Inception

I honestly can’t remember the last time I saw a movie in the theater twice on its opening weekend.  I hadn’t planned on seeing Inception again so shortly after my initial viewing, but the film demanded it.  I didn’t go back in an angry effort to grasp specific plot points, though I did have a few lingering questions.  I returned to the cinema to have a second experience - to feel the excitement and depth of Christopher Nolan’s vision wash over me once more.  The complexity of the story will frustrate some, but for those who value mind-stretching entertainment, Inception is nothing short of miraculous.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, a skilled thief who specializes in Extraction: the stealing of information from someone’s mind.  Once the subject is asleep, Cobb uses a machine to enter the subject’s subconscious and extract the sensitive information.  Because of his criminal record, Cobb can’t return to the United States to be with his children, but a mysterious businessman named Saito (Ken Watanabe) offers Cobb a chance for redemption.  Saito has the power to wash Cobb’s slate clean, but only if Cobb can pull off the impossible: Inception, which involves the planting of information.  Instead of stealing an idea from the subject’s mind, Cobb has to plant one so that when the subject awakes, he will believe the idea to genuinely be his.

Inception has many elements of the heist/caper genre but puts new twists on all of them.  Even the film’s broadest plot summary contains a new idea: a team of thieves devises an elaborate plot to break into a safe and put something in it.  The basics of the plot aren’t too complex, but the details have phenomenal depth.  What makes Inception such a brilliant script is the way Nolan guides you through the labyrinth.  After seeing the film, you couldn’t explain the full plot to someone in a way that would make sense, but it does make sense to you while you’re watching it.

The longer you ponder the specifics afterwards, the more questions you’ll have, but again, Nolan strikes a remarkable balance by weaving a story that is deep and intriguing but not abstract or frustrating.  This film won’t agitate audiences in the same way as David Lynch’s movies (I personally love Lynch’s movies, but I sympathize with those who don’t); with Inception, you can sense that the answers really are there if you take the time to look for them.  I think most viewers will want to unravel the mystery, as it’s such a fascinating story.  I couldn’t think or talk about much else for days after seeing it, which means that Christopher Nolan successfully planted a few ideas in my head.

As far as action sequences go, Inception features some show-stoppers.  Inside of a dream, almost anything goes, and most of the dream sequences left me breathlessly wondering how they were even filmed.  The grandest of all comes when the dreamers’ physical bodies are asleep in the back of a moving van, but in the dream, they’re in a hotel.  When the van breaks through a guardrail and rolls down a hill, the gravity in the hotel shifts as if the entire building were rolling.  Two men battle their way around the walls, floor, and ceiling of a hotel hallway as their unconscious bodies lie in the rolling van. Scene after scene, Inception soars on the wings of the new, providing that special thrill that only comes with something you’ve never seen before.

DiCaprio turns in a solid performance, proving himself yet again to be one of the finest actors of his generation. While the entire ensemble delivers, the most notable performances come from Tom Hardy as Eames, the Forger who can alter his appearance within dreams, Ellen Page (Juno) as Ariadne, the Architect who designs the physical layouts of the dreams, and Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose) as Mal, the memory of Cobb’s wife who haunts him at every turn. Not a single performance comes up short, which reflects not only on the talent of the cast but on the quality of Nolan’s writing and direction; he brings out the best in his actors.

Inception’s final moments will live on forever in the annals of classic endings, inspiring eternal discussion and debate. I’ll dare not describe the ending here, but even if I did, it wouldn’t make any sense out of context. It’s the perfect light at the end of a 148-minute maze, and it leaves just enough open to interpretation. When the credits rolled the second time, I had a different take on the story than when I first saw it. My opinion of the ending shifts depending on what mood I’m in, but having thought through all the complex details more than once, I can’t find a problem with either interpretation of the ending. That’s part of what makes this vast structure so remarkable; I’ve thought about it for days, and I can’t find a single flaw in it.

Inception is Nolan’s first film since The Dark Knight, one of the most successful films of all time, and I admire how he chose to follow up his greatest box office success with such a rich, challenging project. Inception has a lot in common with Nolan’s original masterpiece, Memento (2000). Both films use unconventional storytelling (half of Memento unfolds in reverse order) to address the battle between reality and self-deception. How do we know what we know, and what do we ultimately value the most: truth or our own happiness? Not since The Matrix (1999) has a film so masterfully blended action and philosophy, but while the two films may share some common themes, Inception is very much its own experience. Many are calling Inception Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece, though multiple films could be nominated in that category. For years, I referred to Christopher Nolan as “the guy who made Memento.” Most moviegoers know him as “the guy who made Batman Begins and The Dark Knight,” but after this, many will know him as “the guy who made Inception.” Honestly, the name of Christopher Nolan deserves to be a household name, because he’s made some of the greatest films of the last decade. He first amazed me ten years ago with Memento, one of the most perfect thrillers I’ve ever seen; Inception is another.


Click here to view the trailer.

For the Parents:

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of violence and action throughout.

Inception doesn’t get too graphic in its action or violence, but it does deal with very mature themes, including suicide. The biggest issue for younger viewers would be pure confusion; most kids would have no idea what was going on. Heck, many parents won’t know what’s going on. Given the darkness and complexity of the story, I definitely wouldn’t recommend Inception for preteens, and teenagers should be prepared to put their thinking caps on and pay attention.

Toy Story 3

I wrote a piece last year calling Toy Story (1995) as important to film history as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1938). Traditional animation and computer animation were both introduced into theaters by Disney (though the in-house team at Pixar Animation, with whom Disney wisely partnered, was mostly responsible for Toy Story’s success), and neither medium could have asked for a better debut. Pixar has released ten great films (most of which I can comfortably label “masterpieces”) over the last fifteen years, and they now return to their roots for their eleventh feature: Toy Story 3. Toy Story 2 was noticeably more sentimental than its predecessor, and Toy Story 3 marks a much higher level of heartfelt tear-jerkery. Pixar has delivered the goods yet again and given their most beloved characters a truly grand send off.

As seventeen-year-old Andy prepares to leave for college, his toys worry about what the future holds for them. Woody (Tom Hanks) tries his best to convince the gang that they should retire to the attic in case Andy ever has kids of his own, though Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) sides with the majority’s idea of going to a daycare and being there for other children. The toys soon find Sunnyside Daycare less appealing than they had hoped, though they know deep down that they no longer have a place with Andy, either. Their journey confronts each of them with various questions of purpose, self-worth, how to let go, and the value of sticking together.

Toy Story 3 has a good deal of humor, but the overarching themes carry much more weight than the first two pictures. Toy Story 2 has the best balance of humor and sentiment, and to me is the best of the trilogy, but I don’t fault Pixar for tipping the scales on this last chapter. Goodbyes deserve to be rich and heartfelt, and Pixar summons phenomenal depth and emotion in this story about plastic characters. There’s one scene in particular that I’ll not dare describe except to say that it’s largely devoid of dialogue, meaning the animators provided the acting. As the toys looked into each others’ eyes and took each others’ hands, I could scarcely believe the power and poignancy of it.

On the humorous side, Pixar rolls out some gems, most notably the addition of Barbie’s famous beau, Ken (Michael Keaton). Ken’s personality absolutely nails the strangeness of representing the masculine ideal while ultimately being a girls’ toy. Other great laughs come when Mr. Potato Head inserts his parts and appendages into something other than his potato body and when Buzz Lightyear gets reset and wakes up speaking Spanish.

The quality of animation has improved with each Toy Story picture, but not too much. Because humans usually came off looking creepy in the early days of computer animation (they often still do), plastic toys were the perfect subject matter for Pixar’s first film. Even though the medium has greatly advanced since 1995, the toy characters still look the same, and that’s important. All the way around, there’s a remarkable cohesion throughout this trilogy, largely impressive because the first film wasn’t made with sequels in mind. Unplanned Hollywood sequels usually fail to recapture the hard-to-identify ingredient that made the first film popular. Toy Story 2 was originally slated for a straight-to-video release, but the storytellers at Pixar realized the unusually high quality of what they had. Toy Story 2 ended well enough that a third wasn’t completely necessary; Toy Story 3 could have easily been just an excuse to revisit familiar territory, but Pixar put the story and characters first. Instead of asking how they could stretch Toy Story’s success across two more films, Pixar asked if they had stories to justify those films. If only every studio were as responsible.

Coming on the heels of such heavy pictures as WALL•E and Up, I thought Toy Story 3 would mark a return to the light-hearted humor of old; boy, was I wrong. The subject matter of the series has grown up along with its viewership. The kids who saw the original in 1995 aren’t kids anymore, and though Toy Story fans of all ages will enjoy Toy Story 3, I feel like this film was made especially for those young adults who remember being awed by the original. I hope Toy Story 3 is the end of the road for these characters, because the journey ends exactly as it should (though I admit that I felt the same way about Toy Story 2). It’s a story about growing up, letting go, and the enduring power of friendship. Most everyone will love it, but while kids will mostly connect with the adventure and humor, parents would do well to take some tissues.

Note:

I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D and found that the 3D effect added little to the experience. I thought 3D was used very well in Up (and even in last year’s 3D re-release of Toy Story and Toy Story 2), but you might as well save the extra bucks this time around and see Toy Story 3 in a traditional format.

Also, Pixar continues its charming tradition of showing an animated short film before the movie, and this year’s Pixar short is one of the best they’ve ever done. It’s called Day & Night, and it wouldn’t even make sense if I tried to describe it here. Just trust me; it’s an incredibly innovative, heartwarming short, and it reaffirms Pixar’s greatness before Toy Story 3 even starts.


Click here to view the trailer.

For the Parents:

MPAA Rating: Rated G

There’s some suspense and peril here but nothing to worry about. Kids will totally eat this up, and so will you.

Iron Man 2

Iron Man caught me (and pretty much everyone else) off guard in 2008 with its character-driven story and with the depth of its themes. I’ll get the initial disappointment out of the way in reporting that Iron Man 2 isn’t as strong as its predecessor, though I’m glad to say that it does retain just enough of what made Iron Man special. Through charming performances and quality action, this sequel makes for a fun, albeit flawed, Summer movie.

The whole world knows that billionaire Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is Iron Man, and that hasn’t improved his ego any. Stark struggles to keep his hectic life balanced while fending off the US Government’s efforts to confiscate his Iron Man technology. “I did you a big favor,” says Stark. “I’ve successfully privatized world peace.” He also quietly seeks a solution to his newfound health problems, as the paladium-powered arc reactor in his chest is slowly killing him. On the other side of the world, Russian physicist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) plots revenge against Stark for what Stark Industries did to his family years ago.

Iron Man 2 doesn’t have the focus or purpose of the original, and there’s nothing here to match Tony Stark’s character-arc in the first film. Still, Robert Downey Jr. has fun playing this role, and all returning actors match the quality of their previous performances (Don Cheadle does a fine job filling in for Terrance Howard in the role of James Rhodes). Quality performances help keep Iron Man 2 from crashing, but the story feels much more scattered and spread out. Whereas Iron Man followed one man’s journey of personal growth, Iron Man 2 hops rapidly from one story thread to the next.

Iron Man 2 is more action-heavy than the original, but the action is top-notch. I felt that Iron Man lost its way a bit during its final action sequence, but the blow-em-up last act of Iron Man 2 injects some much needed payoff at just the right time. Iron Man 2 grounds its action the same way that Iron Man did: through shots of the actors faces inside their helmets, thus allowing the performances of Robert Downey Jr. and Don Cheadle to shine through the computer-generated mayhem. Scarlett Johannson’s character doesn’t amount to much more than eye candy for most of the picture, but even she gets her satisfactory share of the action-packed finale.

Mickey Rourke’s Ivan Vanko isn’t particularly interesting, and the other main villain, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), alternates between being amusing and annoying. The villains at least represent intriguing story concepts, though the concepts were never fully developed. While Tony Stark claims to have saved the world, Vanko still suffers because of Stark Industries’ previous mistakes. Stark’s change of heart doesn’t magically undo all the sins of his past. Justin Hammer is one of Stark’s competitors in the world of weapons manufacturing, and he does whatever he can to pirate Stark’s technology and one-up him in the court of public opinion. These pieces are the blueprints for a strong sequel, though the finished product leaves a fair amount of storytelling potential untapped.

Iron Man 2 lacks the character development of Iron Man, and as far as villains go, Mickey Rourke’s Ivan Vanko doesn’t come close to matching Jeff Bridges’ Obadiah Stane. Still, Tony Stark’s mix of social justice and unhinged narcissism remains unique, and the movie has just enough quality in its action and performances to offset its sometimes awkward mix of humor and melodrama. The screenplay for the original Iron Man was penned by the Oscar-nominated writers of Children of Men (2006), whereas Iron Man 2 was written by the fellow who gave us Tropic Thunder (2008). Perhaps the original writing team can return for Iron Man 3; this second installment isn’t bad, but it could take a few pointers from its high-flying predecessor.


Click here to view the trailer.

For the Parents:

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, and some language.

It’s not bloody, but the action does get intense; lots of bullets and explosions. Scarlett Johannson has an extended martial arts bit, but again, it’s not graphic. The language remains on the mild end. The action isn’t anywhere near as real or effective as in the original Iron Man, so if your kids have seen the first, they’ll be fine for this one.

Reviews Published in the Nashville Scene!

First of all, I apologize for not posting this sooner. I've been without Internet for a while, and I'm just now catching up on my online correspondence.

I'm thrilled to announce that I recently had two short pieces published in the 2010 Nashville Film Festival Issue of the Nashville Scene! I reviewed two of the movies at this year's Nashville Film Festival: Snow and Ashes and Waiting for Forever. Both movies were interesting, and it was a real thrill to get to prescreen those movies and get some writing published for the Scene. The Festival Issue came out looking great, and I was beyond honored to be a part of it.

You can read the pieces online via the link below; just scroll down and read the capsules for Snow and Ashes and Waiting for Forever.

Dee's Nashville Scene Reviews

This marks the first (but hopefully not last) time that I've had movie reviews published since graduating from college. I'm absolutely thrilled!

Shutter Island

Martin Scorsese has made so many masterpieces that his name now carries overwhelming expectations. Shutter Island isn’t just a picture; it’s a Martin Scorsese picture. Fans of Scorsese’s gritty art house films may not warm to his having “stooped” so low as to do a common thriller, but c’mon; having already given the world Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas, the man can do whatever he wants. Shutter Island isn’t a masterpiece, nor is it even great, but is what it set out to be: a richly atmospheric, entertaining thriller.

Leonardo DiCaprio (who has replaced Bobby De Niro as Scorsese’s “put him in every film” actor) plays Teddy Daniels, a U.S. Marshal called to investigate a situation at the Ashecliffe Mental Hospital on Shutter Island. One of the hospital’s most dangerous patients, Rachel Solando, has mysteriously gone missing from her ultra-secure cell. Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), the head of the hospital, says, “It’s as though she evaporated straight through the walls.” Teddy struggles to piece together the mystery, all the while fearing that the hospital may be keeping some very dark, inhumane secrets.

I commend the marketing department for Shutter Island; I had seen all the trailers going in, but the story wasn’t at all what I expected. The plot kept me guessing, so much so that even after the ultimate revelation towards the film’s end, I suspected that there might still be one last twist. Shutter Island depends on its surprises, and once all of the pieces are finally in place, the result is satisfactory. The Sixth Sense stands as the grand example of an already great film made greater by its final twist, but Shutter Island relies more heavily on its secrets. I enjoyed the majority of the experience, but throughout I was banking on the film’s last act and would have been sorely disappointed if it hadn’t delivered.

The eerie suspense-genre setting is almost too thick. Overbearing music, foggy coastlines, driving rain, creepy mental patients ... it all works, but Scorsese turns up the dial a bit too high at times. As it turns out, the overstated sense of dread has a purpose as the film’s final act makes the dense atmosphere more fitting and relevant, but the heavy-handed descent into creepiness is off-putting at first.

Despite a few moments of graphic violence, Shutter Island is far more of a thriller than a horror movie. It’s not out to scare you so much as intrigue you - to put you in Teddy’s shoes and make you wonder just what the heck is going on. I haven’t read Dennis Lehane’s original novel, though I would guess that the tone and pacing are more even than in the film. Having seen the film version and thought on it for while, I think Shutter Island would be a more rewarding experience the second time around. I suspect it would feel much more cohesive with all the pieces in place from the start.

Shutter Island won’t be remembered as one of Scorsese’s best, but that’s OK. It’s a thought-provoking thriller with strong atmosphere, rewarding plot twists, and good performances. Martin Scorsese has directed a solid string of masterpieces over the last ten years, so good for him for taking a break and delivering some good old-fashioned, spooky fun. If you’re still upset that he strayed from his normal territory, take another look at his filmography; you’ll find that he’s earned it.


Click here to view the trailer.

For the Parents:

MPAA Rating: Rated R for disturbing violent content, language, and some nudity.

Children would be frightened and with good reason; Shutter Island contains plenty of creepy stuff. For teenagers, it depends. I reiterate that Shutter Island isn’t a horror film, though there are a few moments of graphic, bloody violence, so I would recommend caution to all those bothered by scary/violent imagery.