The Mindfuck. It's a common phrase on the internet (so much so that it spawned it's own picture meme) but for the mainstream audience, there first encounter of this phenomenon would probably have been mentioned from Puff Diddy Daddy in Get Him to the Greek, where Puffy explains a certain version of it, although it's more of a combination of mindrape and reverse psychology.
For an acutual quick definition, it's a term of phrase to describe an event either part confusing, part awesome, part surreal or at least two of the above combined.
Why am I explaining this, because we're looking at Christopher Nolan's mindfuck of a summer blockbuster; Inception.
Yep, it seems Warner Brothers really wanted another Matrix (not my words, apparently Nolan's first job by Warner Bros. was to make something like The Matrix as it was the flavour of the month) and while a decade late to the party, it's a rather refreshing and intriguing little gem of a movie.
The plot is an absolute nightmare to describe in detail but the main point is this. Leonardo DiCaprio (famous for his roles in Titanic and Critters 3) and a small group have the ability to get into people's dreams to steal valuable information. A Japanese businessman (played by Ken Wantabe) wants the group to infiltrate a business rival's mind (Cillian Murphy) and implant an idea in the form of a dream so he can sell his business before it becomes a monopoly.
Now that is the main plot, however like any good story, Nolan craft's his characters and the universe they inhabit and despite being way over two hours in length, the time will fly by (anyone (ok, everyone) who saw The Dark Knight should be confident that Nolan can carry a long story without the boredom fairy ruining it (...boredom fairy?)).
So, in a nutshell, Inception is basically a strange mix of The Matrix meets Insomnia meets The Cell. Within the first hour, the film expositions all the details about entering the minds, the risks, the lulz etc and we get a healthy dose of character build-up.
DiCaprio's character Dom (dubbed the Extractor because he's the main idea thief) has the largest amount of character background. Although Dom is confident and seems fully in control of the worlds he inhabits, he hides a very dark secret which could destroy everything the group strives to work for.
Rounding up the team of Inceptors is the intensely likable Arthur (played by potential future Riddler Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Arthur is the Point Man (responsible for research into clients) and sadly spends the last half of the movie in a long battle for survival full of gravity defying stunts and snogging Ellen Page (who plays the Architect, someone who builds the world the Inceptors inhabit). Page is thankfully not in Juno mode but plays the viewpoint character (as she's just as new as this as we are).
Tom Hardy plays Eames, a character who can manifest himself as different characters to get the dreamer the reveal more information and Michael Caine plays Dom's father in law.
So enough about plot, there's roll on the with rest. First of all, the set-pieces, camerawork and editing are fantastic. For the first time in a Nolan film, there are large amounts of CGI but rather than use it as a basis for the story, the added effects give more depth to the dream world setting of the film and that's all. Your focus is entirely on the predicament of the characters and trying to absorb the knowledge given to you.
Slow-motion is prominent but actually has a purpose other than looking good. Location's are surprisingly vast and always changing (due to the erratic nature of dreaming) and by the end, you'll notice there's four events leading to the climax, each never losing it's interest and everything plays an important roll.
Hans Zimmer returns to score and while nothing is as memorable as Why So Serious? from The Dark Knight, the music has a very Ennio Morricone feel; guitars are prominent but not distracting and make a welcome change to the usual string and drum affair to soundtracks for big budget thrillers.
By the end of this two and half hour roller coaster, Inception will leave you head scratching. Not from the overly confusing plot, but rather, why does Hollywood not go for more features like this? It's an incredibly engrossing, smart movie with plenty of action, twists and turns, but never once does it sacrifice a drop of substance or intelligence for a cheap thrill.
If The Dark Knight hasn't cemented Christopher Nolan and his close team of producers, writers, composers and actors as one of the most powerful forces in Hollywood, Inception will. It's by far this summer's most intelligent and outright best action thriller, but also easily one of the films of 2010 and possibly, this entire decade.
Well, what are you waiting for you? Get to the cinema now!
9/10
H
Monday 26 July 2010
Thursday 1 July 2010
Toy Story 3 Review
Film trilogy's never work. There, I said it. You know it's true. Let's move on with our lives and try to forget why we always think that there will be three (count 'em, three!) great films of the same series, in a row.
I mean, let's think about, The Godfather trilogy is ruined by the third part being the runt of the litter (while by no means outright bad, it just happens to be tagged on to the near perfect first and second parts). The original Star Wars trilogy fell apart by having elite Stormtroopers defeated by an army of Teddy Bears in ROtJ and The Matrix...well I like it, everyone else seems to think it should have ended with number one.
So yes, trilogies always end in error usually by the third part. Whether its plot's are too outlandish (or a rehash on the first movie aka The Karate Kid), the character's can no longer be developed in coherent ways or we simply get bored of them, there has never been a consistently good film trilogy.
So, where does this leave Toy Story? You remember Toy Story right? It was that film released in the mid-nineties where toys apparently come to life when their owners aren't around? Is pretty much the Big Bang event to the CGI explosion of kid's films which happened after?
Of course you remember.
Toy Story was a masterpiece not just for little kids who were taken a back that their cartoons now look like their Playstation cutscenes but was filled with a child-like wonder, memorable characters and a concept that anyone who had ever felt an emotional attachment to a toy could relate to (including, SHOCK!Fully-Grown-Adults!!)
The story sees Andy (the owner of all the toys) receiving a Buzz Lightyear action figure (voiced by Tim Allen) who thinks he's a real space ranger. Eventually Buzz usurps Tom Hank's cowboy doll Woody as his favourite toy which leads to Woody growing mad with jealously but thanks to a sequence of events, leads the two teaming up to survive the terrors of the great outdoors.
A sequel arrived four years later (which is pretty early for Disney considering they finally answered that lost winter question for Bambi II, sixty-four years after the original) in Toy Story 2, which did the rare thing of somehow being equal/better than the original.
All the toys returned for a rip-roaring tale of the prospect of growing old. Woody is suddenly a rare commodity who gets Toy-Napped by an evil Dennis Knight (who reprises his role from Jurassic Park with a goatee) who wants to sell him to a Japanese Toy museum. So Buzz and the gang have to save Woody who realises his time is slowly coming to an end and wonder's about a life after Andy.
Like all sequels, it's bigger, has more characters but never loses the heart of the original. There's a particular song which could melt any stone heart but despite the looming doom, the character's remain optimistic at the end and we do too, even though for anyone who's owned a toy, where do they all end up in the end?
So over a decade later and after much behind the scenes fuck-ups, Toy Story 3 hits the big screen:
IN ADEQUATE AND ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE MAKING 3D.
In an unusual step, the film takes place an considerable amount of time after the second with Andy heading to college and the toys seemingly left abandoned in a toy chest. After a complicated series of events, the toys decide they're not wanted anymore and take a gamble on a trip to a daycare centre and I'll leave it at that.
So, how is Toy Story 3 without revealing spoilers I hear you ask?
Amazing, simply put.
Some of the wonderful characters from the previous two return (with others logically already gone) and again, the film ups the ante. It's a real sombre feel compared to the other two as you can't help but think throughout the entire film the toys are doomed to their fate due to father time.
You desperately want to see them through just like all the hard-ships beforehand, but the odds have never been higher and despite Woody and Buzz's optimism about a life in the attic in case Andy ever needs them, there's a sense of dread with all glimmers of hope being just that, glimmers.
The new characters are all pretty fantastic but none more so than Michael Keaton's Ken, whose feminine behaviour provides quite a few chuckles. The rest of the gang are still the same old, just a lot older and scared of the prospect of being thrown away.
Set pieces have expanded and are a tad more frequent but never lose they're unpredictability. The final one in particular will pound your heart into dust, mainly due to the emotional investment made with the characters over the past fifteen years. The animation and character models are all easy on the eye which makes it very easy to immerse yourself in the film's intriguing universe.
There's not a whole bunch to write about, so I'll leave it here. For those of us you grew up with these movies and want to see a satisfying and emotionally draining ending, it's perfect. For parents who want a popcorn flick to keep the kids semi-quiet for under two hours, it's perfect and for anyone who has ever owned and loved a toy, this is one for you too.
...and try to spot a certain antagonist from the first movie who makes a nice lil cameo. At least the writers decided not to make him a potential psychological train wreck after what happened and instead a tras...oops.
10/10
H
I mean, let's think about, The Godfather trilogy is ruined by the third part being the runt of the litter (while by no means outright bad, it just happens to be tagged on to the near perfect first and second parts). The original Star Wars trilogy fell apart by having elite Stormtroopers defeated by an army of Teddy Bears in ROtJ and The Matrix...well I like it, everyone else seems to think it should have ended with number one.
So yes, trilogies always end in error usually by the third part. Whether its plot's are too outlandish (or a rehash on the first movie aka The Karate Kid), the character's can no longer be developed in coherent ways or we simply get bored of them, there has never been a consistently good film trilogy.
So, where does this leave Toy Story? You remember Toy Story right? It was that film released in the mid-nineties where toys apparently come to life when their owners aren't around? Is pretty much the Big Bang event to the CGI explosion of kid's films which happened after?
Of course you remember.
Toy Story was a masterpiece not just for little kids who were taken a back that their cartoons now look like their Playstation cutscenes but was filled with a child-like wonder, memorable characters and a concept that anyone who had ever felt an emotional attachment to a toy could relate to (including, SHOCK!Fully-Grown-Adults!!)
The story sees Andy (the owner of all the toys) receiving a Buzz Lightyear action figure (voiced by Tim Allen) who thinks he's a real space ranger. Eventually Buzz usurps Tom Hank's cowboy doll Woody as his favourite toy which leads to Woody growing mad with jealously but thanks to a sequence of events, leads the two teaming up to survive the terrors of the great outdoors.
A sequel arrived four years later (which is pretty early for Disney considering they finally answered that lost winter question for Bambi II, sixty-four years after the original) in Toy Story 2, which did the rare thing of somehow being equal/better than the original.
All the toys returned for a rip-roaring tale of the prospect of growing old. Woody is suddenly a rare commodity who gets Toy-Napped by an evil Dennis Knight (who reprises his role from Jurassic Park with a goatee) who wants to sell him to a Japanese Toy museum. So Buzz and the gang have to save Woody who realises his time is slowly coming to an end and wonder's about a life after Andy.
Like all sequels, it's bigger, has more characters but never loses the heart of the original. There's a particular song which could melt any stone heart but despite the looming doom, the character's remain optimistic at the end and we do too, even though for anyone who's owned a toy, where do they all end up in the end?
So over a decade later and after much behind the scenes fuck-ups, Toy Story 3 hits the big screen:
IN ADEQUATE AND ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE MAKING 3D.
In an unusual step, the film takes place an considerable amount of time after the second with Andy heading to college and the toys seemingly left abandoned in a toy chest. After a complicated series of events, the toys decide they're not wanted anymore and take a gamble on a trip to a daycare centre and I'll leave it at that.
So, how is Toy Story 3 without revealing spoilers I hear you ask?
Amazing, simply put.
Some of the wonderful characters from the previous two return (with others logically already gone) and again, the film ups the ante. It's a real sombre feel compared to the other two as you can't help but think throughout the entire film the toys are doomed to their fate due to father time.
You desperately want to see them through just like all the hard-ships beforehand, but the odds have never been higher and despite Woody and Buzz's optimism about a life in the attic in case Andy ever needs them, there's a sense of dread with all glimmers of hope being just that, glimmers.
The new characters are all pretty fantastic but none more so than Michael Keaton's Ken, whose feminine behaviour provides quite a few chuckles. The rest of the gang are still the same old, just a lot older and scared of the prospect of being thrown away.
Set pieces have expanded and are a tad more frequent but never lose they're unpredictability. The final one in particular will pound your heart into dust, mainly due to the emotional investment made with the characters over the past fifteen years. The animation and character models are all easy on the eye which makes it very easy to immerse yourself in the film's intriguing universe.
There's not a whole bunch to write about, so I'll leave it here. For those of us you grew up with these movies and want to see a satisfying and emotionally draining ending, it's perfect. For parents who want a popcorn flick to keep the kids semi-quiet for under two hours, it's perfect and for anyone who has ever owned and loved a toy, this is one for you too.
...and try to spot a certain antagonist from the first movie who makes a nice lil cameo. At least the writers decided not to make him a potential psychological train wreck after what happened and instead a tras...oops.
10/10
H
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
