Inception: Down the Rabbit Hole

Christopher Nolan has done it again. He has managed to make a thought provoking, exciting summer blockbuster that has you on the edge of your seat the whole time. I really enjoyed this movie, though I recognize it has its flaws. It seems that people are divided on whether they loved or hated this movie. I haven't come across too many lukewarm reviews of this film. I can safely say I fall into the "Love it" category. Going in I was looking forward mostly to the visual aspect of the film and was happy to find that it had a good story to go along with it.

The story is simple enough, on paper at least: Don Cobb (Leo DiCaprio) and his team (Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, et. al.) go into people's dreams and steal their most guarded thoughts. That is until a businessman, Saito, (Ken Watanabe) asks Cobb if, instead of extracting an idea, he could implant an idea (this is known as inception). Cobb says he could even though others on his team disagree. Cobb takes the job because Saito promises he can get Cobb back to his kids if he does. Why can't Cobb get back to his kids on his own? Because he's a wanted man back in the states. Wanted for what you ask? You'll have to watch the movie to find that out.

So Cobb and his crew take the job. The mark is Robert Fischer Jr. (Cilian Murphy), heir to an energy empire whose company is Saito's rival and only roadblock to global energy control. The idea the team has to put into Fisher's mind: Break-up daddy's company after he dies. It seems simple enough, but it will require traveling to deep levels of Fischer's subconscious to achieve. If the team can't go deep enough the idea won't take. The problems: Fischer has hired extractors to train his subconscious to protect itself against other extractors. This causes problems for the team because the have to fight off "Projections" that work as assassins and these projections get more vicious the deeper they go. Also, the team has to travel through three levels of dream states (a dream within a dream within a dream), something that takes exceptional skill I'm sure. Finally, Cobb can't seem to shake his own unconsciousness within other people's dreams. He almost always comes face to face with his deceased wife, Mal, in every dream he enters and she always seems bent on destroying his work. Why? Well that's another gotta see it to understand it things.

In a nutshell there's the plot. As I said earlier I loved the movie even though I recognized its faults, but I want to highlight here the good and the bad. What worked and what fell short.

First, the good.

I loved the themes presented in the movie. As a film student I usually look past the basic plot to see what the movie is saying (intentionally or otherwise). As an LDS film student I like to see ways that "unbelievers" attempt to explain death and loss and life and meaning. This film makes a great attempt to understand the meaning of loss and what is reality. I think often people who don't believe in an afterlife or struggle to explain pain and suffering tell great stories that say, "Wouldn't it be cool if..." Inception does this. Wouldn't it be cool if we could create our own dreams and even our own worlds within those dreams. They even go so far as to say that we can be "like gods" when we create these worlds. (Where have I heard that before?) They toy with the idea of waking from those dreams thinking that the dreams are the reality and our lives our the dream. I think the characters, Cobb in particular, try to make this reconciliation. Like LOST I think Inception takes a stab at explaining our existence. Both fall short, but that's what happens when you aren't quite sure of what things mean. Yet in falling short they both touch on some beautiful truths that if only they understood they could move from, "Wouldn't it be cool if.." to "Isn't it cool that..."

Also a major plus, the visuals! I have never seen something this sharp and beautifully done. The fight scene between Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Leavitt) and Fischer's Projections is amazing. If this film doesn't win best visual effects I'm not sure what will.

And you can't leave out the ending! What great ambiguity! Is he? Isn't he? You want it to be true, but is it? This makes no sense of course and even if I told you the ending it wouldn't make sense without seeing the whole movie. Christopher Nolan, for the ending alone you win Best Picture of My Heart.

Yet with all its greatness there were some missteps:

The logic. It must be very difficult when creating a world with its own rules to stick to those rules all the time. A few examples:

1. The kick. If the sensation of falling wakes you up even from sedative induced sleep how did they not wake up when the van rolled? Also, how did they "miss the kick" I understand Arthur not kicking the group from the third level to the second, but how did Arthur miss the kick from the second to the first? (None of this makes sense without seeing the movie of course, but it will once you do)

2. The floating. Again Arthur floats in level 2 because the van is falling. Why are the guys in level 3 not floating? Sure they're asleep in level 2, but guess what? They're floating in level 2 also!

Another short coming for me was the dialog. Too much of it is exposition. It seems like they said, "We need to explain to our audience what's going on. Let's put a new character in the mix, Ariadne (Ellen Page) so the pros can explain the rules to the newbie and then everyone knows." It's a good workaround, but also a bit of a cheat. I think we're smart enough to get most of it on our own, spare us the chatter whenever you can.

All in all a great film. One I plan to own one day and one I wish I was good enough to make right now. I want to learn how Nolan did it all.

Rating: 18 Totems

Lost: The End

So most people on planet USA know that the sci-fi/action adventure show, Lost, finished its 6 year run last night. I was among the millions who watched the finale and I have to say, I was deeply impressed. It's not often that a show can be about time travel, polar bears, smoke monsters and plane crashes can be so universally enjoyed, but Lost figured out how to do it. I think it owes its success to the strong characters on the show. Good guys and bad and everyone in between had their moments. We sympathize with criminals and con men, doctors and rock stars, mothers and fathers (or fake mothers and fake fathers at that). There are no (or at least very few) shallow one-dimensional characters in Lost. Everyone got a chance to show the good and the bad about themselves. With that in mind let's examine (as best we can without giving too much away) the last episode of Lost: The End.

The biggest strength of the Lost finale was that it was about the characters. Over six years this show has raised a lot of questions and introduced a lot of mysteries. It would be foolish to try and answer all of them in the last episode. Many of the big questions of the series have been answered in the last season (what are the numbers, what is the black smoke, why did Oceanic 815 crash on the island), but still several were left unanswered. If the writers wanted to just answer questions the finale would have been a lot of talking and not as effective. They chose instead, wisely, to focus on the characters and Jack in particular. By doing this the writers let us say our goodbyes in the most poignant and meaningful ways. We get to see them interact with each other and come to terms with their destinies. The reunions expected and unexpected were sweet and charitable. Bad guys get some redemption and the good guys get their just reward. It was a surprisingly Christian/Spiritual ending for a mainstream TV show with lots of elements of forgiveness, redemption, and even resurrection. Two moments that stick out in my mind: Jack to the Man in Black: "Locke was right. I wish I could've told him that while he was alive." and Someone to Someone else (names hidden in case those who haven't finished it yet read this) "For what it's worth, I forgive you." "Thank you [name], that means a lot. It means more than you know." Powerful stuff for primetime television.

Lots of reconciliation happens in the finale. Not least of which is the reconciliation between the sideways world and the island world. Since the beginning of the last season audiences knew that there was some relationship between the two, but not until the last moments do we understand why. All I can say about the last few minutes is, "WOW!" I was floored when I realized what had happened and how it was all going to end. I never considered that it would end this way, but in retrospect I realize it was the only way it could end. It was so complete and final that it wrapped everything up nicely. We still have questions, but at the same time everything feels resolved. Maybe my religious background helped me appreciate the sweetness of the ending, but whatever the case may be it was touching.

Well finishing this show was like leaving at the end of a long family vacation. It was fun and you know you have to go back to regular life, but you're just going to miss everyone. Sure it may be silly, it's only a TV show, but as someone going into this field for a career it's nice to think the things your doing could have some meaning. Lost was great, the ending was pitch perfect for me and I'll miss it, but hey, there's always Lost on DVD!

The Fantastic Mr. Fox: It really is quote/unquote Fantastic

I pick this movie as my favorite from 2009. It is just so great. Subtle, dry and hilarious. Even upon a 2nd viewing at the dollar theater I enjoyed it just as much as the first time. Maybe even more because there was a larger, more responsive audience on try #2. Really, though, if you haven't seen this yet, go check it out. If it's gone you'll have to wait until March 23rd when it comes out on DVD. It is worth your time.

Now after that glowing praise a word of caution: this movie is definitely not for everyone. If you're a fan of the book, you might like it. If you are a fan of Wes Anderson (the director. See also: The Royal Tenebaums, Life Aquatic, Bottle Rocket, et. al.) you most definitely will like it. It is so classic Anderson it's not even funny, or rather it IS even funny. His characteristic dry wit and quirky family relationships abound in this stop motion piece of wonderfulness.

The animation is jumpy and awkward, but that's just the charm of it all. I love stop motion and Wes Anderson and his team have done a great job with it. But the heart of the film is in the voice-acting. With George Clooney leading the pack (intentional pun) it's hard to go wrong. He does great as the title character, but I will have to admit my favorite character is Ash, Fox's son (voiced by Jason Schwartzman). Schwartzman is so monotone and pitch perfect as the neglected son of Fox. For examples of this brilliance reference scenes where Ash and his cousin Christofferson discuss sleeping arrangements or Ash and his coach (Owen Wilson) discussing his potential as an athlete.

I could go on, but too many thoughts run through my head. Just go see the movie and if you don't like it, that's fine. Just don't be like the girl in the class I TA who, every time I mention this movie, says, "Ughh, mgoshthatwastheworst, ugh, mpfht, ugh, thists, thsihft." But you should like it. Cuss yeah!

For the very interested: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1571554585/

Rating: 73 Boggis Chickens, 67 Bunce Geese, 85 Jugs of Bean's Cider

Where the Wild Things Are: Welcome to my Childhood

Since it has been awhile since I last posted I figured I would skip the end-of-summer movies I saw (My Sister's Keeper, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, etc.) and skip to the beginning of fall.

I was really excited to see this movie, especially after seeing the trailer sometime last spring.   My wife (she's really cute) and I decided to go see this movie at midnight and it was quite an experience.

The movie is based on a children's book that only has like ten words in it, so you wonder what they're going to do.  Director/Writer Spike Jonze took some liberties with the story (including making it nearly two hours long) and succeeds incredibly well.  Now I need to clarify a few things.  First of all this movie is weird, the dialogue is odd and the plot is jumpy.  For these reasons a lot of people were put off by it.  I LOVED it.  The reason being that all of these "inconsistencies" were intentional.  Spike Jonze knew exactly what he was doing.  Sometimes movies fall flat because of problems like these, but Where the Wild Things Are uses them very well.

The plot is pretty simple.  Max lives with his single mother and older sister.  He feels left out because his sister is starting to hang out with boys and his mother is doing the same.  Since he's left behind Max starts to act out.  One night after a fight with his mother Max runs away, finds a boat and travels to an island where the Wild Things Live.

The Wild Things are led by Carol, a passive aggressive monster with abandonment issues.  He is upset over his (girl)friend, KC, leaving.  Max steps in and becomes the king of the monsters.  The rest of the story revolves around his trying to help the Things build a perfect city where they can all live together.  But Max faces his own problems of having to grow up too fast and be a leader too soon.  He wants to stay with the Wild Things and be their friend, but he also has to lead them and he learns quickly that in order to do that he has to be the grown up.  This moment of realization came for me when Max and Judith get in a shouting fight and Judith tells Max he's not supposed to do that.  She tells him he's supposed to be better than that.  A great (albeit weird) scene.

As I said, the plot is jumpy and the dialogue odd.  Even with these unorthodox storytelling methods I found a lot of ways to connect with this story.  To me each of the Wild Things is an aspect of being a child.  There's Alexander (Paul Dano), the shunned one, Judith (Catherine O'Hara), the know-it-all, Douglas (Chris Cooper) the loyal friend, etc.  Each of the Things is me.  And I'm betting they're you too, even if you won't admit it.  And they're each Max, which is why he gets to be their king and control everything, because it's his imagination. 

The plot jumping around did not bother me in the least.  That is probably because I have the mind of a child and this movie basically is Max's mind.  Anyway, the point is I connected with and understood this movie very well.  So if you're still connected to your inner child, or you want to get re-connected with it, see this movie.  If you end up not liking it, you can't say I didn't warn you.

Rating: 50 Wild Rompuses.

Night at the Museum 2: Battle for More of the Same

This was a fun movie to see on a weekday afternoon. Nothing spectaculr about it. The story is simple. The characters are ridiculous. The comedy is clean and the pacing is quick. So I have little to complain about, but also little to rave about. It is as I expected it would be. I liked the first movie. It was surprisingly good to me. I thought it was funny and unique. I enjoyed it. This new one was pleasant enough, but it was just the same idea redone with some extra characters.

The plot is easy enough. Ben Stiller's character, Larry Daley is no longer a night guard at the museum, but a successful inventor and owner of his own company. But, as you probably guessed, he is not happy. He longs for the old days of wandering the halls of the museum at night with his friends, the exhibits from the museum. From here the movie wastes no time in getting to the thick of the story.

Larry finds out the museum is being upgraded and all the exhibits are being shipped to the Smithsonian Archives. He wants to save them, but doesn't know what to do. When they are about to be shipped that tricky monkey from the first movie steals the tablet that makes them all come to life. So when they get to the Smithsonian all the exhibits come to life, including Kamunrah the brother of Akmenrah (that Egyptian from the first movie).

Kamunrah is bent on world domination so he tries to steal the tablet from Larry's friends. So Jedediah (Owen Wilson) calls up their old pal Gigantor for help. The chaos ensues. There are funny parts. Larry's encounter with Brandon (pronounced Brunden) had me cracking up. Part of it is in the trailer, but most of it isn't. The other stuff is pretty standard. Some of the charcters are dumb (The Thinker and Gen. Custer) others are cute (Able the Space Chimp and the Singing Cheribum) others are sassy (Amelia Earhart). At times it gets a little too sentimental (Jed telling Gigantor, "I didn't call you because we needed you. I did it because you needed us!"), but hey it's family entertainment.

There's a lot going on in this sequel and it comes at you fast. Before I could even tell, they had started into the story. I guess with summer sequels you don't need exposition. It's fun, it's harmless, it's nothing special.

Rating: One Wax Teddy Roosevelt

Up: Why Pixar Rules!

Hollywood needs to learn a lesson.  A lesson I get taught almost everyday as a film student.  The lesson: Story is King.  Pixar knows this lesson.  They act on it.  And that is why they are the best at what they do.  Sure they have beautiful films that are fun to look at.  They even have exciting action sequences and funny moments, but first and foremost for them is the story.  Believe me, UP has a great story.

The movie starts out with Carl Fredrickson as a child.  He is a quiet, short, little guy with a big imagination.  He roams his streets imitating his hero, adventurer Charles Muntz.  Later he runs into a spunky girl named Ellie.  She makes Carl 'cross his heart' and promise to take her to South America one day to see the Forgotten Falls.  Carl and Ellie eventually fall in love and get married.  

The film flash forward and takes Carl and Ellie quickly through life and some challenges.  This part of the film is surprisingly sweet and poignant.  It's hard not to quickly fall in love with Carl and Ellie.  When Carl loses Ellie later in life he becomes a bit of a crumudgeon.  He sits on his porch and gets the mail and that's about it.  Carl lives in the same house he has for all those years with Ellie, but a land developer is building all around him and wants to buy Carl's home, but Carl won't sell.

Things change when Carl strikes a worker in anger.  He is forced to move into a retirement center, but Carl's not going to go quietly.  He decides to finally take that trip to South America and does so by lashing thousands of balloons to his house that easily pick it up and carry it away.

Carl is accidently joined by Wilderness Explorer and nuisance Russell.  Russell is trying to earn his last merit badge for assissting the elderly when he is lifted up with Carl's house.  Carl and Russell soon get to South America and make their way towards the falls.  Along the way they meet up with an exotic bird, Kevin (named by Russell) and a talking dog named Dug.  Both of these charaters add some great comedy to the film (listen to Dug's "joke" he tells, I died laughing).  Later the villain is introduced, but I won't ruin all that for you.

The film is just plain fun.  It's a good story, with some touching moments, great comedy, and pretty good action (the fight scene at the end between two old men is pretty great).  You'lll love the characters and the gags, they're just so much fun.  As far as pure entertainment value goes, I would rank this film in my top three Pixar movies along with Toy Story 2 (P.S. There's a Toy Story 3 teaser trailer at the beginning of the film) and The Incredibles.  Pixar wins the year again!

Rating:  99 Luftballoons 

Terminator Salvation: Sometimes Critics Should Just Shut-Up

Wow.   This was a cool movie.  Going in I didn't have very high expectations because I had read so many poor reviews of the film.  I agree with a lot of what the critics say, but not to detriment of my enjoyment of this movie.  It was an action movie.  It does what action movies do best, provide great action sequence with a decent plot and acting.  The performances and storyline are nothing spectacular, but they were good enough for me.

Unlike the Star Trek revamp this year, Terminator Salvation is absolutely for those familiar with the original trilogy because it follows the same storyline.  So maybe it's best if I give a brief synopsis of the original Terminator movies.

The first Terminator is the story of Kyle Reese who is sent from the future to protect Sarah Conner from a killer robot (a terminator, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger).  The terminator has been sent to kill Conner because her unborn son, John Conner, is the leader of the resistance against the robots in the future.  Conner doesn't believe Reese since she is not pregnant and it isn't likely she will be so anytime soon.  Turns out Reese is the father of John Conner.  The film ends with the terminator destroyed, seems like all is well.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day is about another assassination attempt of John Conner, who is now a punk teenager.  A new killer machine is sent to do the work and Schwarzenegger's T-800 is the good guy this time, sent to protect Conner.  At the end of this film it seems as if the war in the future has been avoided. 

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines proves that theory wrong.  It's the same idea, robot killer (this time a girl) is sent to take care of John Conner.  Schwarzenegger is back to protect, but this time it ends with a twist.  John Conner is sealed in a bunker right as Judgement Day (the first attack of Skynet, the bad robots) happens.  The future, it seems, is unavoidable.

So we finally get to the movie at hand, Terminator Salvation picks up some years after Judgement Day.  John Conner (Christian Bale) is leading the resistance against the machines and discovers they have begun to replicate human flesh in preparation for their newest model of terminator the T-800 (in other words the bad guy sent to kill his mother).  Conner becomes worried when this has happened sooner than he thought it would.

Things become more complicated when Conner realizes he is second on the machines' hit list.  First place?  His not yet father, Kyle Reese (currently only a teenager).  So now Conner has to find a way to stop the machines from killing Reese and theoretically ending his life as well as destroying the entire resistance.

More complications come as Marcus Wright, is introduced to Conner.  Wright was put to death in 2003 (15 years prior to the story), but is now alive a mostly machine.  Conner does not know whether he can trust Wright to help the resistance or if he is just part of Skynet's plan to kill himself and Reese.

Most critics complained about lack of story, it's true, it's not the most thoughtful or deep of the Terminator films, but it's good enough.  Plus, it sets you up for a sequel in a great way, because you know more has to happen to finish the story.  Some also complain abut acting, that there's no real depth to the characters.  That's mostly true.  Bale mostly screams at people and robots and doesn't get as much screen time as you would think.  But then there's Marcus Wright (played by Aussie Sam Worthington).  His character is cool.  He doesn't know where he's come from.  He remembers being killed and has no memory of Judgement Day or the resistance.  His story is interesting and it takes up a good part of the film.

So take it for what it's worth.  It's a summer action flick.  It's supposed to fun.  It is.  It's supposed to make you want to watch the original three.  It did.  It's supposed to get you prepared for a sequel.  I know I'm waiting for one.  It may not be your cup of tea, but if you've seen the originals this one is worth checking out.  Besides it's better than any Wolverine or Transformers out there!

Rating: 74 Robot Motorcycles