Inception

Aired Date: July 16, 2010

Time Kate wanted to see it: I believe when Mike recommended it, sometime after it came out on DVD.

Reason Kate procrastinated: Actually, for me, this isn't procrastinating! It came out less than 2 years ago!

Category: Film, Sci-fi

Kate says BE WARNED! I will be giving away the ending.

To begin with, I love Hans Zimmer's scores.

Second, what an awesome cast! I referring specifically to Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the cool, gentleman Bourne, Tom Hardy as wry Eames, the excellent Ken Watanabe as Saito, Ellen Page as the lecturing team member who doesn't come across as too lecturing, Marion Cotillard as a rather complex manifestation of Cobb. Not to mention Lukas Haas showing up as Nash (man, that guy gets around!) and Cillian Murphy acting non-crazy while looking younger than he did in Batman Begins!

And Leonardo DiCaprio. I actually don't mind Leonardo too much despite Titanic. He isn't like Tom Cruise whom I have trouble watching in just about anything. It isn't Tom Cruise's personal life that bothers me; it's that every character he plays is a type of put-upon victim (chased by women he has to kill; persecuted by authorities he has to destroy), and I can't help but think it is a projection of Cruise's personality.

But DiCaprio deliberately, and interestingly, goes off-grid for movies, and he actually has the ability to do it.

Music and actors aside, I loved the milieu ("setting" sounds so drab for what Nolan has pulled off). Like in Batman Begins, the city-scapes feel authentic while also being fantastic and elaborate. They remind me of Miyazaki's animated city-scapes in movies like Howl's Moving Castle.

So what about the plot?

I was incredibly pleased that the ending didn't entail a dream-within-a-dream solution (I am aware that perhaps we are meant to think that; more on this later). The Leverage-type con was enough to hold my interest, but I would have been terribly disappointed if the whole thing had just been all-in-the-mind. Matrix did it, people. Can we move on now?

However, the major problem with the ending NOT being a dream-within-a-dream is that not all the "real" bits of the movie feel "real." The whole sequence in Morocco or wherever doesn't feel real at all--yet it is supposed to be. Additionally, some things are just off--like the kids haven't aged, which is weird. And why would Saito want to join the team? (It is possible that all along he really just wanted to have the layered dream experience, but this is NOT made clear.)

I do realize that questioning the nature of reality might be Nolan's point--for instance, the choice isn't Dom giving up limbo for reality but Dom giving up limbo for the better dream (with his children and intact team rather than with a faded projection of an angry woman). But it's the sort of thing that confuses the film's intentions; it also doesn't make me go, "Wow, how profound! That totally makes me, like, consider the nature of reality." It just makes me think the script-writers are lazy.

So I would have enjoyed the ending as much as the rest of the film (man, that elevator sequence is cool!) if the ending had been clearer in its conclusion (and been set up for better).

That said, the movie is definitely worth watching, and Nolan does seem far more concerned with having fun with sets than with making a big point (in fact, I think he may have forgotten the film's point)--which is rather refreshing! In fact, Nolan has the following to say (obtained from Wikipedia):

I choose to believe that Cobb gets back to his kids, because I have young kids. People who have kids definitely read it differently than those who don't . . . I've read plenty of very off-the-wall interpretations . . . The most important emotional thing about the top spinning at the end is that Cobb is not looking at it. He doesn't care.

Mucho thanks to Mike for sending me the above quote!

Mike says I'm still a little mad at Leonardo DiCaprio for The Aviator. That's not very fair of me, but it's true. To be honest, I was a little bugged by everything I had seen DiCaprio in through the years leading up to Inception. And by bugged, I meant I hated them. Fiercely. And even though I knew this had more to do with the director of those movies (wow, I really dislike Martin Scorsese), it was with some hesitation that I saw Inception.

The only thing that kept my hopes up was the thought "It's Nolan. He won't let me down."

And the cool thing is, he didn't. I loved the movie utterly and completely, groaning aloud at the end and still loving that Nolan wouldn't give me an easy way out; no, just like the rest of the movie, the ending gave me something to think about.

I was so blown away, I saw it again. The SAME DAY.

The great thing about the film, in general, is that this is hard core, deep concept sci-fi with almost no props, no obviously fantastical setting (yes, a dream is fantastic, but it doesn't LOOK fantastic, unless you look at just the right time), and explanations that rely on things most people experience everyday.

The uninformed passerby would assume that Inception is some sort of chase movie, or drama, and wouldn't pick up on the nature of the film until the later half, which, admittedly, does feature a man running up a wall and a massive city scape that could never exist in reality. That the film also works as a heist film only adds to the experience.

The actors are dead on in their performances, and every scene, line, and expression is a delight. I love that even though Cobb is the protagonist of the film, he's not really the hero. That honor goes to the suave and, ok, even I have to admit it, dead sexy Joseph Gordan-Levitt (though it pains me, and my wife is laughing at me over my shoulder, I can't deny the truth). As Arthur, Levitt fights the bad guys, saves the team and even kisses the girl.

And DiCaprio does a great job as Cobb, bringing just the right level of depth and guilt to the humbled genius.

Above all, the film looks amazingly. Each shot is beautiful, and the editing creates a smoothly disjointed dreamlike quality. While Kate is right that this does keep many parts of the film from feeling real, it does help punch in the dreamlike feel of the movie.

I love this type of movie--let's call it "build-free sci-fi"--where amazing things happen in completely familiar and believable environments. Even the "dream machine" is very simple and instantly understandable. Connect everyone and press the big button, and Presto! Shared dreaming. Wait, why is he floating? Oh, it's a dream? cool, I get it.

Now, I'm not claiming this film is simple or accessible to everyone, because that is in no way true. The film really does make you work to enjoy it. But I like that Nolan seems to avoid making it more complicated than he has to. Sure, these are deep concepts (Wait, a dream, within a dream, within a dream, and then they explore the subconscious? really?).

But this is a great, original film that truly delivers. Now if only my actual dreams were that cool!

Brick Review

Mike says I've seen Brick possibly more than any other movie I own, and I own many. My opinion, therefore, is obviously and absolutely biased toward this film. So, take this review with a grain of salt.

Brick re-imagines classic hard-boiled film noir in a modern high school setting. While I'm sure this sounds awful, the final results are impressive, mostly because of just how perfect a fit the two genres ended up being for one another. The hard-boiled detective is a teenage loner (who excels in his advanced English class) . The criminal underworld in which he delves is the drug traffickers of the school, and the career opportunist police chief is the assistant principle.

For what it is, Brick succeeds on every level. The dialog is crisp, fresh and inventive, while still being reminiscent of classic noir. The acting is fantastic, and Joseph Gordon-Leavitt is just phenomenal. The plot and story are tight and well structured, with only one minor hole (which I may mention in the comments).

The atmosphere and setting of the movie are also great with that foggy blue color permeating the film and at just the right moments. The use of silhouette and lighting is spot on. The music of the film is haunting and perfect.

Like I said, I love this movie, and if it has any flaws, they are very hard for me to see.

My love for the film stems from a couple things: first off, as I gushed about above, I feel it is amazingly well made. Second, I love the whole idea and approach of the movie: reinvent something old, taking the best from then and now. I think Brick succeeded in this more than any other movie in recent years trying the same thing (anyone seen DiCaprio's Romeo & Juliet?).

As a fan noir, I think the film captures the moods and the tones of noir, without them feeling tired and rehashed, or overdone.

The thing I love about noir, especially hard-boiled noir, is the idea of a normal man going out and actively facing his problems, trying to stubbornly bring justice to the situation. It's compelling to see these rock hard men face things that bring them to their knees... and yet they don't give up. They persevere, even when their victories are often bittersweet.

Brick is such a story; and even more impressive, it tells this story about a young man making these choices and facing these hardships far earlier than he should have to. For me, it's plain incredible to watch.

Kate says if you want to understand Brick think Joseph Gordan-Levitt as Humphrey Bogart in Maltese Falcon.

Okay, there you are. 'Nuff said.

It does work, believe it or not. We're talking dreamy empty high school landscape rather than a black & white gritty city, but the atmosphere is the same.

I will state, up-front, that drugs bore me, but, as in the Maltese Falcon, the focus is not on the crime but on the power politics and power-politicking characters that surround the crime. There's also a startling Heathers' quality regarding the language where nouns are used as verbs and verbs as adjectives. The language is less aggressive than in Heathers but quite effective.

The teen angst is also surprisingly bearable, mostly due to Brendan's characterization as a savvy and ruthlessness operator (again, think Bogart). As in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the kids are really adults who keep the trappings of childhood but behave as if their actions have terrible consequences--and they do.

This makes it film noir, of course, but every now and again, the film noir is cut by some truly funny stuff, such as Mom serving orange juice and the table lamp in the van (I really love the table lamp in the van) plus the postcard snap of all the Outsider-type boys in their white t-shirts. In fact, if there had been more of these tidbits--which are pretty subtle--the film would have coasted from film noir to film spoof: less Bogart and more, well, Heathers.

Part of me wished this had happened, but the other part of me thinks the director was right to rein himself in (it must have been tempting; he obviously knows his genres!). He had a choice, and he went with Bogart. (I'm very thankful he avoided Outsiders). This creates a very different film from most teen-oriented remakes.

By the way, I want to give Gordon-Levitt kudos not just for Brick but for this quote:

My favorite kinds of actors are the chameleons, like Daniel Day-Lewis or Peter Sellers, people like that. To me, the highest compliment you can pay to an actor is, "Man, I didn't recognize you."

I agree; chameleon actors are some of my favorites as well. (Can I just tell you have much I love David Marchiano?) I'm not sure Gordon-Levitt will ever be completely unrecognizable, but I think he has that chameleon factor. I wouldn't have slated him for Bogart in a million years (but then, who would have pinpointed Bogart for Bogart?). Without a convincing Bogart, Brick wouldn't work. Gordon-Levitt is so convincing, you forget that he's supposed to be convincing you. That doesn't happen very often.