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.

The A-Team: There Is No Plan B

Finally! A fresh new director in Hollywood: Joe Carnahan. Other than the little-acclaimed Smokin' Aces, this is truly a director with no sizable track record directing a movie that has what it takes to compete in the box office. In fact, compared to the average action-flick, I enjoyed A-Team quite a bit. Why? It was funny, action packed, well characterized, and all-in-all, entertaining. Sure, it might not have had the story value of Dark Knight, or the graphics of Transformers, but this was a genuine action movie. huzzah for Carnahan.

I have very few complaints about this movie, actually. The story was poor and the dialogue was strained at times, but it had some interesting twists and funny lines... enough of them to make me forgive Carnahan completely.

One of my complaints? Liam Neeson. in 2008's wonderful french film Taken, he was looking just a little to old to play the action-type, but he was supposed to be a late-middle-aged father, so I overlooked it. by 2010, he looks very much too old. Sorry, Neeson, everybody has his day. yours ended years ago.

I was, however, very happy with Quinton "Rampage" Jackson. While it's getting more and more common for professional wrestlers to try to enter the film industry, it's getting more and more rare to find one that's actually a decent actor. While Jackson might not be any Morgan Freeman, he's certainly promising, and I hope to see him in future rolls. perhaps an A-Team sequel? You can count on it.

Action movies have a bad rep as being empty and pointless. while this is usually true, sometimes there's a movie that's just good and outrageous enough to be forgiven. A-Team is one of those movies. Maybe it's a little too over-the-top, but fortunately for us, "overkill is underrated."

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

Jerry Bruckheimer. A successful, if modest, movie producer. Armageddon, Remember The Titans, Perl Harbor... BAM. Pirates of the Caribbean. Jerry Bruckheimer proved that Disney still has what it takes to make a good, successful movie. Based of a theme park attraction, none the less. And then... a TV producer? The fear of every industry professional: a career down the television drain. Sure, he had a few movies (notably Deja Vu and G-Force) since his big break, but what happened to our much loved Hollywood hero? BAM. Prince of Persia. but wait, this isn't the Bruckheimer we loved. Sure, it had action, sure it had characters, but where was the spirit? Unfortunately, Disney doesn't still have what it takes.

I'll start off by saying that the action and acrobatics of this movie were very good. And I don't mean, "there was explosions and blood," I mean the action was entertaining, thrilling, and put to good use. Actually, this movie was surprisingly blood-free.

That said, this movie was rather stereotypical and stale. not good for an action movie. The characters were completely stock, seldom lovable, and never clever or witty. strike two. While I understand how it would be difficult to create a movie off of a very old video game, the story was terrible. And I don't just mean that it was a stupid concept, I just mean that it was poorly executed and at times actually boring. And while the ending was great, I'm afraid that's strike three.

Lets go back to the characters: bluntly, this movie had some of the worst, most un-original characters I have ever seen. Typical of Disney, I know, but still, I would have expected more. Pirates of the Caribbean--while some will say was overly complicated, or to stupid--had excellent characters and an interesting story line. As I said, Disney's fallen a long way.

Some of the characters were interesting, don't get me wrong. For example, the snake trainer had a little bit of the "creepy, deformed, and dangerous" edge that many PotC characters had. Unfortunately, characters had little to nothing to do with how the movie played out. Characters were based on stereotypes: the haughty princess, the rash young prince, the greedy moneymaker, the knife thrower--we've seen these all before. As if that wasn't bad enough, the characters in the movie were completely static. sure, the princess overcame her initial detestation of the prince, but her character remained the same. and then, at the end.... back to where we started.

The story was a little lacking as well. I mean, sure, they had to adapt it from a video game, but it was still not a very good story. The ending, however, was very nice. The one thing that doesn't make sense... supposedly when the dagger is used while stabbed into the sand, it incurs the wrath of the gods. that's all very nice, but when the gods start destroying the earth, he just goes back in time to before the earth began to be destroyed. Did nobody think of that? Just a little, well... stupid. agreed?

But in the spirit of summer blockbuster action flicks, this wasn't a terrible movie. It had action, romance........ well that's about all it had, actually. but what more could you ask for? this is summer, the time for cheesy, irresponsible, knock-off action movies. As serious movie goers around the world shake their heads, the more "in it for the show" moviegoers will enjoy this movie and most likely find it entertaining. Is it the next Pirates of the Caribbean? not at all. The next GI Joe? almost. ladies and gentlemen, welcome the next Eragon.

Robin Hood: Not the hero you remember

When you hear "Robin Hood" what do you think? An outlaw who steals from the rich and gives to the poor, lives in the forest with a band of outlaws, is an extraordinarily good shot with a bow and arrow, loves Maid Marian, is a sworn enemy of the Sheriff of Nottingham, and dresses in green, perhaps? No exaggeration: NONE of these happened until the last 5 minutes of the movie. In fact, he wasn't known as "Robin of the Hood" until one of the very last lines in the movie. I'll venture to say that this is not the Robin Hood everyone loves.

I understand that this was meant to be a prequel of sorts, as at the end of the movie it says "And the story begins" or something of the sort. Nothing wrong with a prequel to a much-loved story, but, unfortunately, this wasn't a very good prequel. too bad.

I'll start with the positive: Ridley Scott did a fantastic job directing this movie. It had just the right amount of shaking, exciting camera movements and beautiful, depth-of-field "artsy" shots. I'm one to usually care, but the color correction was fantastic, as was the composition. Unfortunately, movies are more than pretty views.

What this movie had in execution, it lost in premise. The story was unclear, the characters undefined, and the conflict blurred. It made it clear that the chief adviser to the King of England was actually working for France, and that the King had to restore a nation turned against himself. That's all very nice, but what exactly does this have to do with Robin Hood? Answer: nothing. Robin Hood escapes from a battlefield, takes the crown of the dead king to his brother, tries, and then succeeds, to kill the false adviser, pretends to love, and then falls in love with Maid Marian, unites the country with a stirring speech, wins the climactic battle, and all seemingly without a motive.

As I said before, this movie had NOTHING to do with an outlaw stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Instead, it had to do with a fugitive in disguise running around with small group of friends winning battles for the King, without ever agreeing with or being recognized by the king. That's all very nice, but as I said, he had NO MOTIVE. at first, he ran from the battlefield to escape from confinement, he took the crown to the king so it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands, took a sword to Maid Marian's father because he promised his dying friend he would, fell in love with Maid Marian because he was pretending to be her dead husband (to evade taxes, may I add), won battles for the king for NO apparent reason, and was in the end outlawed for pretending to be a knight. Where's the personal conflict? there is none. he wasn't even outlawed until the very end of the movie.

Also, throughout the movie, there was a band of masked, seemingly outlawed, vagabonds that wreaked havoc on Maid Marian's storehouse. They came up throughout the movie, but never actually did anything past the opening scene. Maybe this is a setup for the sequel, but it just didn't make sense to have them throughout the movie.

About the acting.... hm.... Russel Crowe is very good at looking mournful and sad, I'll give him that, but he never had a real reason to be mournful and sad. I've said it before, but it's worth repeating that this movie had little to no personal conflict.

His father had taught him the phrase "Rise and Rise again. Until Lambs become Lions" and he found it written on his sword, but it never really had significance in the movie. There's no explanation as to what it actually means. another vague part of the movie.

Is it just me, or did Kevin Durand (Little John) grow about 2 feet taller?

Also, Robin Hood never had a defining characteristic. He wasn't a particularly good shot (as is the basic premise of the real Robin Hood story), he never stole from the rich to give to the poor (although he did steal from a church to give to his love), and he wasn't even outlawed until the very very end.

This is the kind of movie that would be good to be the first 15 minutes of the real Robin Hood story. Take for example Lord of the Rings. The very first scene when it tells how the ring came about, shows how the other races fell, and how Gollum got the ring? While this summary "could" have been made into a full-length movie as a prequel to Lord of the Rings, prior to even the Hobbit,  it doesn't merit a complete movie.  The same could be said for this movie. It is really more of the back story to Robin Hood than the actually story of Robin Hood, and while there were a lot of little things that a summary wouldn't have been able to capture, the little things could have easily and comfortably cut out. In short, this movie could have been reduced to the 15 minutes at the beginning of the real story, and it would have been very nice.

On the whole, while this movie isn't a complete waste of time (although it was a little to long), it is unfortunately unclear, undefined, and without complete definition. Why is it worth the time and money to see? it really is beautifully directed, and I think Ridley Scott would do good to direct more "artsy" movies. It has some good action, good acting, wonderful directing, but no real plot, conflict, or momentum.

Iron Man 2

Who doesn't love a good guy movie? Explosions, violence, action-while these things don't appeal to the classy type, they are staples of box-office hits. Most action movies, unfortunately, rely on only these devices to make their point. That's the bad news. The good news? Surprisingly, considering the writer (Justin Theroux) has virtually no track record as a writer (his ONLY other movie being Tropic Thunder,) Iron Man 2 actually had a decent plot.

By "decent," of course, I mean "completely unimpressive." The story itself wasn't half bad, but the dialogue was. I was sincerely hoping to hear some clever, quipping lines that the wonderful Robert Downey Jr. delivered so flawlessly in Sherlock Holmes, but I was just as sincerely disappointed. While there were some lighthearted laughs hidden in the movie, there was no chemistry between the characters. And by "no" chemistry, I mean "none at all." But not to be to harsh on Mr. Theroux, after all, it is only his second real production. Which begs the question... why on earth would Favreau hire him?

Luckily for Mr. Favreau, the writing wasn't this movie's only saving grace. While most of the actors did an average job, Downey Jr. delivered a better than expected--although quite falling short of his work in Sherlock Holmes--performance and is in my mind, the only good actor in the entire movie. What on earth happened to Terrence Howard? I thought he played his role in Iron Man 1 very well, and I was angry to see him replaced in the sequel, especially by Don Cheadle, who I thought butchered the part.

Acting aside, this movie had some wonderful graphics as well as some of the best action I've seen in a long time. Thankfully, Favreau cut down a lot of the sex and language from the first Iron Man, making this a more widely-appealing movie. Scarlett Johansson's action sequence was superb, as well as the final Iron Man vs. iron men battle.

The only flaw in the filming-particularly in the action-was how the camera stopped from time to time in order to present extended views of product placement and, lets face it, Scarlett Johansson. Favreau should have known better than to pollute his beautiful work with product placement.

Speaking of Scarlett Johansson, the biggest flaw in the plot was the Stark\Potts\Rushman love triangle. While it made it clear that Tony Stark was attracted to Rushman (as denoted when he remarked "I want one" after seeing her beat up his boxing trainer) it certainly didn't give it time to allow it to grow into anything more than physical attraction. Potts and Rushman didn't really either get along, or not get along, so there was no real definition emotionally.

In fact, almost the entire movie lacked emotional definition, as Tony never really started coping with his death, struggling with his relationships, or loosing his faith in himself. Come to think of it, there was no real emotional conflict in the entire movie. Remember what I said about Justin Theroux?

On the whole, this movie was not very impressive. The action was excellent, the graphics were what's to be expected, but the plot, acting, and dialogue (aside from Downey jr) was deplorable. If you're looking for a good time, this is your movie. If you want a content-based, character-driven movie like Dark Knight or Sherlock Holmes, I'm afraid you're going to have to keep looking.