RSS

Yearly Archives: 2010

Movie Review: “Inception”

Prepare to be blown away.

“Inception,” the new sci-fi/action film from director Christopher Nolan (also responsible for “The Dark Knight” and “The Prestige”) is a stunning, mind-bending masterpiece that surely ranks among the greatest thrillers of all time. It’s a dark, multilayered odyssey through the human mind that defies description, and must be experienced to be properly understood. It works on every conceivable level – as an explosive action movie, a psychological drama, an innovative science fiction film, and a tragic romance.

In the not-too-distant future, technology has been developed that allows multiple individuals to experience the same dream. While the underlying structure of the dream is controlled by one person (the Architect), other people populate the dream with manifestations of their subconscious, or Projections. And Tom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) knows exactly how to exploit this system. He is a mercenary thief of ideas, a corporate espionage agent who specializes in invading dreams and extracting vital information. However, his greatest challenge is to perform the opposite task.

He must infiltrate another person’s mind and plant an idea there.

Business tycoon Saito wants to break up an energy empire, in the interests of promoting competition. He hires Cobb to insert an idea (the concept of dissolving the conglomerate) into the mind of young Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), the incoming owner. This, unfortunately, is more difficult than it would appear – in order for the idea to take hold, it must appear to have come via inspiration, not suggestion.

Cobb and his team promptly set to work devising their reverse-heist operation, with some help from Ariadne (Ellen Page) a remarkably skilled dream Architect. Their plan – to lure Fischer further and further into a web of nested dreamscapes, while subtly planting the germ of an idea. But unfortunately, Cobb is struggling with his own inner demons. Torn by guilt over the loss of his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard), he produces subconscious images of her in the dreamscape, leading to disastrous effects. (It sounds extremely complicated – and it is – but everything makes much more sense in the context of the film itself.) The result is an explosive, heart-pounding adventure story that blurs the lines between illusion and reality.

For starters, this movie has sky-high production values. Just as in “The Dark Knight,” director Nolan has created a fully developed and utterly believable universe. (Word has it that he spent 10 years writing the screenplay.) The often-jaw-dropping CGI effects enhance, rather than undermine, the overall character of the film. It’s perhaps the only movie I’ve ever seen where the destruction actually serves a legitimate purpose in the context of the story (as an individual becomes closer to waking up, their dreams become unstable and start to collapse).

The acting is equally stellar. DiCaprio is perfectly cast as Cobb, effectively portraying a mercenary, tortured soul. Ellen Page is a superb Ariadne, conveying a sense of innocence and conscience throughout the entire film. And in perhaps the most striking performance of all, Marion Cotillard appears as Cobb’s guilt-induced projection of his dead wife. The disturbing aspects of her character, in many ways, are mirrors of his own inner turmoil, which manifest in the dream environment. (It’s worth mentioning that most of the other characters, while remaining fairly peripheral, aren’t relegated to cannon-fodder roles.)

But the story is truly the heart and soul of “Inception.” It’s an intricate metaphysical labyrinth that requires some serious mental effort on the part of the viewer to understand. As the plot progresses, countless mysteries and subplots unfold – including some disturbing revelations about Cobb and his past discoveries in the dreamworlds. “Inception” is, quite honestly, one of the only movies that has actually kept me on the edge of my seat wondering what would happen next. Although the film clocks in at nearly 2 ½ hours, I found myself wishing it didn’t have to end.

This movie questions our understanding of reality – a philosophical turn that certainly lends itself to worldview analysis. For the most part, “Inception” steers clear of addressing faith issues, instead preferring to concentrate on secular psychology. The dreamscapes are not affected by an individual’s underlying moral values, but only by thoughts, emotions, and memories. Personally, I would’ve been interested to see how the dream environments could be restricted by someone’s fundamental values – or to put it differently, whether certain actions would be off-limits inside the dreams of someone with strong moral convictions. But maybe that’s just me.

On a different level, “Inception” is a cautionary tale about the seductive nature of power. A constant risk for the dream-travelers is that they will become so engrossed in their own creations that they lose touch with reality altogether, and can no longer differentiate between the dream-world and the real. Within the dreams, the Architect of the dreamscape enjoys godlike powers to create and destroy – and it can be awfully tempting to try and avoid waking up altogether. Essentially, “Inception” warns that when humans attempt to embrace to divine power, they eventually end up destroying themselves.

Other worldview or religious elements are pretty much absent. This movie is focused on minds, not souls (possibly to reflect a secular humanist view of mankind, but more likely, to appeal to a broader demographic.)

Objectionable content is mostly found in the form of constant, jarring violence that occurs in the dream environments. (There are a handful of swearwords thrown in, but, refreshingly, no sexual material whatsoever.) In the context of the film, these fights are not “real” – they’re between defensive Projections of individuals’ subconscious minds. Few “real” people end up getting injured, although scores of Projections are shot, blown up, crushed, and burned. Viewers will also wish to be aware that in order to awaken from a dream state, an individual must “kill” himself or herself. The resulting suicide subtext is unsettling and at times, disturbing. This is not a movie for young children – they will likely not understand it, and will be seriously bothered by parts of the film.

So, should you see it?

If you’re looking to switch off your brain and simply be entertained, “Inception” is absolutely not for you. This is a movie that requires work to understand, and there are several confusing moments throughout (especially in the beginning). Anyone disturbed by psychological thrillers will also not enjoy this film.

But if you’re willing to put in the effort to try and understand Christopher Nolan’s world, the result is nothing short of spellbinding. “Inception” is one of the best movies I have ever seen, and certainly worth watching. Highly recommended.

VERDICT: 10/10
I’ve never given a movie a perfect 10 – until now.

Normalized Score: 9.2

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 17, 2010 in Thrillers

 

Movie Review: “Predators”

Are all men by nature monsters? What makes a human being any more than just a killing machine? Is survival of the fittest really the only form of morality in a chaotic world?

These are pretty weighty questions – not exactly what you expect to find in your average shoot-’em-up summer movie. But “Predators”, the latest installment in a franchise that dates back to the ’80s, somehow manages to address them – a philosophical twist that elevates it above many other films in its genre. Never having seen Arnold Schwarzenegger’s original “Predator,” I had no expectations going into this movie. I was hoping to see an intense, suspenseful, machismo-heavy action film. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it not only met my expectations…it exceeded them.

“Predators” begins with a group of hardened killers falling from the sky onto an alien planet. They come from all walks of life – a Yakuza mobster, a Mexican cartel enforcer, an executioner from Sierra Leone, a death row inmate, a Russian Spetznaz commando, etc. Ex-military mercenary Royce (Adrien Brody) quickly assumes the role of leader, backed up by Israeli Defense Force sniper Isabelle (Alice Braga). Apparently out of place is doctor Edwin (Topher Grace) who doesn’t seem to have the murderous history of the others. They quickly realize that they’re all inside an alien hunting preserve – and they are the game.

Cue the Predators – seven-foot-tall armored behemoths with highly advanced cloaking and infrared vision technology. The Predators have been using this planet as a means of testing their skills against Earth’s best killers, and they intend to hunt down the humans one by one. At this point, it would have been easy to let the film slip into the obvious “and-then-there-were-none” plot structure, throwing legitimate plot development to the wind in favor of gory kills. But fortunately, producer Robert Rodriguez and director Nimrod Antal toss in a few unique twists that makes “Predators” a little more memorable than others of its ilk.

For starters, the film answers the question. “What would long-term exposure to constant fear and killing do to a person’s mind?” Laurence Fishburne briefly appears as Noland, the psychologically warped survivor of a previous Predator killing spree.. His chilling performance evokes the character of Kurtz in Joseph Conrad’s novel “Heart of Darkness” – an individual who has abandoned the standards of civilization and embraced primitive savagery. Viewers are left to wonder whether he was really deranged from the start, or whether the constant imminence of death has brought out the beast within.

The fundamentally haunting question of the film is “Are we any different from the Predators?” And this theme pervades the entire film. At one point late in the movie, Royce is prepared to abandon an injured comrade to the Predators, using him as bait to draw the aliens. A horrified Isabelle chastises him with the question “Aren’t you human?” “No,” Royce growls. “I’m alive.” Which begs the question…if his only moral standard is the survival instinct, what makes him any different than the giant monsters hunting them?

Once again, it would have been very easy for the filmmakers to embrace convention and make Royce into a classic antihero – a hardened warrior who sacrifices everything in order to survive. But in a particularly gratifying turn, the movie ultimately rejects the concept of utilitarian ethics – using people as merely means to an end – in favor of compassion, honor, and self-sacrifice. This affirmation of conventional morality makes the dramatic ending especially satisfying, and left me feeling good as I left the theater.

From a technical standpoint, the film is reasonably well-made. The Predators are actual human beings in costumes, not CGI creations, which gives the film an element of visceral realism. Everything doesn’t feel like it was done in front of a green screen, which makes for a much more pleasant viewing experience. I should mention that the acting (with the exception of Grace and Fishburne) is fairly weak…there’s not a lot of time spent investing in characters that are going to be killed off. Brody tries hard to embrace his new “action-hero” role, but is never perfectly comfortable in that position. (I have difficulty getting rid of my perception of him as a “sensitive” actor…it’s kind of like what would happen if Colin Firth tried to portray Batman.)

The movie also does a remarkable job of catering to its target demographic – males between the ages of 18 and 25. This is not a movie that most girls will enjoy – it’s very much a masculine empowerment movie, and I found myself occasionally grinning at the sheer macho-ness of it. Even the Predators themselves look like they’ve been pulled from a video game, pumped full of muscle-builder formula, and and then fitted with “Star Wars” castoff equipment.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem with “Predators” is the fact that it is an R-rated sci-fi/horror film, with everything that necessarily involves. While much of the violence is directed against alien creatures (about three-quarters of the gore in the movie is glowing green Predator blood), there are still some shockingly graphic moments – including one particularly gruesome scene that had me cringing in my seat. And not all of the violence is between humans and aliens – humans do some pretty grisly things to each other as well. People end up getting killed with bullets, blades, energy weapons, grenades, mines, and claws…usually with plenty of bloodshed. (There’s also a lot of unnecessary language – 40-50 f-words throughout the course of the movie.) This is by no means a movie for anyone under 17 or 18 – it’s dark, intense, and at times pretty disturbing.

So, is it worth watching?

Many people would not like this movie. It’s not a film for the sensitive or easily disturbed – and most members of the female gender will dismiss it outright as a “guy thing.” And it is, in some ways. But it’s also a tightly plotted action film that isn’t afraid to address important questions – questions that can lead to a discussion of the nature of man, and what it is that makes humans more than merely “predators.” And that, in my mind, is a step forward for this genre.

VERDICT: 8/10
A dark, compelling blend of sci-fi, action, and suspense – with a philosophical touch that differentiates it from others of its kind.

Normalized Score: 5.8

WARNING: “Predators” is rated R for strong creature violence and gore, and pervasive language. This film contains graphic brutal violence, disturbing content, and strong language throughout. NOT recommended for viewers under 17.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 10, 2010 in Sci-Fi