Inception

Yes, yes, let's start by addressing the obvious: this blog had died. I say had, because Inception made me write this movie reaction (a review of sorts - but not really)

The movie is written/ directed by Christopher Nolan, in whose fine mind it reportedly gestated for over a decade. Looking at his filmography (Insomnia, Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight) it is clear that this... let's call it creative/ experimental cinema... is where he flexes his noodle more than for the more commercial flicks. The effort and passion he employs is apparent in each of his movies, but one can tell he enjoys, well, the inception of his own original ideas better than adaptation of someone else's (as was the case with Batman)!

Inception is easily the best science fiction movie I have seen since the Matrix, and the best heist flick I've seen since Ocean's Eleven (the Clooney/ Pitt version). They say some movies make you smarter by association, and this is certainly one of them...

It begins very much in the style of The Dark Knight (TDK). You can tell in the suspenseful background score, the title design, the tint and hue and framing of the picture that Nolan has a TDK hangover; but thankfully, once the story takes off, this is a beast all its own. One could see it as a consummate summer blockbuster in the vein of TDK - the money shots with big things going boom are there, the martial arts are karate-ed, the gunfights and chases are Bond-like, and so on. But in all this gift-wrapping hides a tale so convoluted and emotional, that the candy-floss is barely noticed and the story is impossible to give away or spoil.

This is the story of Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio - looking not boyish at all), a kind of dream hacker, who gets paid to break into people's (sub-conscious) minds while they are in a dream state and steal - anything; industrial secrets, personal truths, whatever. To do this ('extraction') he employs a reliable second in command Arthur (Joseph Gordon Levitt - who I couldn't help but think looks like Heath Ledger) and a posse consisting of a druggist (for the sedatives) a mercenary (for the kick-ass) and an Architect, to design the dream world into which he will draw the subject (victim).

Cobb is very good at what he does, but in the movie, he is desperate and forced by a victim from a failed extraction, Saito (Ken Watanabe) into going for the holy grail in his business - planting an idea in a victim's (Cillian Murphy's) mind, not just stealing it. This - inception - is practically impossible because the victim always recognizes any planted idea as foreign... and it has never been done before, although Cobb says he has done it once...

(Again, with the obvious, yes - an Architect for a virtual world resonates with The Matrix)

DiCaprio is supported by a stellar cast, with some 'Nolan veterans' - Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, and Marion Cotillard in a spooky turn as Cobb's dead wife Mal, who haunts his dreams and is the source of an irredeemable guilt... for Cobb is slowly, possibly, going mad and of course this will have massive repercussions for the mission.

That plot summary would be more story than any average movie would want to handle. But no, this movie is a layered, nuanced, thing and this is but the tip of the iceberg. It is impossible to tell the story - one has to watch it. And to watch it is to experience it, live it, so vivid/ scary/ exciting/ intriguing/ thought-provoking a tale it is.

The performances befit the challenge, with DiCaprio turning in a magnificent performance. Ellen Page (she of Juno) plays very ably Cobb's new Architect who he initiates into the joys and perils of 'extraction', thus serving as our proxy for the exposition. Cotillard in particular, impresses by proving you can be beautiful and scary in lingerie, which... is saying something!

The three 'leads' are followed closely in performance by Murphy and Watanabe, who plays a character similar to the one he played in The Last Samurai, in many ways. Michael Caine is, well, himself and brings his usual sense of grace and helplessness and wisdom to the mandatory Old Man cameo. I suspect he can now do this in his sleep, and still walk away with a Globe or an Oscar!

The visuals of the film (thankfully not gimmicky with fake-3D - though I would've loved IMAX) are gorgeous, and some sequences are downright Hitchcock-ian in composition. The highlights to me were (in no particular order) a city folding on itself, a trick with mirrors, a Parisian street exploding, an elevator ride to the spookiest corners of the mind, weightless fighting in a hotel corridor, and so on. Yes, a LOT of highlights.

The mind-fuck of the year is, without doubt, the last shot in this movie, just as the screen fades to black and the end credits come on, which will make you either stand up and applaud Nolan for having the sheer gumption to show it, or throw bricks and monkey feces at the screen in outrage. For me, it was the former. Not since The Matrix: Reloaded and the conversation with the Architect in that flick have I walked out of the movie hall this... dazed.

On one level, most certainly, this movie is a philosophical inquiry into ideas and dreams and how a single idea can become a life's purpose - or destroy it utterly. There are many, many, reviews out there that will (somewhat pretentiously I might add) wax eloquent on that aspect. Not this one... for this reviewer will save that kind of analysis for a second, perhaps third, fourth, fifth viewing, when he can digest that kind of nuance and not have to constantly keep closing his mouth, and rubbing his eyes in disbelief, and chuckling and shaking his head in admiration.

In conclusion, anyone who has heard me rave for The Dark Knight and the experience that was Avatar in the past two years need take into account only this: those movies, the first a tour-de-force of storytelling and characterization, the second a audio-visual extravaganza (with a horrible plot) couldn't get me to get off my ass and write a review...

My recommendation? Go watch Inception now, and share in the dream! 5 stars/ 10 points/ whatever!

Read more...

Atonement

So sue me for an unappreciative boor, but Louisa May Alcott gets on my nerves these days. So do Charles Dickens, E. M. Forster, Paul Scott, George Eliot, Somerset Maugham, Jane Austen, any of the Brontes, and now, Ian McEwan. Why? Because the stiff upper lip, afternoon tea-parties, wan looking gentlemen, and imperial undertones just aren't my cuppa, thank you very much.

No surprise then that I found myself rapidly bored a little way into 'Atonement' - Keira Knightley and the over-hyped green dress notwithstanding. In a nutshell, I thought the movie (based on McEwan's novel of the same name) would be better served by a one hour short rather than a feature length movie. The first hour of the movie, combined with the title and the lingering nature of the screenplay gave away the ending (to me, at least). Overall it was neither gripping nor cathartic nor delightful. Just a ho-hum, all righty then kind of movie. Enough to fetch a rating of 3 on my 5 point inverted scale, for being well made...

Then again, I am merely representative of a niche - the geeky high fantasy reading bunch used to reading 10 book series where each book has the doorstopper size (and pith) to rival 'War and Peace' and who frankly do not see much poignancy or point in melodramatic phrases like 'atonement for a seemingly innocuous, ill-advised lie that shattered lives'. Unabashed Plug: Google for Malazan Book of the Fallen :)

The plot then, obsessed with how one lie changes three lives, begins with a classic summer vacation setup where a bunch of characters congregate at a well to do family estate. The story unfolds over a number of years; five or six for the main part, with a somewhat unexpected jump of about sixty years toward the end.

One of the things that irritated me were these jumps, and how they come without much of an audio-visual cue. Events are retold from a different perspective/ point of view, and at times jump to a different time entirely. I found the retellings/ revisions somewhat... well I don't know, soul-less is the word I guess. It just didn't sink in that said events were of any import to warrant so much ado.

The central idea of the movie - or what I took away from it - was that some sins cannot be atoned for and that often a creative mind that cannot find release from guilt in the real world will then seek it in another. Or some such. Insofar as I cared. An interesting idea, certainly, but in hindsight the story was better suited for a book (duh!) than a movie, or would've been enjoyable as an hourlong TV special - not a feature length movie.

I have to grant that the performances are quite good. I could see why Saorsie Ronan, who plays the young Bryony Tallis would get a nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Keira Knightley gives a good performance - and looks amazingly good. James McAvoy pulls off a very nice character. The director's take on the beaches of Dunkirk was fantastic - the madhouse/ funhouse feel reminded me instantly of Apocalypse Now.

All said, in the end the story simply didn't grab me enough to be interested or care about the 'reveal' at the end (or at any of the incremental reveals along the way).

So the movie gets a big round 'Meh' out of me.
Read more...

The Spiderwick Chronicles

With nothing better to do, and in spite of the bad experience with The Golden Compass, we found ourselves in an afternoon show of The Spiderwick Chronicles at the local multiplex - oh, about a month ago! I was pleasantly surprised!

There are too many fantasy movies coming out of late. Amid the barrage of Harry Potter, Narnia, Compass, Eragon and so on, I feel almost tired these day when I see a trailer for another fantasy movie. Given how die-hard a fantasy nutcase I am, that is saying something! Arguably all but the first in that list of mine were produced because Studio Execs astutely observed the Lord of the Rings phenomenon. All but the 3rd Harry Potter instalment (Prisoner of Azkaban) didn't work for me at all - either due to flaws in the source material, or in the over-compression/ poor execution.

So it is with great relief that I give a rating of 3 to this movie; not for being unpredictable, or fresh, or new, or for being anything close to LOTR in scale or content - but for simply being well made, and getting right most of the little things I look for...

The plot follows the broken Grace family - Mrs Grace (Mary Louise Parker), elder sister Mallory (Sarah Bolger), twin younger brothers Jared and Simon (played by Freddie Highmore) - that moves into a very 'Edgar Allan Poe' mansion, bequeathed to them by default from an elderly aunt, Lucinda Spiderwick. Lucinda's missing father Arthur, as distant missing relatives with spooky mansions are wont to, held the key to a parallel world of goblins and fairies and sprites. He was about to finish his life's work - an encyclopaedic 'Field Guide to Magical Creatures' - when he disappeared. His only daughter was put in a sanitarium because she spoke of fairies, and now, 80 years later, the Graces are in the thick of it.

The rebellious Jared discovers a dumbwaiter system and a secret room, where he finds the field guide, and meets its guardian, a shape-shifting ogre called Thimbletack (Martin Short). Soon enough he (and the whole family) are drawn into a scheme to defend the book from Mulgarath (Nick Nolte) a villainous ogre that wants to use it to - what else? - rule all creation.

The characterization and world-building are predictable, but nicely done. The family's personal issues are believable and not incidental to the story. Thimbletack (who turns into a mean boggart when angry and must be appeased with lots of honey to return to normal form) and a forgetful hobgoblin called Hogsqueal (voiced by Seth Rogen) are delightfully realized and provide very good comic relief.

Mulgarath is seriously creepy, and his horde menacing in spite of being about three feet tall. We also get to meet some beautifully drawn fairies, who are spooky in how alien they are, and a gorgeous Griffin that will remind all that see it of the equally wonderfully realized Buckbeak from the third Potter outing.

The story runs its course predictably enough, with happy endings all around. Mulgarath meets his maker in a most entertaining way. The acting is about par - Mary Louise Parker and Freddie Highmore bring a decent level of emotional depth to proceedings.

Another nicely done thing about the movie is how it does not shy away from violence. There is much gore around (the critter's blood is green so it could keep a 'PG' rating) and the violence is frantic and thrilling. One scary bit for kids is the stabbing of what seems to be an actual human being at the time by one of the kids. Actually I'm surprised the movie didn't get a PG-13 for that!

All said and done, this movie manages to do what Narnia and Eragon and The Golden Compass fail at so miserably - it manages to be a very satisfying, well made pot roast that may never win the blue ribbon at a gourmet chef convention, but deserves a place of pride on any average kitchen table!

Watch this if you need to have faith restored in the potency of fantasy movies!
Read more...

Frontline: Bush's War

In the age of Big Brother and The Bachelor it is a pleasant surprise when television features a documentary that is incisive, balanced, informative, and thought provoking. Maybe I've just been watching the wrong channels, but this week I found it very refreshing to watch Frontline: Bush's War, a two part special aired to mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, being a documentary analysis/ distillation of the extensive archives of related footage from the PBS archives.

I watched it online (and perhaps you can too, if you follow this link, or follow this link for the DVD/ transcript). I would have to rate this a solid 2 on my scale of ratings, and I consider it necessary viewing for anyone interested in current affairs/ with even a passing interest in U.S. politics.

The documentary begins in the hours after the attacks on 9/11/2001 and covers roughly the next five years... It sheds a light on the neo-conservative mania with Iraq and how that, coupled with political infighting between Cheney/ Rumsfeld on one side and Powell/ Rice on the other, (good old 'W' and George Tenet were somewhere in the middle) and all-round short-sightedness and incompetence have given the world one of its worst messes.

It physically pains one to realize it takes so few to royally f*ck up so many, and literally strip a civilization back into a feudal form.

The one thing that impressed me for all four hours of the running time was the very high journalistic standard that the director was following. Since I watched it online, every time someone was speaking in the documentary, I had the option of clicking through to watch/ read the full un-edited interview, or reading interesting sidebars, documents, etc. that backed up the story content.

The documentary also avoids falling into Bush-bashing - if anything, at times you realize Bush was the adjudicator of major disputes and the gridlock breaker. At most times though, you realize Bush was merely rubber-stamping what was ultimately Cheney and Rumsfeld's foul-up.

Not once does the documentary say anything approaching the level of judgment that most news shows and political rhetoric feature these days - and yet, in its objectivity, it is a more profound indictment of the Bush administration than any partisan muck-raker could ever manage.

If I have any complaints at all from this piece it is that they did not cover two important things -

1) The effect that the war in Iraq and the way it was handled had on Afghanistan (the focus of the documentary is arguably Iraq, but one can argue that 'Bush's War' is simply a two-front war on terror)

2) The events in Iraq and in the U.S after the U.S. Congressional elections of 2006, when the Democrats took back the Congress from Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, and the recent troop 'Surge' strategy.

These two things get at most a passing mention, and so leave a viewer who is not adequately informed about them in the lurch, looking for more information sources - of course, that may not be a bad thing.

Also, I have to admit these events are perhaps too recent to chronicle effectively - let's wait another 3 years for another Frontline special!

In the meantime, watch/ read/ buy this now!
Read more...

Gone Baby Gone

The world is not a simple place. Sometimes there are no clear right paths or wrong ones. Instead, the threads of our lives intertwine and the sum of our choices form the skein of the world. There can be no escape; the choices have to be made, often poorly.

That, in a nutshell, was my take-away from Gone Baby Gone, the touching but ultimately flawed film based on the novel of the same name by Dennis Lehane, and Ben Affleck's directorial debut. Not a unique message, not a unique story either, but it is a movie that is put together well, if not perfectly. It gets a rating of 3 on my 5 point scale.

The plot concerns a downscale Boston neighbourhood shaken by the kidnapping of a young girl, Amanda... Her mother Helene (Amy Ryan) is classic white trash, and on her trail are a private detective Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and his girlfriend/ partner Angie (Michelle Monaghan), a pair of jaded detectives from the Boston PD, Nick and Remy (John Ashton and Ed Harris) and their boss, Captain Doyle (Morgan Freeman).

How the investigation plays out and how the various players involved act, and then live with the consequences of their choices, is the bulk of the movie's content.

This can very much be described as a noir piece not unlike L.A. Confidential, given its expository, limited third-person perspective plot, the twists and turns, and the moral ambiguity. It has those memorable shades from Good Will Hunting, in how it lovingly yet unabashedly shows a darker, seedier side of Boston. But the movie it reminded me the most of was Clint Eastwood's Mystic River (perhaps because of the comparable tone and subject matter.

What works...

In terms of content, this movie does not disappoint. It puts a spotlight on how our society - we - treat our children. It is an exposition of all that is wrong with low-income, drug-ridden, inner city life in most American cities.

In the character of Helene, the ultimate bad mother, the movie is a heart-breaking tale of parenting done wrong. We've all seen characters like Helene, hopefully from far away, and you come to hate her with a passion while you still root for her child.

In the jaded, and righteously crooked character played by Ed Harris, the movie is a cautionary tale of how cynicism, when given power, can quickly turn to vigilantism.

It is an examination, at the very end, of the protagonist making a very difficult choice indeed - between seemingly correct ends achieved by illegal means, and sticking to the law, regardless of consequence. This was a question that affected me enough to cause a sleepless night and a hangover. I could not for the life of me say how I would've acted had I been in the same situation - I still can't - and that is a powerful experience to take away from a mere movie.

The final few scenes in the movie, that show the protagonist having to live with the consequences of his choice - and take responsibility for what has happened - are as heart-breaking as they are sobering.

The performances are top-notch - Freeman, Harris, and Affleck shine and deliver performances that will be well remembered. From the first two we have come to expect no less, but Casey Affleck is a wonderful surprise as he goes toe to toe with the veterans.

His Kenzie is as fragile as he is macho, as familiar with Boston as he is out of his depth on the case. Ultimately, he is a classic everyman hero - and the way he plays it, the description doesn't seem contradictory.

The style of direction is best described as lingering. You can tell that Affleck is in love with Boston in all its dubious glory, and paints a very realistic, fascinating picture of it.

What fails...

The pacing of the movie is badly off. About half-way through, it just completely slumps, the way a child crashes when coming off a sugar-rush. I found myself checking the watch and being surprised that it had been only an hour when the DVD jacket said the movie was two hours long...I thought it was over!

Then slowly, painfully, through one sub-plot too many, it picks itself up and draws you in again, to deliver the ultimate sucker punch at the end. But that is too late - or was for me - and the charm had worn off a bit. As for the 'twist at the end', it seemed a little contrived and pushing the bounds of credulity. If it hadn't been such a fine philosophical conundrum the protagonist faces, I would've written this movie off as hackneyed.

This is pretty surprising, considering that the director/ co-writer is the Oscar-winning co-writer of Good Will Hunting, but I got the feeling the movie ended up being over-contrived precisely because it was made with the Oscars in mind.

The Verdict

All things considered, this is a must-watch movie, but given the pacing issues and the contrived nature of the plot I really cannot rate it higher than a 3. Ah well... go rent it and you'll see what I mean.

Note to self: This review almost completes the list of the movies I wanted to watch and review from this year's Oscar flock - Atonement waits in the wings of the DVD queue...

Read more...

Once

Dum Dum Dum Dum... Dum Dum Dum DUM... Dum Dum Dum, Dum dum...

I don't know you,
But I want you,
All the more for that.
Words fall through me
And always fool me
And I can't react...

I heard this song during the Academy Awards (it won the Oscar for Best Song) and right away the tune was lodged firmly in my brain. I went on Rotten Tomatoes to read some reviews (it has an unearthly rating of 97% on the tomoto-meter) and this line caught my attention: "Not since Before Sunset has a romantic film managed to be as touching, funny or as hard to forget as Once...", this from Sukhdev Sandhu of the Daily Telegraph and of course, the movie HAD TO be featured in our Netflix Queue.

How do I rate this movie? Let me put it this way - I rushed to iTunes the minute it finished playing to buy the song. Easily rated '1' and easily the indie movie find of the year so far...

Now, let it be said at the very outset that this movie is not going to win any awards for acting or direction or some such. It is very much a concept movie, made on a shoestring budget (in 17 days of production in Dublin, Ireland). What it has going for it is heart and soul.

The heart comes from the fact that it is such a romantic little tale of love and life and the things that never let us take them quite to their illogical conclusion. Very much in the vein Richard Linklater struck in Before Sunrise/ Sunset (two of my all time favorites) this is a story without too much theatricality to it. It does have more structure than those films though, and a story with a distinct beginning, middle, and end.

The plot concerns one struggling artist on the streets of Dublin (played by Glen Hansard, who goes unnamed throughout the movie, and is credited as 'Guy') and a Czhech single mother recently arrived in Dublin (listed in the credits as 'Girl,' played by Markéta Irglová), whose stories entangle and proceed with one another's. She hears him playing on the street one day and (of all things) asks him to fix her vaccum cleaner (long story!)... they end up playing together, and then recording an album that will prove his ticket to success...

The soul of the movie then is the music they play. Starting with the soul-stirring and yet very simple tune that is 'Falling Slowly' we are drawn into their music and its evolution. The film can loosely be described as a musical, but there are no set-pieces disguised as songs, and certainly no 'production value displaying' dance sequences (thank god!) that are associated with the genre. The music (most of it by the leads themselves), is catchy, heartfelt and raw.

The end of the movie is reminiscent in equal parts of Before Sunrise and Lost in Translation (another indie gem) in that there is a sense of unfinished-ness to it. And yet, the end is satisfying, and very appropriate - as a matter of fact any other ending would've robbed the movie of its charm in some ways.

So if you enjoy a romantic yarn, and soulful music, and simple stories without transforming robots and resurrected mummies (the Egyptian, undead kind) that say a thing or two about the human condition (without ever using the term), you are likely to like this one.

I certainly did!
Read more...

Juno

About a month ago, still awash in the afterglow of the Academy Awards, K and I walked with some trepidation into a showing of Juno, often described as the 'little movie that could'. K was expecting a super-judgmental docu-movie on the evils of teen pregnancy, while I was afraid it would be a dark, unfunny piece pre-occupied with making fun of Bible belt America.

Turns out, we were both wrong, and came away absolutely charmed (not to mention relieved) at a movie that is first and foremost a well told story. It has neither the time nor the inclination to be judgmental one way or another on the touchy issue. It will make you smile, think, nod your head, and maybe hum a tune or two. But it wont make you cringe or look away.

An easy rating of 1 on my inverted five point rating scale... The plot concerns one Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) who has managed to get pregnant by Polly Bleeker (Michael Cera) her geekish best friend and long-time admirer. How she deals with the pregnancy after opting out of an adoption is what the movie is about.

If I were drawing comparisons, the thing I'd compare Juno most with is a David E Kelley/ Steven Bochco/ Amy Sherman-Palladino T.V. show. In fact, you can detect a lot of shades of Picket Fences, Doogie Howser M.D, and Gilmore Girls in this movie, with the snappy dialogue, pop-culture refernces, quirky characterization, and breezy plotting that deals with weighty issues.

Ellen Page shines, but this movie does not belong to any one actor. It is very much an ensemble piece, and gets memorable performances from Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner (as a couple looking to adopt Juno's child), J. K. Simmons from Law and Order, and Allison Janney from the West Wing (as Juno's parents).

The feel of the movie is very much small-town middle America, but the wit that runs through it transcends any one culture or sensibility as the movie realistically examines a potentially sensitive issue, without ever taking itself too seriously.

The resolution of the movie is again unassuming - the movie does not pretend to solve the problem of teen pregnancies or how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. It doesn't even talk about abstinence or contraception or abortion and that whole ball of wax. Instead, it limits itself to telling the tale of what a particular average girl did when faced with a taxing situation.

I am not even going to try and analyze the sub-textual content of the movie because it feels beside the point - this is an experience, not a discourse, and so I'd urge everyone to go see it now!

The little movie that could indeeed!
Read more...