In Theaters: "The Ides of March"

"The Ides of March" is a well-made film that you won't give a second of thought to after you leave the theater. It is an average movie with an Oscar-season cast. I'm not sorry I saw it, but I probably wouldn't have bothered if I had been the one paying for the ticket. (I started out wanting to see "Margin Call," which looks fantastic, but then realized that it's only playing in New York and LA.)

As a person from Cincinnati, if anyone should have been biased in favor of this movie, it's me. "The Ides of March" was shot there and it was big news in the area when Clooney & Co. came. I constantly heard about sightings of cast members and people were always guessing where they would film next. Like many others, I felt obligated to see it just to play "spot the Cincinnati landmark." However, I also read many reviews beforehand so my hopes weren't sent ridiculously high.

"The Ides of March" has all the hallmarks of an Oscar movie, except the release date. The cast is A-list all the way, the plot is about heavy drama, and the tone is cynical. Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Meyers, working on a political campaign for candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney). Morris is competing against another Democrat in Ohio for the party's presidential nomination. Meyers is experienced yet idealistic as he gets wrapped up in the dirty inner-workings of a major campaign.

I was disappointed in how sorely underused most of the cast was. Gosling and Evan Rachel Wood figure prominently, while Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Marisa Tomei are used sparingly and each hardly get one big scene to shine. Even Clooney gets little to do aside from canned speeches until the final act. He gets some more material in a scene that is supposed to be revealing and striking, but it's actually underwhelming and predictable. All this being said, everyone does a good job. It's not surprising considering how little their roles ask of them, though. You wouldn't expect any less from these people, but you don't get any more.

What struck me most was the length of the movie - it comes in at 101 minutes, but feels much shorter. As I felt the movie wrapping up, I couldn't help but think "that was it?" It's not insulting or stupid, but the script isn't saying anything new and it is certainly not as poignant as it thinks it is. It's hard to sympathize with a disillusioned protagonist when he was very naive to begin with. Back-room deals and scandalous cover-ups are nothing new to the audience, so why does Stephen Meyers take it so hard? How could a man so experienced in political campaigns be encountering these things for the first time? Gosling has a natural intensity and grounded performance that proves he's more than a pretty face, but the script just doesn't give him enough to work with. The covered-up scandalous act, while ripped from the headlines, was tired and predictable. (If men can't keep it in their pants, they should hire uglier interns.)

This is a perfectly adequate movie. Like I said, I'm not sorry I saw it, but I certainly didn't take anything away from it. The idea of Oscar talk around it seems absolutely ridiculous to me - it's smooth, efficient filmmaking but certainly not Oscar material in any way. Perhaps it's just difficult to make a compelling story about great, big scandals that don't happen. But "The Ides of March" was never about media-rocking scandals anyway - it was about one man's path to accepting that politics is not where people play nice. This could have been an engrossing film, even without saying anything new, but it just wasn't. Instead it plays more like an after-school special as told by the Academy.

My grade: C

In Theaters: "Black Swan"

The trailers: (see "True Grit" review)

The film: I've wanted to see this one for a while now and, to my surprise and delight, it got a wide release. "Black Swan" is not for sensitive or squeamish people. It's a very visceral film and contains more disturbing, gross-out images than Darren Aronofsky's previous ick flick "Requiem for a Dream." I loved that this movie actually leaves a mark on you when you watch it. The climactic final act completely had me (figuratively) on the edge of my seat. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the film never spells out for you what was part of main character Nina's madness and what was real. You're left at the end still questioning if her alternate Lily really was scheming for her position or was just an innocent fellow dancer caught up in Nina's spiral.

As far as the accusations of camp go, this is definitely a love-it-or-hate-it film. You either totally buy into it or you don't. Personally, I wholeheartedly believe that the movie perfectly straddles the line between drama and melodrama. The film is told entirely from Nina's point of view and therefore everything must be interpreted through her mind. If everything didn't take place through her eyes, then I could probably be convinced that this movie was overly melodramatic or cheesy. But you're seeing the events through the eyes of a naive, childlike, innocent young dancer who faces immense pressure from large, threatening figures who slowly manage to change her at her very core. I don't think this movie is high-minded trash or enjoyable camp. I think it's a movie that takes an uncomfortable, sometimes awkwardly funny, subject very seriously. I can see how many people would be turned off by it.

This is Nina's movie, and therefore it is Natalie Portman's movie and she more than rises to the occasion. You get to watch this woman go from admiring her icon from afar to changing who she is to be "perfect." The scene where Nina sits at retiring dancer Beth's mirror and picks up the lipstick is a perfect insight into who she is when her transformation begins. She is like a little girl, sheltered by her mother and pure in her passion. By the end, she has sacrificed the "sweet girl" she was to be the dynamic, sinister Black Swan. Her struggle to become the Black Swan is the most important thing to her. For her, the performance is her life and she is invested in every way imaginable to reaching the primal passion that Lily exudes so easily. It's about more than just performing the piece, it's about becoming it. "Lose yourself." Lily is "imprecise, but effortless. She's not faking it." The sexuality in the film, which may strike some as excessive, crass, or nothing but male fantasy is used to show Nina's dark maturation. Seduction is a big theme here.

I have to say that "Black Swan" did for "Swan Lake" what "Shakespeare in Love" did for "Romeo and Juliet" - it made me want to go out and see the original. Who says movies are low art? Both of these movies gave me a newfound appreciation and perspective on what I previously saw as old, stuffy productions irrelevant to the modern person. Okay, maybe that's a tad strong, but it gives me a new appreciation for ballet and theater.

I enjoy psychological thrillers and while "Black Swan" isn't the most subtle of examples, it's still a remarkable, fascinating film worth seeing.

My grade: A

In Theaters: "True Grit"

The trailers: I saw three movies in one day and I wasn't exactly taking notes, so I am not even going to attempt to list the upcoming releases I heard about. They were mostly forgettable though. Not surprising, since we're headed into the post-Holiday Death Valley that is the movie climate in the early new year.

The film: Several people I know saw "True Grit" recently and highly recommended it. Westerns aren't really my favorite type of movie, but I'll enjoy any type of movie if it's done well. The "3:10 to Yuma" remake is a fantastic movie and I would recommend it to most people, even those who don't care for Westerns. But in the case of "True Grit," I really do think there is a disconnect to some degree between the quality of the film versus my personal enjoyment of the film. For some movies, quality and personal entertainment don't match up. A movie's quality is very objective and can be analyzed the same way by everyone. But a movie's entertainment ability is very subjective and can differ from person to person. For example, I think "Blade Runner" is an excellent movie. However, I don't like it much and find it rather boring and morose. On the other side of things, I openly admit that I enjoy watching "Ace Ventura" movies. They aren't good movies by any stretch of the imagination, but through nostalgia and a (sometimes) juvenile sense of humor, I like them. Through this preface, you can probably infer by now that I didn't love "True Grit." The best word I can use is "underwhelming."

It was a good enough adaptation of a novel that was already adapted into what I hear is a good film. The cast, including Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, is capable, although the only one who truly shines is the young Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross. She handles her role very well for her age and holds her own among bigger name stars. Josh Brolin, as much I love him, is in the movie for what felt like five minutes. Bridges and Damon are good, but really, do you expect anything less than that from them?

My biggest issue with the movie revolves around its pacing. It spends a great deal of time in town, establishing Mattie Ross as a headstrong, intelligent young woman. While I enjoyed the verbal wit and crisp writing, in retrospect I wish they had focused more on the journey than the build-up to the journey. She then manages to get the team together, lots of manly pissing matches ensue, they follow one or two leads to find Brolin's character before the trail goes cold, miraculously stumble upon him, and kill him in a very abrupt climax. I felt like the movie wanted to have a big emotional ending that it just didn't quite earn. Considering the subject matter, two big things that were missing were any sense of urgency and a sense of danger. But maybe this is supposed to be all about the characters, not their man-hunt. The characters all come to respect each other by the end, but I just didn't buy it. For a movie that is almost two hours long, it felt incredibly short to me. Also, aside from the snippets of humor, there wasn't much about it that was very Coen brothers-esque. Sure, the film is beautifully made as well, but once again, do you expect any less from the Coen brothers? Perhaps without the big name cast and the Coen brothers behind the scenes, this movie wouldn't have gotten nearly as much as buzz. Personally, I feel like you could have put entirely unknown actors in the roles and gotten the same exact movie.

A lot of this boils down to personal opinion, I suppose, since the majority of people out there loved "True Grit." I'm no professional, this is all just my humble opinion. And in my humble opinion, there's nothing special about this respectful and well-done yet dull adaptation.

My grade: C-

In Theaters: "The Social Network"

The trailers:

"Red" - This would look subpar, but Helen Mirren stars in the ensemble. She's a fantastic actress and she's done plenty of eccentric roles before, so it might be worth the price of admission just to see her kicking some ass. The trailer didn't wow me, but it's a neat concept so I really hope it turns out well.

"Never Let Me Go" - I'm surprised how little Keira Knightley is advertised for this one since she's arguably the bigger star. Carey Mulligan has been in more recent films and might be the better actress. Or at least she's been in better roles. It also stars Andrew Garfield, who has a lead role in "The Social Network." I'm still not entirely clear on the premise of this movie, but it has three great leads so it's up to the writers and director to screw that one up.

"Unstoppable" - I saw a poster for this one walking into the theater and wondered what Chris Pine's next post-"Star Trek" vehicle would be. Apparently it's about a runaway train and the people trying to stop it. Denzel Washington and Pine are incredibly likeable actors, but I have a feeling the concept could produce either a brilliant movie or a painfully stupid one.

The film: "The Social Network" is the Facebook movie. It takes its subject very seriously though, which doesn't seem so strange when you get into the nitty gritty of the lawsuits that came out of its birth. If you've read a single other review of this movie, you've probably read plenty of praise for it. The professional critics are completely gaga over it; last I checked, it had a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm not prefacing with this statement because I'm going to bash the film. In fact, it was a really good movie. But it falls short of greatness with some characterization problems. The directing is great and the screenplay is whip-smart. What else would you expect from David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin? But the problem with that Sorkin dialogue is that, while it is quick and witty, it's not entirely realistic. The first ten minutes of the film introduce you to his style really well and you immediately get the picture that you have to pay attention to catch it all.

Jesse Eisenberg's dialogue as Mark Zuckerberg is the quickest and that serves to show what a genius he is but it also feeds into his characterization problems. Among an otherwise excellent cast, Eisenberg is the weak link. Not because he's bad in it, but because he's just not given much in the way of development. You really do only scratch the surface of his character which isn't very good for a movie about him. It chronicles what he does, but not all of why he does it. Is he really an asshole? Is he a sad, misunderstood kid with social issues? I know that's probably intentional to leave it open to interpretation, but his character didn't ring as true as the others did. Eisenberg does the best he can, but the flaws are in the writing, not the acting. There are moments where he truly does seem concerned for his friends, and they're touching, but the moments quickly pass and he goes back to being a mostly one-dimensional jerk. While the real people behind the film might be upset by the film's representation of Zuckerberg, they shouldn't worry since you don't forget for a moment that this is a fictional character. I don't think the real Zuckerberg is anywhere near as bitter, introverted, or socially inept as the fictional Zuckerberg.

The rest of the cast is great, including Justin Timberlake. I didn't know who Andrew Garfield was before this movie, except that he was cast as the next Spiderman. Now I can say wholeheartedly that I would love to see him as Peter Parker since I loved him in this movie as Eduardo Savarin, Zuckerberg's friend and co-founder of Facebook. His excellent portrayal unfortunately underscored how unrealistic Eisenberg's character was, but it was still a delight to watch Garfield since he is the second biggest role in the film. My favorite part was the climax where Eduardo and Zuckerberg finally separate as Eduardo is pushed out of the company. It was interesting to see how Eduardo went from his best friend to his legal enemy in just one scene, especially opposite the ongoing Winklevoss twins' storyline about trying to get to legal action for almost the whole movie. Speaking of, Armie Hammer was also great playing the twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss. They weren't portrayed as black-and-white as I was expecting. I thought they'd be the douchebag rich WASPs that the Ivy League is apparently full of. While they are Children of Privilege and Entitlement, they are also two hard-working, honest young men who get screwed over and are rightfully pissed off about it. The don't get nearly as screwed over as Eduardo in the powerful climax scene, but they don't grate on the nerves like I thought they would.

As for the women in the movie, they are mostly relegated to background roles. And I don't mean that as a slam, but as a statement of fact. I've seen too many articles that slam the film for its depiction of women but they really don't have a leg to stand on. But it's an easy story to grab onto where you can make an issue out of the simple fact that the leads are all men and the women involved are mainly their prizes for fame and fortune. Basically any film that doesn't equally proportion men and women is sexist for some people. Mostly women is fine, but mostly men is not. I hate these arguments, because sometimes you just don't have a lot of female roles. This is based on true events and real people, and most of the people involved were men. They weren't intentionally excluding females, they just weren't awkwardly adding any. The few women in the film are models and shallow party girls. Do these professional critics not remember college? Just like it's unfair to portray a whole gender in a negative light, it's equally unfair to portray a whole gender in an entirely positive light when that's just not accurate. There are tons of college girls like this, especially in the environments the lead men are in, who latch onto the hot guys who look like they're going places or just want to party in the prime of their lives. Rooney Mara's character Erica, Zuckerberg's girlfriend in the beginning of the movie, shows that Sorkin doesn't just hate women here. She's intelligent and even-headed and she's the one woman Zuckerberg can't get out of his mind even while sexy bimbos are all over the place. Also, most of the females in this movie are young girls, not thirtysomething women. You have to look at the setting and the context of a movie. When a lot of it is set in happening clubs and raging college parties through the perspective of some young, arrogant men, you shouldn't be surprised when all the females around aren't perfect ideals of womanhood.

To step back down from my soapbox, I'd like to conclude my review by saying that this is a very good movie and well worth seeing. It's slightly different than you may anticipate, though. The darker tone might throw some for a loop who were expecting a light drama about college kids making a website. This movie is much less about the social experience of young people and what it means to put that online or why Facebook became integral to our lives and more about the founding of a major website and the ensuing legal problems. I was hoping for more of the former, especially amidst all the praise for the film for being a great comment on my generation, but it's still a compelling movie.

My grade: B

In Theaters: "Toy Story 3" and "Inception"

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.)