Inception

Everybody loves a good "thinking movie." From the reality-bending conclusions of movies such as Shyamalan's "Sixth Sense" or  Scorsese's "Shutter Island" to the psychological torture of Nolan's "The Dark Knight" or Kubric's acclaimed classic "A Clockwork Orange," to the familiarly bent reality of Fincher's "Fight Club"--people love to think at the movies. More than to think, people love to understand something new after a movie. While mindless films such as Transformers or Avatar grab sizable portions of the box office, who can ignore the legacy of what is generally agreed to be a "good" movie; a movie that lingers in the viewers mind, that can be reflected on and admired long after leaving the theater. What people love is ingenuity. "Inception" literally means "a beginning" or "the start of a new idea", and a new idea is what it delivers. Without question, Nolan has lived up to his golden reputation once again.

In fact, this is a movie in which I found very few flaws. Nolan directs enchantingly and magnificently, if not in the "high-art" style many similarly acclaimed movies share. DiCaprio delivered one of his better performances, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Peacock) was very nearly flawless in his role. The one real problem I had with the acting was the relationship between Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Eames (Tom Hardy.) While Nolan obviously tried to create a sort of teasing witty rivalry between the two, it wasn't pushed enough to become secure. The result was a half-hearted chemistry that was neither convincing, or added to the movie.

Now for the story...  It was an enchanting and clever story, but was slightly flawed. The genius of this movie lies in the fact that it pleases the audience by showing them something new and makes them think they understand it, while at the same time, it leaves enough open-ended and unanswered questions to leave them wanting to come back and experience it again. It's flaw lied in the fact that there were so many unanswered questions. For instance, the very first scene in the movie showed Cobb (DiCaprio) washed up on a beach. He's taken to the home of a very old man, where he proceeds to try to steal a secret from a younger man's safe. At the end of the movie, he goes back to the exact same scenario, is taken to the house of the very same old man, but this time, the old man IS the younger man, grown up. so who's the old man the first time? It's the questions like these that brings the audience back to see this film again and again, but no matter how many times they see it, the question will never be answered. But even though I have pointed it out as a "flaw," perhaps it is really a clever device... after all, it DOES accomplish great things for the movie.

Visually, this movie was striking, but not quite all it could have been. The slow-motion bits were nice, but could have undoubtedly been better. Without giving too much away, by the climax of the film, there were 4 or 5 levels of reality, each one of which were relatively 20 times slower than the level before it. so a minute in one level could be as long as over 100 years in another level. this leads to some wonderful level-jumping slow-motion shots, but were never pushed as far as they could have been, never going more than 2 levels in either direction. Additionally, the visual spectacle of the film wasn't exercised enough. While it was a wonderful story with occasional striking imagery, it was never as visually spectacular as it could have been.

As I've mentioned above, the story was really the strong point of the film. However, the dialogue left much to be wanted. Nolan certainly wouldn't have hurt anything to have brought someone else in to polish the screenplay, maybe insert some clever lines, and add a bit of charisma to the characters. It's the dialogue that makes movies like Richie's "Sherlock Holmes" tick, and Inception could have greatly benefited from it.

But after all, this is all nitpicking. On the whole, this was a highly-entertaining, intellectually provocative, visually mesmerizing (if not striking), film. While it may not be life-shattering or world-changing, it is easily one of the best films of the year, very nearly living up to it's "perfect movie" reputation. I would give it a 9.5/10, and plan on seeing it again when it is released on DVD

Knight and Day

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a wonder beyond your wildest dreams; a spectacle the likes of which your eyes have never before witnessed; a marvel of the modern world; an unparalleled treasure to which you will never find an equal. I present to you: a Hollywood action movie with little-acclaimed, and slightly outdated actors, an un-notable director, with a slightly familiar story with a not-too-radical twist. Yes, we live in a day when run-off-the-mill action movies are not only a dime a dozen, but also disproportionally sensationalized, all for the sake of making as much money as possible out of apathetic, easy-to-please audiences with low standards, and apparently too much money in their pocket. Fortunately, Knight and Day exceeded my expectations, which were, unfortunately, very low.

It's a difficult thing to not clump "action" movies--or any genre for that matter--together, but Knight and Day was a movie that, in fact, although outwardly fitting the above description of an average, mind-numbing action movie, surprises the viewer into enjoying it. Although this wasn't a movie that makes one think, it certainly forces one to pay attention. If the viewer goes to see this movie and merely sits down to take it in, a majority of it's beauties and foreshadowings will be missed, and consequentially not enjoyed. The more the viewer actively observes, the more he takes away, and the more he enjoys. I'm afraid this movie entirely passes up the typical audience, hence it's unpopular reception at the box-office.

So what about this movie makes it tick? We all know Tom Cruise has outstayed his welcome in Hollywood, Cameron Diaz is too much the Hollywood veteran to be a carrying star, and James Marigold has enjoyed little to no acknowledgment as a director, plus anyone can see that the typical "killing machine" intrigue has worn off through movies such as the Bourne trilogy, and a romantic action twist just doesn't cut it any more. However, all of these components fit together masterfully to create a movie that not only stands out, but shines when given the attention it deserves. Although alone, no particular part of this movie stands out, each piece works together for the greater good of the movie.

If I had to pick one thing about the modern movie that not so much bothers, but annoys me the most, I would say it was bad running jokes. By "running jokes" I mean a joke, a line, or a sequence that's brought up early in the movie, that's repeated late in the movie for romantic, comedic, or dramatic effect. When used incorrectly, these can ruin a perfectly good evening. It was truly a relief to be pleasantly surprised by a good running joke. Kudos' to Patrick O'Neil, this being his first job screenwriting for a movie.

Does anybody else think that Jordi Molla, the actor who played Antonio, looks strikingly like Russel Crowe, star of Marigold's last film, 3:10 to Yuma? coincidence? hm....

Also, it would be nice to see Maggie Grace of "Lost" and "Taken" in more serious roles.

On the whole, I give Knight and Day an 8/10, being a film that I not only enjoyed, but would like to see again. although I am no fan of either Cruise or Diaz, this was a nice escape from the realities of real life, as well as of Hollywood's infamous factory-line sludge.

How To Train Your Dragon:

Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King--I think you would agree: these are good films for any writer to have under his belt. Meet Chris Sanders, former Disney bigwig turned Dreamworks director, who is, I believe, the first in a prospectively bright line of Dreamworks directors. Why so hopeful? Writer/director Sanders, along with fellow Mulan and Lilo and Stich co-director Dean DeBlois, have managed to breath life into a lifeless genre: the Paramont Sludge. and what, exactly, do I mean by "Paramont Sludge"? Monsters vs. Aliens... Madagascar 2... Bee Movie... Over The Hedge... need I go on? while none of these were terrible movies, I think that movie-goers and critics can agree that these are far from meeting Pixar's high-caliber entertainment standards. Up, WALL-E, Ratatouille, Toy Story, Finding Nemo--Pixar is known for it's family-oriented entertainment with heart; far-fetched stories with spirit.

So why have Sanders and DeBlois restored my faith in non-Pixar animation? Without trying to compete with Paramont's classical "big name" voicing, they chose a very nearly perfect cast: upcoming comedy icons, action stars turned fledgling mainstream actors, late-night television hosts, and, most importantly, Jay Baruchel, the little-known actor voicing the movies main character, Hiccup. although many may grudge him for his lead in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, he delivered excellently under 3D animation's rock-bottom standards.

Now to cut to the core: Hollywood doesn't know how to end a good movie. Happy-go-lucky, "all's well that end's well" endings just don't cut it, and Sander's realizes this. Unlike most live-action movies, and virtually every animated film, this was a movie that, when it's all said and done, made me feel connected to the characters in a way most movies cannot. To have the protagonist(s) abused, disregarded, redeemed, loved, idealized, de-throned, expiated, victorious, defeated, resurrected, and ultimately immortalized and cherished, was entirely ideal. For once, I not only felt the character's presence, but his heart. If anything, that is what mainstream Hollywood just hasn't learned to grasp.

On a side note, Gerard Butler rocks.

Was it the best movie ever? no. the best animated movie? not quite, but even if this film isn't 3D animation's saving grace, it is, at least, proof that it's headed in the right direction. Hats off to you, Sanders.