Inception Movie Review

There is an adage called Sturgeon's Law which states that, "ninety percent of everything is crap." This is how we end up with awful movies. There is that glorious ten percent that is something completely unique, original, and stands above the rest. These movies are few and far between and they blow your mind. Inception (2010) is an example of this from within the last five years.

Dominick Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the science of "extraction" - inserting oneself into a subject's dreams to obtain hidden information without the subject knowing. Cobb has given up being the dream architect for reasons he won't disclose. Cobb's primary associate, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), believes it has something to do with Cobb's deceased wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who often figures prominently and violently in those dreams. Cobb's work is generally in corporate espionage and since the subjects don't want the information to get into the wrong hands, the clients have zero tolerance for failure. Cobb is also a wanted man as some of his past subjects have learned what Cobb has done to them. One of these subjects, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe), offers Cobb a job he can't refuse; to take the concept one step further into "inception." Planting thoughts into the subject's dream without them knowing. Inception can fundamentally alter that person as a being. Saito's target is Robert Michael Fischer (Cillian Murphy), the heir to an energy business empire, which has the potential to rule the world if continued on the current trajectory. Beyond the complex logistics of the dream architecture of the case and some unknowns concerning Fischer himself, the biggest obstacles in success for the team is worrying about one aspect of inception which Cobb fails to disclose to the other team members prior to the job. Additionally, Cobb's new associate Ariadne (Ellen Page) believes that Cobb's own subconscious, especially as it relates to Mal, may be taking over what happens in the dream.

Inception is pretty much a perfect movie for my preferences. Let's make an amazing action movie, that is also very cerebral and forces you to think. It should be written and directed by Christopher Nolan who also wrote and directed Memento and The Dark Knight trilogy. It should keep viewers on the edge of their seat, and keep them engaged with every little plot twist. We should use some outstanding actors like Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, Ellen Page, and Michael Caine. It must have state-of-the-art mind blowing special effects, as well as some inconceivable practical effects. It also needs an amazing score by Hans Zimmer since he's among the best in the industry. It should be specific enough to follow and understand the unique setting, yet abstract enough to prompt discussion and personal interpretation. Boom! Inception.

While there are few people I know who did not enjoy Inception, I occasionally hear complaints about how it was confusing, or that Nolan has mistaken needless complexity for good writing. I don't agree with this at all. I loved Inception right from the first time I saw it in theaters, but it took at least two more viewings before I pieced it all together in my mind. Even then, I still argue and discuss the cryptic way the movie ends and what it means with other fans of the movie. Even Nolan himself has said he's read some very off-the-wall interpretation. It's not so much confusing as it is detailed; it's much more complicated than your average movie and forces you to think about what you're seeing. It is confusing if you only watch it once and take it at face value, but Inception is much more complicated than that. There is just a whole lot to take in, and it's not likely you'll take in all of it with one viewing. I can think of few examples of movies that are so specific in story development and yet still so open to interpretation. That is a strong indication of high quality art.

Inception is an excellent piece of writing. Since there is so many rules unique to this world setting, there is a whole lot of exposition required to explain everything. Inception has this continuous exposition explaining how things work almost right up to the end. Yet it's interwoven into the action so remarkably well that we are never bored by the dialogue. We get just enough of an understanding to carry us over into the next scene. The dialogue is detailed and intelligently written, the pacing is fast but even, and the intricate story unfolds in such a way to keep us engaged and interested the whole time.

Inception is simply incredible. It has a stellar cast, an amazing story, astonishing special effects, and an incredible writer and director. Nolan has cemented himself among the great filmmakers of our time, not only with Inception but with most of his other works as well. Like any movie, Inception has it's weak points, but it's mostly miniscule nit-picky things; I don't think cognitive psychology was consulted much in the development of this film, for example. That's unimportant since the particular rules of this unique world setting are so meticulously explained to us. There is a lot to like about Inception and Nolan keeps his eye on the ball throughout, offering up a lush treat of a thriller with nerve and wit. The Inception Blu-Ray is already sitting on my shelf next to other favorites of mine. I highly recommend this movie; it's worth owning and seeing multiple times. It only becomes more interesting when you know the end from the beginning.

What is your favorite Christopher Nolan movie? Comment below and tell me why!

Lincoln Movie Review

A good biopic must be hard to make. You would have to summarize an entire life into a couple of hours, show the most dramatic highlights of someone life, and make sure the movie does it justice.  If you don’t do an absolutely amazing job, people who love and respect the individual the biopic is about will have a conniption fit. That’s probably why there hasn’t been many movies about Abraham Lincoln before Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln (2012).

In 1865, as the American Civil War winds unavoidably towards its conclusion, U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) seeks to pass a landmark constitutional amendment which will forever ban slavery from the United States. This task is a race against time, for peace may come at any moment and if it comes before the amendment is passed, the returning southern states will stop it before it can become law. Lincoln must, by any means possible, obtain enough votes from the unruly Congress before peace arrives and it becomes too late. Yet the president is torn, as an early peace would save thousands of lives. While the nation confronts its conscience over the freedom of an entire population, Lincoln faces his own crisis of conscience; end slavery or end the war.

If you’re familiar with Daniel Day-Lewis and his movie roles such as The Last of the Mohicans, Gangs of New York, and There Will Be Blood you’ll likely assume, just as I did, that he doesn’t look like the 16^th President of the United States. However, the makeup job which was done for Day-Lewis was astonishing to say the least. Compounded by his stellar acting, you almost believe that the man on screen actually is President Lincoln. He’s a plain-spoken, practical, down-to-earth man from the farmlands of the Midwestern US who exhibits a lack of social grace but has a great intelligence and knowledge of human nature. Lincoln is constantly telling seemingly unrelated stories, but when he gets started he’s almost like this affable grandpa, and you just want to go sit on his lap while he tells you a story. Day-Lewis is calm, self-confident, and powerful in this role and really brings this revered president to life.

Lincoln has a very large cast that includes Sally Field as Mrs. Lincoln, David Strathairn as Secretary of State William H. Seward, Tommy Lee Jones as Radical Republican Congressional leader Thaddeus Stevens, Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Robert Todd Lincoln, and Jackie Earle Haley as Confederate States Vice President Alexander H. Stephens. There was not a single actor who didn’t do an amazing job with their role. Alongside Day-Lewis, it really helped portray a remarkably vivid story about passing the 13^th Amendment.

The script they were given was also extraordinary. The dialogue wasn’t just good and well written, it was powerful! Lincoln is mostly calm and genteel, but there are times he speaks so powerfully and with such conviction that he’s almost intimidating; you can’t help but want to follow such a strong leader whose words are so profound and insightful. No wonder Lincoln was so well loved by the people. Famous historical words are beautifully woven into the script without making it sound like a stuffy, obligatory history lesson. The words of The Gettysburg Address are spoken with the greatest possible impact, but not by Lincoln himself. Since this movie is about an historical event, we all know how it will end before the first scene even starts. And yet the script is so powerfully written and draws you into the political suspense such that you can’t help but be on the edge of your seat while congress votes on the amendment.

It’s been nearly 150 years since the 13^th Amendment was passed, but the political situation is still applicable today. We still see the results of this Amendment. The accurate portrayal of politics is remarkable. Seeing the two political parties nearly at each other’s throats over a proposed law isn’t unlike contemporary politics. The elected officials jeer and insult one another in a remarkably articulate way while still getting their point across to Congress. This is especially true of Thaddeus Stevens, who provided some comic relief to the movie; there are a lot of jeers from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party whom opposes the 13^th Amendment. Still, the elected delegates that met to “discuss” politics yell, scream, and insult one another, which is also not unlike contemporary politics.

Lincoln wasn’t just a good movie, it was powerful. It’s a long movie at two and a half hours, but it’s so captivating and impressive that the time flies by. It’s a political drama, so viewers who don’t enjoy politics or drama films in general may not appreciate it as much. Personally, I don’t enjoy politics at all, and I enjoyed Lincoln a great deal. I strongly urge you to see this film; it’s powerful, dramatic, compelling, and still pertinent to today. It’s worth owning a copy of as both a beautiful piece of cinematic art and as a gripping tale about a significant land mark in the history of The United States of America.

Do you have a favorite political drama movie? What is it and why do you enjoy it so much? Comment below and tell me why!

Treasure Planet Movie Review

Similar to the plight in Cowboys & Aliens, do we really need to throw sci-fi elements into a movie to get us to watch it? Disney’s Treasure Planet (2002) is a sci-fi adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s adventure novel Treasure Island. While it boasts some fantastic animation and a creative setting, I can’t help but wonder why Disney didn’t just make an animated version of Treasure Island. I thought I suppose, the cultural interest in classic pirates hadn’t really started until Disney made Pirates of the Caribbean a few years later.

If you’re familiar at all with Stevenson’s classic novel, you already know what Treasure Planet is all about. Jim Hawkins (Joseph Gordon-Levitt ) is a troubled teen who grew up hearing tales of pirates and adventure. Now, he regularly gets into trouble with law enforcement. One night a dying alien happens upon the inn that he and his mother run and before passing, the alien gives Jim a map with the warning, “Beware the cyborg.” Under examination, Jim discovers that the map charts the way to Treasure Planet, a distant world where hundreds of space pirates have stashed their loot. Certain this is the adventure he’s been dreaming of, Jim and Dr. Doppler (David Hyde Pierce), a family friend and financier of the voyage, joins the crew of the spaceship R.L.S. Legacy under the command of Captain Amelia (Emma Thompson). Jim is assigned to work with John Silver (Brian Murray), the ship’s cyborg cook. Jim suspects this is the same cyborg he was warned of when he hears rumors of mutiny. Despite his growing friendship with Silver, Jim refuses to take part in the mutiny and find himself attempting to defend law and order against a spaceship full of reckless pirates.

Treasure Planet starts off with young Jim looking at a book. Instead of its pages filled with old-fashioned words, holographic pop-up moving images and narration appear. I don’t know if this was intended by the writers and director or not, but this communicated to me that the following story would be leaving the pages Treasure Island far behind and showing us instead some flashy images. That’s a pretty accurate interpretation. The visuals in Treasure Planet were fascinating to watch, but it felt as though its roots in the original story were lost somehow.

I really liked the mash-up of the mid-1700’s and the futuristic sci-fi. It was highly creative, intriguing, and fun, and thankfully wasn’t trying to be steampunk. It’s a bit odd that Jim and his mother are the only humans in the whole movie, but the diverse cast of aliens is also pretty neat to see. Seeing eighteenth century galleons and pirate ships go sailing through the stars really is neat, but still doesn’t seem right. It raises questions like how deep space is breathable, and why swashbuckling is still popular in an era of laser beams or ray guns. You really need to try to ignore questions like that and enjoy the movie for what it is; a fantasy sci-fi story.

The animation was both fantastic and awkward. It coupled some very detailed 2D animation with usually 3D backgrounds. Each style of animation looked good on its own, but when overlapped it looked awkward; almost like some moving paper dolls were set in a 3D environment. Sometimes it looked okay but more often than not it just didn’t look quite right. The 2D animation is pretty impressive; it’s full of subtleties and detail. John Silver was my favorite character; he has a mechanical arm that has an endless supply of gadgets and gizmos tucked away in it which he uses with such nonchalance to make it look natural. He’s a fun character to watch as he moves. Here’s a clip from John Silver’s character introduction that really illustrates how intricate and subtle the animation is:

Disney alternates between “girl movies” and “boy movies,” and that depends a lot upon the gender of the main character. The “girl movies” tend to feature Disney’s princesses trying to find their prince, and “boy movies” tend to feature boys going out on big adventures. These tendencies perpetuate gender stereotyping. Recently, with films like Tangled and The Princess and the Frog, we’re shown some strong female protagonists going out on adventures, but I don’t see a “boy movie” by Disney ever showing us a prince in search of a princess. Treasure Planet is definitely a “boy movie.” Jim doesn’t even have a potential love interest; it’s all about the adventure, and becoming a man through hardships and mentoring. That’s not to say it’s bad, it just reinforces gender roles.

Treasure Planet wasn’t all that great of a movie. It lacked heart that some lasting Disney classics have. I felt like it was a promotion for a video game more than a tale about adventure. It seemed to want to showcase some creative animation and setting more than to tell a story about interesting characters. The sci-fi element was very interesting, but kind of a flashy distraction. At best, Treasure Planet might encourage some young viewers to read Stevenson’s classic novel. It will appeal to young boys who enjoy an action movie that is suited for their age level; that is what Treasure Planet is, in a nutshell. It may be worth buying if you have little boys in your home who are into that sort of thing. Otherwise, I’d rent it once just to see the neat animation. In the end, it’s a pretty forgettable movie.

Can you think of a retelling or updated version of a classic story with a very different setting that was good? I thought She’s the Man was a vaguely amusing retelling of Shakespeare’s play Twelfth Night. What do you think? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Looper Movie Review

A good time travel movie will really make you think about the implications of time travel, the dichotomy of paradoxes, and possibly even philosophical differences between determinism and free will. I think that since I began watching Doctor Who, I expect a certain level of mind-bending awesomeness as I try to understand the time line. Looper (2012) was a well written time travel story that gives you a mental exercise as you watch an action packed movie.

Set in the near future of 2044, Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) works as a hit man for the mob that exists 30 years in the future. Time travel hasn’t been invented yet, but it will be within the next three decades. It will become illegal and only available on the black market. When the mob wants to get rid of someone, they send their target 30 years into the past where a “looper” like Joe is waiting to mop up. The target has silver strapped to him as payment for the looper. Joe’s friend Seth (Paul Dano), another looper, is paranoid about the mob deciding to “close the loop;” the looper’s contract is ended by sending the looper’s future self back to be killed by the looper, along with a very large payment. Joe is getting rich and life is good. But something is wrong when Joe’s future self (Bruce Willis) appears for assassination unhooded. Young Joe’s hesitation costs him a lot when Old Joe knocks him out and goes about his own agenda. The mob of 2044 lead by Abe (Jeff Daniels) begins hunting down Young Joe for not taking out his target. Young Joe hunts down his older self to finish the job and get the mob off his back. Old Joe goes about an elaborate man hunt of his own while trying to keep Young Joe alive so that Old Joe himself doesn’t disappear before his objective is accomplished.

Looper is a very intelligently written movie. Some time travel movies sidestep paradoxes in the interest of telling a story. That causes the story to not make a whole lot of sense. Rather than avoiding paradoxes, Looper embraces them! By the end of the movie there are several impossibilities piling up, but we get an astonishing and logical conclusion that it’s as if the paradoxes created by time travel never existed. As far as time travel stories goes, I’m sure that even Doctor Who would be satisfied with it.

There was a really neat scene that only time travel can create where both Old and Young Joe meet in a diner, sitting across from each other in a booth. Imagine sitting across the table from yourself with a 30-year age difference. The two converse, which could open up an endless conversation about the emotions and metaphysics of encountering yourself this way. But interestingly, the conversation is left very simple and down-to-earth. Professional hit men must not be particularly inclined toward philosophical debate.

The actors do a fantastic job. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis both play the same character with a 30 year difference. It’s evident that the two actors spent a lot of time together to refine the one character they play. Levitt managed to perfectly imitate Willis’s pursed lip smirking smile, and Willis captivates some of Levitt’s subtle mannerisms. There was also a stunning makeup and prosthetics job done on Levitt to make him physically resemble Willis even more. You can’t help but believe that Joseph Gordon-Levitt will inevitably become Bruce Willis one day.

Really the only negative things I can say about Looper stem from my own personal preferences. It’s got a pretty bleak and pessimistic view of people. There are mobs and gang violence, drug use, hookers, and plenty of profanity. Even the time travel aspect tends to favor a determinist philosophy. Toward the end it ebbs more towards a standard shoot-‘em-up action movie. But none of this is incorporated without reason. The movie is about a hit man working for the mob; such individuals aren’t known for their scruples and ethics. The mob environment isn’t conducive to peaceful negotiations or friendly verbal exchanges.

I can’t fault the movie for these things since they are meaningfully built into the plot and character development. It wasn’t my cup of tea, but it was so well written and directed that I have to say Looper was a good movie that succeeds on its own merits. It’s not going to appeal to most viewers who don’t enjoy violent action movies, but even if that is the case for you, I still recommend seeing it because it’s such a well written time travel movie. I’m glad I saw it, but I probably won’t go out of my way to see it again, let alone get a copy of it. If you enjoy violent action movies, you practically owe it to yourself to see Looper.

What is your favorite time travel movie? Comment below and tell me why!