Subscribe
There’s no point in writing a review for this film, for one it’s been out for over a week (light years on the web), and the English-speaking world is divided into those who have seen it, and those who haven’t. Suffice to say it is pretty good. Actually it is unbelievably good. It’s everything that’s great about movies: suspense and the suspension of disbelief. “Take a leap of faith,” good movies make us think, and not by preaching. Director Christopher Nolan waited until he’d had experience with other big productions before making this film, and the work paid off, with all elements – from the score, to the script – well polished and masterfully done. Go see it, and don’t read any further until you have (spoilers). Good, now that you’ve seen the film (last chance) you’re probably struggling with the resiliant question that was planted in your brain, was it all a dream? The web is just a buzzin’ with answers, and there is little to no consesus. However, one common thread throughout all the analysis is that Inception is an allegory for film making, or the shared dream of movies. The best argument for this is made by Deven Faraci:
The movies-as-dreams aspect is part of why Inception keeps the dreams so grounded. In the film it’s explained that playing with the dream too much alerts the dreamer to the falseness around him; this is just another version of the suspension of disbelief upon which all films hinge. As soon as the audience is pulled out of the movie by some element – an implausible scene, a ludicrous line, a poor performance – it’s possible that the cinematic dream spell is broken completely, and they’re lost.
Nolan builds an architecture and the dream (or film) is fleshed out by the actors, producers and production crew. I happen to agree with this take as well, it’s plausible that we in the audience, like the target, are left to fill in the blanks and interpret the story for ourselves. Regardless, the whole “it was all a dream” was my uninspired ending to a half-finished story as part of an English assignment and I simply can’t take another mind-blowing story where the unraveling epicness really was of no consqeunce.
Spending hours scouring the web looking for “the answer” probably won’t do any good (like many I’ll probably try), since the movie even puts the nature of reality into question. In what looks like a modern opium den where the patrons are out dreaming for hours on end the proprietor argues they are not there to sleep, but to awaken. I’m sure that I’ll be playing with these notions for a while, and subsequent viewings will likely be accompanied by further posts. (Un)like some, I’m glad the discussion is just getting underway. For those looking for jump off points on their Pi like journey to enlightment can check out Sam Adams, who presents the same dream of movies argument. Brad Brevet also points out some important and potential deal breakers.
Some comparisons have been made between this film and Shutter Island, which also features Leonardo DiCaprio struggling with the guilt surrounding the death of his wife and the inability to tell fantasy from reality, where dreams are admittedly more dream-like but I don’t see that as a downfall, rather a huge plus. There is a lot of room for debate but the way we remember dreams in anything but complete and for the sake of the general viewing experience the absence of tedious and esoteric dream sequences is welcome.
Another potential interpretation is that Cobb was the real target, that he was being incepted to throw away the guilt over the death of his wife, and his choice to look at his kids represented his acceptanceof the idea. I can only speculate, and will continue to do so.
I’ll be honest, the only exposure I’ve had to this television series has been with odd references, well spoofs actually, in animated series like Family Guy or the odd cameo by Mr. T – Not Another Teen Movie comes to mind: “Be the ball, and throw yourself.” Anyways, since the original series was before my time I’m arguably in the target market for this film, but a PG-rating would seem to indicate that it’s actually intended for younger audiences, so I guess I’m speaking then for the lost generation, old enough to be inundated with the pop cultural references but too old for the Disney-like bloodshed and bleeped cuss-words of the remake.
After leaving the treacherous hills of Peleliu, a battle 
Jerry Bruckheimer delivers another over-the-top fantasy action film, this time based on a video game. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is very similar to the Pirates of the Carribean series, with otherworldly aesthetics (a Bruckheimer hallmark) and feats of strength and ability that defy the laws of physics. In sixth century Persia, a street urchin named Dastan, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, is adopted by the King after outmanouvering his guards following an altercation in a local market. Years later, he and his brothers participate in an attack on the sacred and holy city of Alamut and Dastan comes into the possession of a dagger that has the ability to turn back time. The shapely Princess Tamina, played by Gemma Arterton (Strawberry Fields from Quantum of Solace), makes an attempt to get it back and eventually enlists the help of Dastan in preventing the end of the world. Okay so the story is a little more complex than that but you get the gist. Regardless Dastan and the fair princess are taken prisoner or cornered a half a dosen times but manage to escape unscathed, every time (a dagger that lets you roll by the clock does come in handy). One of the figures always hot on their heels is the ostrich racing and tax hating Sheik Amar, played by Alfred Molina, a lesser known but great actor who provides a lot of much need laughter in this film. Sir Ben Kingsley plays one of the main characters and is ace, as usual. The visuals in this film are stunning, the huge digital cities are the stuff of an Asian Lord of the Rings and the special effects are well done. Fight scenes are inspired by The Matrix and chase scenes by The Bourne Ultimatum, though the video game is famous for it’s rooftop action. Alright, myth and magic play a role in the story, but just once I’d like to see a bloody nose or a chipped tooth from a misstep. Just because fantasy is involved doesn’t mean a film can’t be realistic, but I play that harp too often. It’s not a very serious film but it’s pure entertainment, if you’re looking for character development, or characters with any depth or motivations besides the plainly obvious, look elsewhere.
The anticipated sequel Iron Man 2 is a slick action flick based on the same formula as its predecessor. Tony Stark, after admitting he is Iron Man, has succesfully privatized world peace and refuses to share his technology with the U.S. Government. That much is clear from the trailer, but if you haven’t seen the first or second Iron Man, be warned there are spoilers. The key to Stark’s technology is the power source he developed with minimal resources and equipment in a cave in Afghanistan. The arc reactor in his chest keeps him alive, but its palladium core is slowly killing him. Until he can find another replacement he needs to keep an eye on the toxicity level in his body and drink a strange brew. The ingedrients in the film however are nothing new to the audience, with the main villain origins being traced back to disgruntled partners and (former) employees on a deadly quest for their fair shake. This familiar formula also means we have to wait until the end before Iron Man is really put to the test. Sure, Stark gets into a few skirmishes, first with Ivan Vanko played by Mickey Rourke, who is able to replicate Stark’s technology and show the world that Iron Man is not invincible. The brown stuff never hits the proverbial fan though, even Vanko escapes unscathed and is later sprung from jail. A boozed up Stark then brawls with Rhodes, who absconds with the Mark II suit. The rockets, grenades and lasers don’t start flying until the end, and even then he makes short work of the drones or “Hammeroids” sent to kill him.
A Nightmare Remake, The Horror
With the new A Nightmare on Elm Street being universally panned by critics, I thought it was time for me to brush up on the horror genre and finally see the classic Wes Craven creation. The original film was released before my time but there are plenty of fans who grew up with it and, as is the case with most remakes, don’t feel there is need to replace or ‘update’ a timeless masterpiece. I wasn’t even aware that the film was so coveted or even seen as anything more than a scary slasher movie; but then again I only got to know the character Freddy Kruger from trick or treating on Halloween. But I got a swift education as I was listening to Mark Kermode on BBC 5 as he just unloaded on the remake, in particular for dropping all of the subtext and getting it all wrong, for lack of better words. After having watched the original I can’t say that the film was layered or very symbolic but then again I come from a different time and place. Nevertheless I can see what Kermode is saying about the archetypal bogeyman, and what others said about the dream sequences and being able to relate to them. I will admit that it is a genuinely scary movie, even if the score and special effects are a little outdated. However I found the backstory a little weak, and while there is a vague notion that Freddy is exacting revenge on the children for the sins of their parents, it’s certainly not the focus or even a main part of the story. Regardless, Kermode does rightly point out that a lot of remakes hollow out the heart and soul of their predecessors, just to make a few bucks. It’s also very aggravating, as what was once a meaningful piece of popular culture is reduced to knives and a hat. Also, the default greens and browns of horror films today are very tiresome, and sadly there are very few directors working in the industry capable of stopping the genre from being written off as little more than gore and gratuitous violence. Not that these films need to be in oscar contention, but if they want to draw an audience beyond the cheap thrill seekers then they’ll have to stop producing films like Jeepers Creepers or the latter Saw films. Hostel and The Human Centipede are unlikely to be steps in the right direction.
Read the full article »