, one worth pondering (especially with friends in some darkly lit pub for hours after the film). Personally, I don’t have an answer to that question yet, and I suspect this bodes well for the film’s destiny.

Will you love it? Will you hate it? I don’t know.

Reality, after all, is in the mind of the beholder.