The irony is for all he calls out Inception for its obvious use of theme, plot, and generic uncreative dreams, he seemingly missed the fundamental things Nolan tried to achieve in the film. We all know it's got enough exposition for my grandma to understand it, but that's high-school grade criticism. Doesn't he, or others for that matter, realize Nolan chose to make so much of the dreams realistic so when there are incredibly surreal things, your brain doesn't even register them as surreal...exactly. It makes the normal abnormal and the abnormal normal. It's a clever trick, one somehow ignored or missed by many.
It's also a bogus ignorance on the part of Ager to not realize the many parallels between Inception and Solaris, and how both films are more interested in faith, reality, and the human spirit than the nature of dreams themselves. This is made evident by constantly critiquing the dream-logic of the film to be more like Cronenberg instead of talking about why the film functions the way it does and evaluating whether that gets the points across in the best way possible. He also fails to understand that even with all that expository dialogue, most audiences struggled to follow the ins and outs of the story. If there was much less exposition, it may have alienated a potentially big portion of the intended demographic.
I love this guy, but he reaches more than he doesn't, and after this video his arms must be tired.
-Vader