Scott Pilgram vs. the World

Reviewed by Steve Kochems

From the moment the Atari-esk Universal logo came up, the aforementioned film did one thing that I haven’t seen another film do nearly as well, and that is a nearly perfect translation from a technologically driven source text to final film. Now, it might be perfect but I don’t know because I’ve never read the graphic novel, but going simply on hearsay and what I saw in the film, it seems like an uber-geeks acid trip gone terribly correct.

At the head of the film is Scott Pilgram (who knew?), status – awesome, who is well played by Michael Cera (Superbad, Juno). A lot of people give Cera flack (Mike), but he’s really developing into a good actor who can keep a solid balance of genuine sensitivity with awkward comedic undertones. Anyways, Scott meets this girl in a dream and then finds her and needs to defeat her seven evil ex’s in order to win her love. Yup, I’m more of an Olive Garden kind of guy.

From a screenwriting standpoint, the general style of the film has a blended feel, as if they mashed both a graphic novel and an old Zelda for Super Nintendo into a movie. And it works. They hit all the points they should (though the ending drags a bit) and the wide array of characters will generally keep you interested to see which evil ex-boyfriend comes up next.

Perhaps the most interesting part is in the first twenty minutes, where Scott seems to cut in and out of reality (as the film cuts from scene to scene quickly almost without Scott knowing). That might be what makes him such a likable character from the get go, if the narrative seems to be jumping around without him (or the audience) knowing to where and, to some extent, why.

But of course, there are drawbacks. For me, the subject matter was only good enough to watch it once. I won’t buy it on DVD or see it again. I might watch it on TV. So it’s gotta lose points for that. If nothing else though, the movie can hold its own next to other graphic novel adaptation like V for Vendetta and 300, which isn’t so easy to do (see Watchmen). It also stands as a piece of quality filmmaking in a year that also boasted The Bounty Hunter and Clash of the Titans. So I will put my personal bias aside on that one and give the film its due.


4 out of 5 stars

From the Collection: Miller's Crossing

Reviewed by Steve Kochems

I dug out an old favorite in the weekend of moving and other activities, the Coen Brother's third film, Miller's Crossing. Enjoy!

Have you ever watched someone chase something in the wind, like a hat or a twenty? They look ridiculous, even if it’s something they need, you can’t help but constantly look foolish doing it. This idea, the foolish man chasing his hat, is at the heart of the gangster film Miller’s Crossing. The third film by Joel and Ethan Coen was only one of two movies they made that lost money, mostly in part to the fact that it came out three days after Goodfella’s, which is widely considered the best gangster movie of all time. But like anything with the Coen’s, the movie isn’t as one dimensional as it seems, it brings a great deal of comedy along with the violence. And as usual, the Coen’s deliver a smart and entertaining film.

We follow the path of Tom Reagan, who can only be described as a mob boss adviser and a rum head, played by Gabriel Byrne. He tries to prevent a war from starting between city boss Leo (Albert Finney) and the hot-headed Johnny Casper, perfectly executed by Jon Polito, and his ruthless associate Eddie the Dane (J. E. Freeman). Caught in the middle are the weasel Bernie Bernbaum (another perfect casting in Jon Turturro) and his sister, as well as Leo’s lady, Verna (Marcia Gay Harden). The Coen’s don’t waste much time to let the powder keg go and Thomson machine gun’s fire.

After watching it through a few times, I noticed that throughout the movie, it seems as if things are moving only as Tom and Verna manipulates them. Leo and Casper only seem to make major moves when Tom or Verna push them to. This is another example of the Coen’s using a few smart, key characters to move the action and letting them move physically driven stooges keep us entertained with comedy and violence.

The movie will really keep you guessing as to what happens next and works well as a type of gangster movie, since it doesn’t hit the normal points of the obvious films of the genre. But just as Blood Simple works as a murder-mystery or Burn After Reading like an adult soap, things are never neatly packed into one type with the Coen’s. You will laugh a lot during Miller’s Crossing and quickly switch back to a cringe.

It stands out as easily one of the best Coen movies ever and like The Big Lebowski, it gets better each time you watch it. Anyone who doesn’t give the movie a chance, well, they’re getting the high hat.


4.5 out of 5 stars

Upcoming

Hey Guys.

We've got two upcoming movie trailers to show you, and boy do they look cool. The first, Skyline, comes from the minds of Joshua Cordes and Liam O'Donnell. Cordes is partially responsible for the effects and animation for films like Iron Man 2, Avatar and 2012 , while O'Donnell did work on AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem. This means one thing: the digital effects are going to look fucking awesome. The flick is directed by Greg and Colin Strause, guys who worked on Iron Man 2, Jonah Hex, and Avatar. The film, which has a November 12 release date, stars Eric Balfour and Scottie Thompson. It has a War of the Worlds feel to it- alien invasion, everyone running type of deal. Click here for the trailer!

The second trailer is for Devil, the latest from writer/director M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, Signs) and directors Drew and John Erick Dowdle (Quarantine). This movie looks pretty damn creepy, something about people being trapped in an elevator with a demon, but that's not the important issue here. While some critics say that Shyamalan has fallen off as a writer (and he pretty much has), this could be his big chance to prove himself to everyone again, and it will be interesting to see how this film plays out in that regard. Check for it in theaters on September 17, and click here for the trailer!

Salt

Reviewed by Mike Kamrowski

I just got around to catching the latest flick from director Phillip Noyce (The Bone Collector, Patriot Games) and, to be honest, I was pleasantly surprised. I hadn't heard much about Salt, safe for the fact that Angelina Jolie was starring as some kind of hot, ass kicking secret agent, so I didn't really have any expectations. The trailer looked solid and the movie ticket was only $4.50 so I figured "what the hell?" Here's what I thought.

First off, Salt was written by Kurt Wimmer who brought us the excellent Law Abiding Citizen. While Salt didn't have the appearance of his previous work, the story was well written, fully thought out and full of great twists (remind you of anything?). The story follows CIA agent Evelyn Salt (Jolie) and her boss Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber) as they interrogate Russian defector Vassily Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski). Orlov gives them some pretty interesting information, revealing that sleeper agents, trained in Russia and sent to the U.S. as children to replace already existing citizens, are going to kill the Russian President in the coming days: the particular agent in question is Evelyn Salt.

OH. SHIT. But that's Jolie!

You can guess where it goes from here- I really don't want to reveal too much because of all the twists and no-fucking-way moments, but I will say this: Jolie beats some serious ass as Evelyn Salt. It was impressive really, certainly reminiscent of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. The action was almost non-stop, the fight scenes were well choreographed and the car chase scenes were fast and surprisingly funny. In one particular scene, Jolie is locked in the back seat of a police SUV and somehow manages to kick out the cops on either side of her. She ends up with a taser, shoots the driver in the leg with it and, crippling the poor bastard to nothing more than spasms, uses his head to steer the car. Each time she hits the taser, his leg pounds on the accelerator. I have to say, that's one thing I've never seen in any movie prior to this one. An interesting concept and one that had the audience rolling with laughter.

The film is well shot, really well shot in fact, and the story was great all the way until the end. So many twists and unexpected moments greet the audience in Salt that I'm hoping for a sequel, which could happen due to the open ending that Wimmer left us with. The climax tied up most of the loose ends and I walked away satisfied... except for the utter lack of naked Angelina Jolie scenes :(

3.5 out of 5 stars

The Expendables

Reviewed by Mike Kamrowski

I've been eagerly awaiting The Expendables for some time now and my initial reaction after watching it for the first time was: Holy SHIT was that entertaining. It wasn't necessarily good story-wise, or acting-wise, or camera-wise... well, keep reading and you'll see what I mean.

The film, which was directed and co-written by Sylvester Stallone (and CHRIST could you tell), had one of the most ridiculous supporting casts ever assembled for an action flick. I mean, how can you go wrong when Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Steven Austin, Terry Crews, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, David Zayas and Eric Roberts all join forces to make the end-all be-all action movie?

The story, which let's be honest here wasn't even necessary because all we want to see is ass-beating by the masters of the craft, followed Barney Ross (Stallone, and the names only get worse from here) and his group of mercenaries on various missions. Well, two missions, but we're to understand that they've been doing this type of shit for years. Joining Ross is his number-two man, Lee Christmas (Statham), who is better with a blade than Paul Hogan from Crocodile Dundee. Rounding off the group are Ying Yang (Li), Gunner Jensen (Lundgren), Toll Road (Couture) and Hale Caesar (Terry Crews).

After the teams first mission, where they kill a boatload of Somalian pirates and Lundgren goes ape-shit and ends up getting kicked off the team, Ross is approached by Mr. Church (Willis) and Trench (Schwarzenegger) about a job. Naturally Ross takes the job, it goes bad, shit blows up and gets all kinds of stabby, his love interest (Giselle Itie) gets kidnapped by the evil General Garza (Zayas) and he's torn between going back to save the girl, putting himself and crew in danger or losing what could potentially be the love of his life. In order to resolve this, as most matters these days tend to be resolved, he goes and talks to Mickey Rourke. After the heart-to-heart, Ross decides to go back and fight against Garza and his fellow evil-doers James Munroe (Roberts) and Munroe's henchman Paine (Austin). His crew comes along armed to the teeth, eEverything explodes, the bad guys die and the good guys fly out with not much more than a scratch.

Truthfully, The Expendables was not very good in most respects. The dialogue was terrible, due in part to Stallone and company's writing, but also because FUCK are these guys hard to understand. Jet Li, Lundgren and Stallone can barely be understood most of the time, and Zayas and Statham aren't much better. The story doesn't make much sense- we never find out what the bad guys are up to, just that they're bad. Stallone, as much as it pains me to say this, is getting old; the running-down-the-dock scene was hard to watch, but you have to remember: the guy is 64 and absolutely jacked in this movie, so he's not that old I guess. The camera work was pretty terrible in some parts and the cast, while amazing, was so big that I felt like there just wasn't enough camera-time to go around. It really drags in some parts and I often found myself thinking "wow, this movie needs more action." But when the action came, especially at the end, damn was it great.

The overall body count had to have been in the low thousands and I can't remember the last time I watched a flick where so many guys had their necks snapped or throats cut. The fight scenes were great, as were the explosions while everything had an "epic" feel to it. The weapons were different for most action movies and the ways enemies were killed sometimes had me laughing out loud. The showdown between Couture and Austin was epic, Li's martial arts were fantastic, and Stallone kicked some serious ass but the saving grace for the movie wasn't just the awesome fighting/shooting/explosion/car chase scenes- it was Terry Crews.

If you thought Crews was brilliant in the Old Spice commercials, you haven't seen anything yet. Every time he's on screen he's magic. Whether it's talking about his switch-blade or his AA-12 shotgun (shout out to Modern Warfare 2!), he is just great. There's a scene where Stallone and the boys are trapped at the end of a hall by the baddies with no way out. Cut to Crews with a monster of a machine gun, posted right behind the enemies. He absolutely decimates everything in sight and then pretty much single-handedly destroys most of the enemy base, blowing up guard towers and just about everything else along the way. The crowning moment, however, was when Stallone instructs him to THROW A MISSILE at a helicopter so he can shoot it- he does and everything explodes.

There was a bit of an open ending and I truly hope they make a sequel- except this time, maybe let Stallone do the fighting and someone else do the rest.


4 out of 5 ninja stars

A Weekend Double Up!

Okay, so I saw two semi-recent DVD releases this weekend and thought I’d share my thoughts on each with you. One I had heard a lot of good things about and was a requirement after they way I blasphemously reviewed Dinner for Schmucks (I still stand by my review, but it hurts too much to say it). The other I had zero interest in seeing (pun) until someone told me how it ended. This obviously ruined much of the film, but had I taken the time to see it I would’ve been pleasantly surprised. Here we go!

I Love You, Man

Alright, if you’re homophobic then you should just skip down because I’m not afraid to say it- I love Paul Rudd. He’s got such a range and likability to him that I cannot explain. He swoons me every scene he’s in. So after I said he was awful in a previous review, I knew I had to go back to something that would reinvigorate my faith in him. Hence, the pinnacle of bromanticism.

The story is a fairly basic romance story in disguise of a comedy (I refuse to admit this is a romantic comedy), with a flipping of the desired gender for Peter (Rudd). He goes through a series of failed attempts to make friends, or man-dates, until finally meeting Sydney (Jason Segel) in what would seem to be fate. They hit it off over a series of broments and, well, you know how romance’s go.

The real surprise to this film is Peter’s sturdy relationship with Zooey (Rashida Jones). Jones brings a soft and comforting feel to the screen and helps pace the plot against the building bro-mentum of Peter and Sydney. Outside of those three, the film splits other characters. Jon Favreau’s ill-tempered Barry and J.K. Simmons, playing Peter’s father, are a treat each time they are on screen. The time given to an annoying Rob Huebel, Peter’s coworker, and a high-pitched comedian who isn’t listed on IMDB’s page for the film is minimal but makes you wish it was less.

All in all, I’m glad to back in the Rudd-boat (get it? Think Asian). It’s a nice balance of heart and comedy that hides its true nature so well that many guys who watch it together with pizza and beer will never realize it’s basically the same idea as two women curling up to When Harry Met Sally and a bucket of iced cream.

4 out of 5 stars

The Book of Eli

When I first saw trailers for this movie, it came in between trailers for The Crazies and Daybreakers. I thought it was a triumvirate of post-apocalyptic garbage that seems to fill theatres every year. At the very least, I never thought it was something to worry about. The world’s only hope is Denzel Washington- alright I’m not worried, I know he’ll get it done. So I was told how it ended and got pissed because while most of the film isn’t much different than the normal doomsday dumpster films coming out each year, it ends up being worthwhile.

Eli (Washington) is seemingly a wanderer who is traveling west and will occasionally kill some bandits. If nothing else, the fight scenes in this film were crisp and quick, no elaborate choreography and very realistic. Eventually, he ends up in a town run by a man named Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who has runners searching everywhere for some book (I wonder where he’ll find it?). Trouble arises when Eli sticks to his mission of going west rather than joining up with Carnegie.

The most intriguing part of this movie to me was lining the effects of religion up against each other. The righteous Eli against the manipulative Carnegie is a nice conflict and a believable one mostly because Carnegie’s intentions are never truly evil or terrible in nature, but are rather a perversion of something pure for a less good. This alleviates the lackluster climax, which also acts as a trade-off for the major twist at the end.

Ultimately, it’s got some nice action and shows serious issues in the religious forum, less abrasively than something like Religulous. Its balance ends up being its flaw (along with its lacking of worthwhile supporting characters outside of Oldman) as it carries enough action to entertain and enough smarts to intrigue. It’s going to lose points because the ending will only surprise you once, but that one time is worth watching for.

3.5 out of 5 stars

The Other Guys (second review)

Reviewed by Steve Kochems

To say that this was a film I had high hopes for would certainly be a true statement, but I hadn’t anticpated it would also be a fairly smart film. What some might see as a loss in laughs, The Other Guys makes up for with solidifying characters and a concrete plot, two things lost by many films in this day and age (see Dinner for Schmucks).

The Other Guys follows two very real characters and wisely decides to not follow a common buddy cop trend, one misfit and one wild card. Instead, Terry (Mark Wahlberg) is an emotional train wreck disguised by a tough guy facade and Alan (Will Ferrell) is an action figure confined to a box but once he’s opened up runs wild a la Frank the Tank. When the two super cops of New York City (Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson) have a tragic, and hilarious, accident, our two average Joe’s see their opening to become heroes.

Now, I certainly wouldn’t say that the film wasn’t funny. Walhberg and Ferrell are a great comedic team and the supporting cast works nicely, from Rob Riggle’s ball busting top cop to Michael Keaton’s Captain Gene, whose side job brought laughs to a slowing finale. For the average American, it may get too slow. To me, it’s a necessary drop that even the best buddy comedies go through to maintain a well structured film. That being said, it has noticeable sag in the middle.

The amount of mockery this film brings was certainly expected, but Director Adam McKay goes for all out by streamlining their investigation along with the moral center of the movie. This is really all brought back around at the end credits, which could come off as preachy but instead are more of a revelation that no one would’ve expected from the guys who last served up the shit-sandwich Step Brothers.

Overall, my expectations for this film may have been too high. What it lacks in huge laughs, it makes up for with a quality plot, theme, and characters that will have you kicking the chair in front of you when you are laughing. If it’s not a theatre must-see, I’m sure the DVD will be even better with gag reels and outtakes. Other Ferrell/McKay projects like Anchorman or Talladega Nights gave me a similar initial feel but grew with each viewing, so I’m going to learn from my mistakes and trust in a second time around.

3.5 out of 5 stars

The Other Guys

Reviewed by Mike Kamrowski

This hasn't been the best summer for comedy films, so I was a bit weary about checking this one out. I thought it looked great when I watched the first trailers a few months back, but so did Dinner For Schmucks...

The Other Guys is your typical good-cop bad-cop film, except it isn't that at all. That might be what it set out to do, but in the end it is really just an extreme exaggeration of the genre and it worked perfectly.

The characters are what made this movie for me, from Will Ferrell's timid desk-jockey character of Allen Gamble, who wants nothing more than to finish his oh-so important paperwork to Mark Wahlberg's anxious, over-the-top hero-wannabe role as Terry Hoitz. Michael Keaton steps in to play the not so hardass police Captain who constantly wants to see the duo in his office, while Steve Coogan (Hamlet 2) plays the role of wealthy money man David Ershon.

And, in one of the most spectacular jobs of movie casting ever, Sam Jackson and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson play the hot-shot lead detectives that the women love and the rest of the police force (mainly Wahlberg) envy. They are your typical rouge cop team, the type that the phrase "shoot first, ask questions later" was designed for. They are (not surprisingly) hilarious together during the short amount of screen-time they have, which is probably a good thing because Ferrell and Wahlberg would have spent the film in their shadow. The supporting cast works well in my opinion- the movie is clearly about Gamble and Hoitz. Rounding everything off is a ridiculously funny cameo by Derek Jeter and the voice of your humble narrator, Ice T.

The plot was very predictable, but the story was interesting. After the death of Samuel L. and The Rock, Wahlberg and Ferrell decide (although Ferrell was forced... at gunpoint) to fill the very big shoes of their idols and throw their hats in the ring for top cops. They discover a ponzi-type scheme being cheifed by Coogan and his thugs. Eventually the good guys win and blah-blah-blah. Very predictable, but like I said, the story wasn't really the drawing point.

Will Ferrell is on the money funny and Wahlberg is right there with him. In fact, everyone is funny in this movie. It's one of those movies where everything is genuine and the jokes keep coming in rapid succession. While some of them might be duds, other's will catch you off guard and the next thing you know the theater is rolling (the hobo orgy in Ferrell's car was one such moment).

When all is said and done (...or blown up, crashed, etc.) The Other Guys is an exaggeration of an exaggerated cop flick (Starsky & Hutch and Rush Hour come to mind) and is completely unapologetic about it. It mixes action with comedy -not the other way around- and does it with every trick in the book: physical humor, random gimmicks, hilarious one-liners (some that you might not even catch during the first viewing), ridiculous situations and the comedic styles of Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg play perfectly off of each other.

4 out of 5 stars

And if all of that isn't reason enough to go see The Other Guys, here's one more: Eva Mendes wearing low-cut shirts. Fantastic.

What I Watched Wednesday

Hey folks, we've decided to broaden our horizons from just recently released films into our souls of movies that we love. Or ones we just happen to have seen in the last week. So here is the first What I Watched Wednesday post- feel free to ad your thoughts at the bottom and even throw some movies you saw in as well.

Steve watched: Slap Shot!

I walked through Target the other day to get a puzzle so I could drink and be productive on a Monday (don't ask) and came across Slap Shot! in the $5 bin. I don't think I've ever spent a better finski in my life. It was funny when I was 9 and still is now.

Not only does this film bring great physical comedy but it also really brings theatrics and violence in sports to the forfront not only to expose it for the distractions that they are, but openly mock them in an example of how they are ruining sports. Guys like Sean Avery and Ochocinco aren't examples of athletes who excel in a sport but rather in manipulation.

The fact that Slap Shot! was released in 1977 and some of its message still rings true today is one reason it is an old favorite of mine. More importantly, the fact that it maintains this as an underlying theme with a surface of such stupidity and low class humor is perhaps its greatest feat.

Still waiting to buy you that soda Oggie.

Random Comment from Mike: Fucking best hockey movie ever! I just finished reading a book about the WHA (The Rebel League by Ed Willes), which is the hockey league Slap Shot! was based on. Favorite line from the flick? "We're just puttin' on the foil, coach!"

Dinner for Schmucks

Reviewed by Steve Kochems & Mike Kamrowski

Steve:

This film called for a less intensive review than I normally give, not just because of the content and plot of the film, but because I feel like I’ve narrowed down the fundamental problem that I have with it. However, this flaw is not one I can simply admit to.

It falls into the category of a film trying to balance heart and comedy. Its laughs are ones that come in bunches, with gaps in between that try to be filled with heart and feeling, led by Tim (Paul Rudd). The laughs often come at the expense of Barry (Steve Carrell), an idiot that overshadows Michael Scott by misreading the simplest situations and dressing up dead mice and placing them into romantic settings for his own nostalgia. Alright I’ll be fair, those scenes (including the opening) were adorable, but it runs contrary to the predictable thematic message of the film.

The film also struggles to build tension by not evolving to new problems but rather regurgitating the same ones over and over. It’s becomes a more predictable movie as it progresses and that really drags it down.

If you’re looking for straight laughs, this might be the film for you. A good gauge: how much Michael Scott you can stand in The Office. If you can’t stand him, this isn’t the film for you because very little else is offered up to the audience other than Carrell. Unfortunately, I think the main problem in this film is Rudd. I never thought I’d say that, but he simply looks uncomfortable and tame in this movie. He’s constantly overshadowed by Carrell’s over the top goofiness. He doesn’t have the lax attitude like in Role Model’s or the sexism of Brian Fantana in Anchorman. Instead, Rudd seems to be trapped in a lifeless character that doesn’t really make much of a change in the film.

Overall, I’m torn on what to think about this movie. Being a huge fan of The Office, I laughed every time Carrell opened his mouth, but couldn’t help but notice the flab showing. Unnecessary characters, an imprisoned lead, and a static conflict all seem to drag the film down. In the end though, I found that I still enjoyed the film.

3 out of 5 stars

Mike:
In the latest venture for director/producer Jay Roach (Bruno, Meet the Parents), Paul Rudd plays a character who's one goal is to move up the coporate ladder. He finally gets an opportunity to do just that after his boss invites him to a dinner and explains that each guest must bring someone for the rest of the party to make fun of. To this, Rudd replies "It's a dinner for idiots?" In my opinion, you can replace "dinner" with "movie" and it would prefectly describe Dinner for Schmucks.

Paul Rudd films are usually pretty funny, if not great due to the acting of Rudd, the hilarious storyline and the support of a great cast; I'd say this was the exception. Steve is right on the money with his review: it tried to balance heart and comedy and the scale just wasn't even at the end. Supporting characters (there were a lot) were introduced too rapidly and took up too much screen time- generally, most were unnecessary and didn't do much to move the film along.

I hate The Office and I'm not the biggest Steve Carrell fan (40 Year-Old Virgin and Anchorman being the exceptions) so this movie was very hard for me to sit through. I went into the theater with the mentality of "Oh, Paul Rudd, Steve Carrell and Zach Galifianakis are in a movie together; how could this go wrong?" Looking back, I probably should have just went to see Toy Story 3.

I thought that Carrell's character was just too ridiculous to be believable. He has no common sense and wasn't likable no matter how hard the movie tried. Rudd's character was in the same boat. I found myself thinking "no one is like this in real life" whenever the two were on the screen. The characters and situations just weren't believable to me (Rudd's stalker ex-girlfriend? Come on) and the only reason I was satisfied at the end was the fact that I got to go home.

The only saving grace, in my opinion, was the character of eccentric artist Kieran Vollard played by the very funny Jemaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords). Clement's character is a Gaia loving, self-centered ego-maniac and he plays it prefectly. The absurdity of his art (one giant photograph at his art show is him holding a baby zebra- the ensuing conversation with Paul Rudd's character is hilarious) suits his character perfectly and he delievers some of the films most memorable lines.

Despite the fact that this is the third film Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd have been in together, the third time's not the charm.

2 out of 5 stars

Inception

Reviewed by Steve Kochems

Talking with an average movie go-er made me realize something the other day. CGI has gotten so good that very few could really see the difference of a computer graphic and what actually could be shot on film. Then Inception came along. If nothing else is taken away from this film, I was reminded that some films are still made, not blurred. For a film this good, I've done an extensive review and breakdown of the points system. Normally, I'll grade out of 5 stars (that will also be listed at the bottom) but I figured I'd treat you blog-readers for my first review.

Cinematography:

What director Christopher Nolan has done with a narrative so deep and complex is perfectly translated to his use of hydraulics and elaborate sets to wow a viewer beyond anything imaginable. While Avatar was beautiful, it was ultimately still computer generated. Nolan’s use of spinning floors and folding cities hides any use of CG so well that we are fully enveloped into this world.

Each shot and scene moves beautifully and blends the real with the surreal so well, the fact that it mirrors the narrative is simply a bonus. This is why the film will succeed with average movie go-ers, because it leaves the audience in awe of what he has been able to do in front of a camera. Even those who get lost in the complex plot will find a great deal of entertainment in everything from eroding cities to MC Escher’s world coming to life. Simply incredible.

25 out of 25

Narrative Flow:

The plot for Inception is obviously a complex one, and those who have seen Nolan’s films before (The Prestige, Memento) will not be surprised by that. Though, most will go in with only experiencing his blockbuster smash, The Dark Knight, and its predecessor (Batman Begins), which are well structured narratives in their own right. Inception follows dream manipulators Cobb (Leo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in the most dangerous and uncharted place known to man: the subconscious.

Structurally, the film hits each point nicely and keeps the tension high from the moment Cobb accepts a job his comrades aren’t sure is even possible, with a nice balance between the impossibility of the quest as well as the inner demons of Cobb that constantly threaten the team’s safety.

Ultimately, it falls more on the possibility of things that can happen rather than things that do happen to maintain tension late in the film, which may lose some people. It leaves the emotional weight on Cobb’s shoulders and ultimately delivers, but never reaching the release I got at the end of The Prestige.

23 out of 25

Characters:

Joseph Gordon-Levitt will be a star after this film. He stands out as the logical and calculated Arthur and comes off as one of the most likable characters on the screen. The rest of the crew do well at bringing their unique attributes to the group like a surreal Ocean’s 11. Tom Hardy’s lax and roguish Eames brings a good deal of comedic relief and some of the best fight scenes. This is only the second film I’ve seen Marion Cotillard in and she shines again as Mal, often going from charming to chilling in the blink of an eye. Ken Watanabe and Cillian Murphy Jr. deliver their roles, but add little more than what the script gives them.

The true flaws lie in Cobb and Ariadne, DiCaprio and Ellen Page respectively. Nolan has been criticized for leaving his female leads underdeveloped, and that might be the case here. Ariadne is curious without much cause and we never get to know her as much as we should for her to take on the roles she does late in the film. The major reason I lacked the cathartic release after the film is Cobb. He’s abrasive and often too closed off from the viewer for us to build suspense, but it comes at the cost of us never getting to feel what he is feeling. Ultimately he is never likable enough or we don’t understand his strife well enough for the ending to give that satisfaction it should.

21 out of 25

Overall Thought:

Many of these issues are probably due to high expectations. I’ve come to expect perfection from Nolan and was extremely satisfied with his previous work, so perhaps there was no way to be satisfied. Nevertheless, it stands and a monumental film that feels as real as the cinematography is. That is what really carries this film for me. The narrative itself is interesting and compelling but ultimately it falls just short because of the distance from Cobb, which is not at the fault of DiCaprio but rather a risk Nolan took to maintain the suspense of the film.

This is certainly worth seeing on the big screen and will definitely be a DVD buy. Repeat viewings will only give a greater appreciation for the work put into this film and it should get better with time. It definitely warrants a second viewing in theaters because it seems like it will only get better with each viewing and for that, it scores major points.

24 out of 25

Overall: 93 out of 100

4.5 out of 5 stars.