A few weeks ago, I had one of the best weekends at the theater ever. Because it was my own double feature, it beats out the weekend last year when I went to see "Star Trek." I rushed home, eager to blog away with my thoughts. But "Inception" was the kind of movie I just had to see again. This is high praise, since I have never seen a movie in theaters twice. That is, until today. I just came back from my second viewing of "Inception." I didn't plan for it to be weeks after the first time, but life got in the way, so I figured better late than never!
"Toy Story 3"
The trailers: I wasn't too invested since they were all for children's movies. Still, they weren't horrendously awful in that they make me fear for the downfall of mankind.
"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" - I didn't realize they were continuing the franchise. Up until this moment, I hadn't heard a thing about "Chronicles of Narnia" since the last one. After I watched the first movie on TV a few months back, I knew I had missed the boat for this franchise. I never read the books and I just did not care for the movie. I am very confused about how the kids keep getting into and out of Narnia via different means. Wardrobe? Painting? Train station? Stargate?
"Tangled" - the new Disney movie about Rapunzel, with a modern twist, it seems. I didn't notice during the trailer, but apparently Zachary Levi is one of the lead voice actors. Huh. It looks like they somehow smushed together Robin Hood and Rapunzel. Not sure why, though.
"Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole" - this is another film that I imagine is based on some children's fantasy book series I missed. Mainly because one of my friends at the showing, who is a children's fantasy novel expert, knew exactly what this strange owl movie was. I was just trying to place the lead owl's voice, which is Jim Sturgess. He has a very nice voice, especially when it's coming out of a cute furry owl.
The Pixar short: I didn't realize they even still did these, as the last animated film I saw in theaters was probably "Monsters Inc." But I'm glad to see they still do, because I really enjoyed "Day & Night." It complimented the film nicely with themes of togetherness and celebrating differences while recognizing similarities.
The film: Let me tell you, I had some high hopes for this movie. Rotten Tomatoes had assured me that my childhood wouldn't be retroactively destroyed, and they were right. My review for this one will pale in comparison to my review for "Inception," just because there isn't as much to say about this one. "Toy Story 3" was certainly different from the other two, but considering the giant gap in time between the second and third, I'll let it slide. Also, I'm viewing this one for the first time as an adult, not as a child. As an adult, I could more easily notice the dark tone of these movies. It's quite a feat to address major emotional and psychological issues and make them resonate with your audience, young or old. It's also quite a feat to get me not just into a kid's movie, but also get me laughing out loud at a kid's movie. Spanish Buzz Lightyear is the highlight of this movie. The visual gags alone are hilarious. But on the subject of the dark tones, "Toy Story 3" also had a lot of nervewracking, scary moments that would have had an impact on my psyche as a child. Watching your beloved toys and childhood friends get slowly forced into a burning fire is pretty affecting.
My favorite parts of this movie, aside from Spanish Buzz, are definitely the beginning and the ending. The intro fantasty sequence is an absolute joy. It was genius to remind all us twentysomethings returning for our 90s franchise what it was like when your imagination could actually create something like that in your bedroom with your favorite toys. The ending is sweetly emotional and is the perfect wrap-up to the franchise. It leaves us with the lesson that moving on is tough, but not always a negative. A perfect moral for us older kids reminiscing about our childhood and reflecting on the years gone by.
As a last note, the music was great as usual. "We Belong Together" is a touching song, but I wanted a little more "You've Got a Friend in Me." That song alone is enough to make me tear up. (It didn't help that I saw this movie with my best friends.)
My grade: A+
"Inception"
The trailers: I was really let down by the trailers. Maybe the movies they were advertising will be good, but I think the trailers themselves were pretty bad.
"The American" - George Clooney is...doing something assassin-y. That's about all I got from this trailer.
"The Town" - it stars Ben Affleck. And Blake Lively. Do I really have to go on? Jon Hamm is in there too as an FBI agent tracking thieves. Thief falls in love with victim, odd New England accents, you've probably seen this movie done before. I love how they tried to advertise it as "from the director of 'Gone Baby Gone'," who is Ben Affleck. "Gone Baby Gone" was an excellent movie starring his brother, Casey Affleck, and I'm going to say just rent that movie and skip "The Town." And, by the way, horrible title. Could we get any more vague?
"Due Date" - road trip comedy with Robert Downey Jr and Zach Galifianakis. I don't get the good-natured hobo moron appeal of Galifianakis. But I do get the appeal of Robert Downey Jr. This sounds like the kind of movie you know going into whether or not you're going to like.
"Devil" - from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan. That got snickers in many movie theaters, including mine, from me. I apologize to the other people in my theater, since I literally laughed out loud. The movie didn't look that great to begin with, but M Night's name on the project sealed its fate. I was, however, surprised to see the other guy from "Traveler." (The one who wasn't Matthew Bomer).
"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" - I still haven't seen the first "Wall Street" movie, so I don't have much to comment on here. For the unitiated, the trailer didn't do much to explain what the sequel is about.
"The Social Network" - this trailer attempted to come off as dramatic but ended up confusing and boring. The behind the scenes drama of Facebook! How riveting...not. (A few days later, I found out that this movie is being directed by David Fincher. The man behind "Fight Club" "Se7en," and "Zodiac" made a movie about Facebook drama? I'm suddenly curious.)
"Dinner for Schmucks" - When I saw "Inception" again, the trailers included "Devil," "Due Date," "The Town," and these next two. I thought this was odd since "Schmucks" is already out, but oh well. I know this isn't my type of movie. I can't stand most everyone from the Apatow crew, and Steve Carrell's odd brand of awkward humor just doesn't do it for me. This movie looks like torture to sit through.
"Tron" - I know next to nothing about the original "Tron" movie, except geeks love it. I wasn't sure who this was marketed towards. Older people with 80s nostalgia? Young kids? (It is by Disney, after all). Older kids? The tone didn't seem super light and fun, and they aren't going to have someone as sexy as Olivia Wilde in there without doing something with her.
The film: After seeing it the first time, I had so many thoughts about it I just didn't know how to formulate and organize them. I was so excited that the movie didn't suck and, actually, was amazing. It was unbelievably refreshing to get such an intelligent movie in the middle of summer. I just got back from seeing it a second time, and I have to dispute right here and now the people who said it didn't make sense. I had no problem following it the first time. In fact, I think they spell out most of the really important stuff for you. Other things, you have to infer. Granted, you really have to be paying attention, but most every question I saw people raise after opening weekend was answered in the movie, if you were watching closely. However, a lot of times the explanations are there, but they come really fast so a second viewing certainly helped me there.
I saw it a second time for entertainment, not to try and understand what was going on. Although I did understand it the first time, the second time absolutely enhanced my knowledge of the events. You're able to pick up more and more of the details and foreshadowing. Once I knew the plot, the second viewing allowed me to sit back and just enjoy the movie without worrying about missing some crucial detail. And it gave me the opportunity to try and catch all of Saito's dialogue, because, I'll admit, I had some trouble understanding him the first time around. But I think wholeheartedly that this is a movie you should (but don't necessarily have to) see twice. If nothing else, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's shifting-gravity fight scene is worth the price of admission.
"Inception" is the trippiest movie I've seen since "The Matrix." But what I love about "Inception," and what others have criticized about it, is the emotion of it. Many others have criticized it for not resonating on an emotional level. Maybe I'm just a big softy, but Dom and Mal's story was pretty powerful, in my opinion. Cillian Murphy's character's problems with his father, while not nearly as strong, could easily have become insignificant boring afterthoughts. They had a hard task in making two catharses happen right next to each other and somehow make them affecting. Personally, I thought they achieved this. Character development, outside of DiCaprio and Cotillard's characters, was sparse, but this really is DiCaprio's movie, despite having an excellent ensemble cast. I also thought the film received undeserved criticism (mostly prior to its release) for its lack of female protagonists. I want to ask those people again if they think Ellen Page's Ariadne is a weak female lead, or Marion Cotillard's Mal. Ariadne was strong, sensible, and smart and was right there alongside the boys in every dream level. On a sidenote, speaking of the women, I thought Mal's name was Moll until I read the reviews. I pronounce Mal like in Malcolm, like the character on "Firefly." They pronounce Mal like Moll as in Molly. If they had pronounced it the way I do, I would have been more bothered by the not-so-subtle meaning, but I'm not sure how mal is pronounced in Latin anyway, so it didn't really bother me like it did some people.
Initially, I was irked by the ending. But after thinking about it, reading viewers' reactions to it, and seeing it again myself, I have to say I like the ending. I was so afraid that Dom was going to stay behind with Mal in limbo just to get Fischer and Saito out somehow, that he would just give into the dream world and fake happiness. So I practically cheered when he turned, and said he wasn't staying with Mal because Mal was only a shade of his real wife. The final scene was open-ended and it planted an idea in our heads: that Dom's world wasn't real. Christopher Nolan achieved inception with his audiences. I think that scene was a wink and a nod to the people who would question the reality of it all, no matter what. But, in my mind, that totem was going to fall. I saw it the first time and I made sure to note it again the second time: it wobbled visibly. In previous scenes, where the totem kept spinning in the dream, it didn't wobble that much. I think that scene was less to make the viewer question the reality of it and more to make the viewer realize that Dom would always question the reality of it. To make you realize that while you may be very sure of yourself, you can never be 100% certain. I think that if Dom had still been dreaming, it would have invalidated all the struggles he went through and been a giant middle finger to the audience just to enact one last fake-out. It reminds me of the ending of the original "Solaris," where the protagonist goes through hell and makes it home just to discover that, oops, he never escaped. That ending may be narratively intriguing, but it's emotionally cruel. What is so wrong with having a relatively happy ending once in a while, where the protagonists go through fire to be with loved ones and actually earn a real catharsis?
On a visual level, I loved the use of CGI in this movie. It was used, in a word, sparingly. The awesome shifting gravity fight sequence was done in a giant rotating hallway - an actual model, not a computer generated platform. In a movie where they could have easily gotten away with CGI-ing the crap out of every scene that might be difficult to do in reality, they didn't take the easy way out and I respect the filmmakers enormously for that. The CGI that was in the film wasn't flashy or over-the-top, in my opinion. Paris folding in on itself actually had a reason other than "wouldn't it be cool-looking if we did this?" Another one of my favorite bits in the movie had to be the paradox stairs, mainly because it gave Gordon-Levitt another opportunity to do something badass.
The score was done by Hanz Zimmer, and oh boy can you tell. At first, I thought it was bombastic and overstated. I thought we didn't need a booming score telling us that "this is tense and thrilling, damn it!" But the second time I saw it, I think it actually fit the film nicely. Yes, it was bombastic, but "Inception" is all about ambitious efforts from the filmmakers and the characters. This movie is epic, dramatic and grand in scale and the music reflected that well.
While it had the Christopher Nolan trademark gloom, there were some light moments. Arthur and Eames were a treat together and I actually wish we had gotten a little more banter. Fischer asking why someone couldn't have dreamt of a beach as they fought through snow and machine gun fire was a great moment. I also heard someone make a comparison I really loved, which compared the meeting scene between Eames and Cobb to something straight out of an "Indiana Jones" flick. Exotic locale? Footchase through a crowded foreign city trying to evade the bad guys? Secret meeting with the new recruit for the team? It was an entertaining switch-up from the other large-scale action sequences and I don't feel like it was superfluous, which it had the danger of becoming if it had gone on longer than it did. There were also some fantastic creep-out moments as well. I loved the eeriness of the projections in someone's subconscious all staring at once at the person invading a dream.
This was my perfect summer movie and I wish we were lucky enough to get a movie this smart and thrilling every year. It melded genres together to produce a unique film unlike any other. SciFi? Action? Heist/Crime? Psychological drama? Thriller? Romance? Thank you, Christopher Nolan, for not making me have to choose just one.
My grade: A+
(I apologize for the lateness of this most recent blog post. I've been realizing that writing a blog during the summer is a pretty difficult task, but I promise things will calm down soon in my life and I will be able to write to my heart's content about fall TV. Hope you're having a nice summer.)
Okay, it's not REALLY. But the cast of the third Christopher Nolan Batman movie is largely the same as the cast of "Inception." Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt signed on earlier, and today the news came out that Marion Cotillard is also onboard. I'm thrilled to see her cast. I think she didn't get enough credit for her role in "Inception." Try to imagine anyone else in her role, and see if they could pull it off - her haunting beauty alone made that role unique, but she was also sympathetic despite being the buzzkill in every dream. I can only hope they give her a meaty role in "The Dark Knight Rises." If she didn't impress you in "Inception," go watch her Academy Award winning performance in "La Vie En Rose" and see if you're still unimpressed.
I've been seeing trailers for "Inception" for a while now and I still have no idea what this movie is about. It took me a while to figure out that that's intentional to stir up intrigue and mystery; they're letting the star power sell the film Initially, I figured the trailers were just baffling to make us wonder in awe at the visuals. After all, in a world where "Avatar" makes more money than anything else, of course Hollywood is going to embrace the visual splendor of a film, oftentimes over solid narrative. I was afraid that this movie would be all neat images and nothing else - a beautifully wrapped box ultimately filled with nothing. I also assumed the trailers weren't being purposefully vague because many films are marketed poorly. Case in point? The recent Tom Cruise film "Knight & Day." I still have no idea what that movie is about after seeing multiple trailers. Some of the trailers differed greatly in tone from the others, some emphasizing drama and others emphasizing comedy. Match that with two past-their-prime actors, (except in the case of "Mission Impossible" movies. The third film in that series was actually really great, but I give more credit to JJ Abrams and the other onscreen talent Cruise was working with) and you have very little pre-release buzz. I was also concerned that we might have another "Paranormal Activity" or "Snakes on a Plane" scenario, where you get tons of manufactured hype and you end up with the most boring excuse for a horror movie ever or the dullest example of cheese and camp ever.