Oppenheimer - "Can You Hear the Music?"

 

“Can You Hear the Music?”

I am an admitted Nolan fanboy (Tenet was my favorite film the year it came out), so I was extremely excited to see Oppenheimer this past July. After leaving the theater, I appreciated how great it was (the acting, music, sense of scope, etc.), but I didn’t exactly enjoy it. I had the same reaction to Dunkirk (which I need to rewatch, since I like this film more each time I see it). I just thought that I preferred Nolan when he stays in the fully fictional world; his true stories were too limited by history. 

A few months later, I was able to watch it again at home, and again, and again…I’ve watched it eight times now. Initially, I only watched it a second time because it’s Nolan, and seemingly everyone had declared the film a masterpiece. I just wanted to see if what I missed would suddenly click. And it did.

My relationship with this movie is best summed up by the scene between Niels Bohr and Oppenheimer early in the film. He asks how good Robert’s mathematics skills are, and when he hears they aren’t great, he says, “Algebra’s like sheet music. The important thing isn’t, “Can you read music?’ It’s ‘Can you hear it?’ Can you hear the music, Robert?”

This perfectly sums up what I have loved about Nolan’s past two films. I will never understand the science behind what’s going on onscreen, but I love the feeling and experience created in the films. Nolan has caught shit for his sound mixes being so loud that dialogue cannot be understood, but that’s the point. Hearing specific details about how inversion works in Tenet or quantum physics works in Oppenheimer would be completely wasted on my dumbass. But an amazing score set to riveting visuals I can understand and enjoy. I can hear that music.

Speaking literally about music, this is something else that has been vital in his past two films (although almost all of his work features prominent scores). Tenet utilized a complex score that incorporated backwards music, and helped set the tone for a grand, serious story about saving the world. Likewise, Oppenheimer’s score is equally complex (in ways that I don’t completely understand due to my lack of musical knowledge) in how it shifts seamlessly from important moments of history to foreboding tones of what this work will lead to while also featuring softer moments of the human relationships established throughout. The cliché is that a score should be enjoyed but not noticed, but with Ludwig Göransson’s Tenet and Oppenheimer scores, it is clear that the score can be an integral and noticeable aspect of a great film. Hans Zimmer may have made Nolan’s most famous (and copied) scores, but Göransson has made the best and most complementary ones. 

With Tenet and Oppenheimer, my first viewings left me a bit confused and not exactly blown away, but thanks to Nolan’s reputation and visuals along with an interesting score, I knew I needed to revisit these films. Because of this, my appreciation of both films only grows with each new viewing. And this has led to Oppenheimer becoming the most watched film for me in Nolan’s filmography. I don’t fully understand what’s going on here, but I can hear the music, and that’s all that matters.

Small Moments in a Big Film

While Oppenheimer is this big film essentially about the end of the world filled with huge moments and lengthy and dense dialogue scenes, it’s a film filled with little moments that I love that bring me back to the movie again and again. I just wanted to mention them here.

First is the “Can you hear the music?” scene I went into detail about above. I have nothing to add there aside from that I’ve seen a YouTube clip of this scene posted by someone at a screening that featured a full orchestra performing the score live, and I am extremely jealous.

The introduction of Groves is great. Damon isn’t getting enough credit for his performance here, providing some drastically needed humor to this serious film. And I love it when he sends Dane DeHaan off to dry clean his jacket.

This is also the first time you hear the theme that plays signifying the friendship developed here that reappears a couple more times later on.

I was worried about Einstein being in this movie at first because he’s become more of a character than an actual human at this point in history, but the scene in which Oppenheimer tells him about the possibility of igniting the atmosphere put my fears to rest.

Casey Affleck showing up to be a creepy bastard.

The way the score starts to incorporate Geiger counter noises as they get closer to completing the bomb…er…gadget.

The Trinity test, of course.

The crux of the film, and the most effective individual moment, for me is Oppenheimer’s speech after the bomb had been dropped. The sound design of this moment puts you right into Oppenheimer’s mind as he wrestles with this celebration of death he feels responsible for, but the standout moment is when a scream is isolated from the cheering crowd. Within a jubilant, patriotic assembly, such a scream would just blend in; but isolated from it, it sounds more like someone’s response to witnessing a nuclear weapon destroy the world around them. I get chills every time I watch this scene, and I’m getting them as I write about it.

Truman calling Oppenheimer a cry baby.

Oppenheimer snubbing Strauss’s loser son and fiancée. 

Matthew Modine’s righteous anger at the closed hearing: “Excuse me, gentlemen, if I become stirred. But I am.”

Oppenheimer realizing Groves had Pash transferred.

Groves’s nod to Oppenheimer as he leaves the hearing. And, “But I don’t think I’d clear any of those guys,” and Jason Clarke’s dickhead smile in response.

Emily Blunt’s takedown of Clarke: “‘Cause I don’t like your phrase.”

Downey, Jr.’s angry meltdown at the end, during which they should have just had young Han Solo hand him an Oscar.

Emily Blunt’s response to Teller’s attempted handshake.

The final scene revealing the conversation with Einstein, and that perfect ending moment, conveying the guilt Oppenheimer will carry with him for the rest of his life.

Random Thoughts / Favorite Quotes

As a lifelong resident of Indiana who grew up playing basketball, it’s hard to associate the sound of people stomping on gym bleachers in a negative connotation.

With each rewatch, I enjoy the old man (John Gowans, who was first credited as an old man in 2003) in the hearing more and more. It’s great when he laughs along with Emily Blunt, but his best moment is when Oppenheimer tells them that Berkeley only had the leading physics department once he had built it, and the old dude nods like, “That’s right, motherfuckers.”

It’s nice watching young Han Solo and old Iron Man be slight dicks to each other for the whole movie while Jeff from American Dad! just kind of hangs out, eating soup and whatnot.

The same dude who brought Michael Myers his mask in Halloween (2018) is the same dude who suggests treason to Oppenheimer. This fucker needs to just leave people alone.

Oppenheimer putting on his high-waisted pants and dorky hat and grabbing his pipe is treated with the same reverence as the first time Batman puts on the Batsuit.

James Urbaniak was brought in to say one line about trees with a German accent.

Before his standout moment near the end in his testimony at the hearing, Oscar-winner Rami Malek’s main role is to have writing implements taken or smacked away by Oppenheimer.

Dane DeHaan has aged to become the perfect wormy guy in a movie.

It took me eight watches of this to finally notice that someone was playing the bongos two different times at Los Alamos: at the Christmas party/Niels Bohr surprise and after the Trinity test. With very little research, I found out it was Richard Feynman, and he really did play the bongos.

“Birth control is a little out of my jurisdiction, General.”

Groves, seeing a pregnant Kitty: “Clearly.”

“I worry about an America where we do these things and no one protests.”

The isolated scream during the pep rally speech gives me chills every time.

“You shook his fucking hand?” Why did he tell her that he shook his hand?

“...but I don’t think I’d clear any of those guys.”

The score takes on a softer tone when Groves leaves the hearing and gives Oppenheimer a nod. It’s the little moments like that that stick with me.

In fact, that part is actually a little theme that plays during another moment when Oppenheimer realizes that Groves had Pash transferred. It’s the “Groves was really my friend” theme.

“Only a fool or an adolescent presumes to know someone else’s relationship.”

I now believe that Lewis Strauss was behind the JFK assassination.

Emily Blunt deserves a nomination just for that look she gives Teller when he goes to shake her hand.

Tenet - "Don't Try to Understand It."

Enough temporal pincer movements have been made that I can now finally write about my favorite film of 2020: Tenet. If you can’t tell from the sporadic output of my site in general or the films covered in that sporadic output, I don’t write about new films very often. I watch nearly everything throughout the year (mainly thanks to the screeners I get during awards season), but I decided a while back to not write lengthy immediate thoughts about new releases. I think a film needs time to be truly great. As I scan through my top ten lists from the past, I constantly come across movies I forgot entirely; how could something forgetful be one of my favorite films of the year? So while the rest of the world tries to be faster, I decided to go slower and come back to films I love after some time to see if that initial spark led to an actual fire. Aptly enough with Tenet, I started off loving it, went through some confusing rewatches, and ended up right where I started. I love this indecipherable (at least, for me) movie.

On top of time, rewatchability is a big factor for me, as well. I wouldn’t think that Tenet, a film that demands your undivided attention, would be very rewatchable for me since I tend to like to put on movies as background noise at home. But somehow Tenet is a film I don’t mind catching twenty minutes of before I fall asleep, or watching the first temporal pincer movement scene while putting away laundry. It all comes down to the Protagonist’s (more on his namelessness later) meeting with the scientist when she simply tells him, “Don’t try to understand it.” I truly believe this is Nolan speaking directly to the audience.

Normally, a director telling you to essentially “not worry about it” when it comes to a severely complex plot would be a red flag. But I trust Nolan. I’m sure he put in the work, and all of this shit probably adds up if you stop and break it down moment to moment. I usually want to break down complex movies, especially in the sci-fi genre, but I don’t want to fully understand how certain scenes work in Tenet. I just want to enjoy the chaos. 

This wasn’t the case at first. After my first viewing, I loved it, but I immediately started watching it again because I didn’t know what the fuck was going on during the major action set pieces. After multiple viewings didn’t clear things up much, I went to YouTube and watched dozens of breakdown videos that featured diagrams and shit about how it all worked. At some point during that evening, I had Tenet figured out. I have since forgotten most of it, though, because it turned out I didn’t care. 

Homework should not be a part of the viewing experience. And I don’t think Nolan wanted his audience running to YouTube for breakdown videos after the film was over so someone could hold their hand and explain what they had just watched. Instead, he probably wants you to just watch it again (by the way, I know I’m assuming I know what Nolan thinks quite a bit here, but, you know, don’t worry about it). So that’s what I do everytime I come across Tenet in my collection and realize I can’t remember exactly what was going on in a lot of it; time to try again.

Continuously watching Tenet to try to understand it a bit more could be infuriating if the film wasn’t so enjoyable on a cinematic level. The amazing score cements the whole affair, blaring over dialogue (that I wouldn’t understand anyway) while complex time heists and shit occur. The backwards fighting and driving looks great and kind of funny at times (that weird part when the Protagonist is shimmying on the floor after a gun comes to mind). Everything is done big and fast, like a conversation that could have happened during a dinner instead happens while the characters pilot wacky boats I didn’t even know existed. And the cast is naturally charismatic enough that I don’t care if I understand what they’re saying. John David Washington, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Robert Pattinson could babble about temporal pincer movements the whole film, and I would be captivated. The whole thing is like a well-made James Bond film that doesn’t give a fuck if you understand why the world is being saved.

Which brings me to the Protagonist. It’s easy to shit on this movie by claiming that there is such little character development that Nolan didn’t even bother naming his main character. But I saw it as a commentary on these kinds of films in general. Yes, we all know the names James Bond and Ethan Hunt, but who are those guys when they’re not saving the world? Bond has all that fucking and drinking, I guess, but Hunt doesn’t even have that. They’re just protagonists that we follow while they globe-trot doing cool shit. Since this isn’t a franchise, why bother giving the Protagonist a name that we’ll forget before the credits are over? And it’s not as if there aren’t natural moments when a name could be given. Multiple times the Protagonist is introduced to a new person who provides their name (like a human would do), but when it comes time for him to say his name, the Protagonist instead brings up the next plot point. “Nice to meet you, I’m Neil.” “Who gives a fuck? Now how do we get into that arms dealer’s compound?” It’s comical; the most intimate detail we know about the Protagonist is that he drinks Diet Coke, and even with that, we only find it out as a clue that Neil has already met the Protagonist in the future.

The Protagonist doesn’t have time for any pointless character-building because he’s in an action movie, and it doesn’t matter. He needs to save the world. This means he’s a good guy. End of story. This is Nolan deciding to skip emotion (his detractors think he does that in every film anyway, though they’re only right half the time), and just give the audience a pure action film. Everything is done to move the plot forward. There’s no time for character development because the future is trying to end the fucking world. Time is doubly precious when some shit is moving forward while other shit is moving backward. 

Or maybe I’m just a Christopher Nolan fanboy. Where others find fault I see genius. I am a Nolan fan, that I cannot deny. But finding hidden strength in obvious weaknesses is what I do when I love a movie, no matter the director. It’s what I love about watching movies in general, or at least movies that affect me as much as Tenet has. This one is special to me because it has many elements I would typically hate in a movie, but in this instance they enhance my enjoyment, even years later. As it turns out, “time isn’t the problem” when it comes to me and Tenet, and I plan on revisiting this one many more times in the future, even if I know it will leave me confused. It’s like performing a temporal pincer movement on myself. Or maybe not. Still not sure how those work…

I Loved "Interstellar." Keep Reading to Find Out Why.

Interstellar

Interstellar is a rare film for writer/director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception).  His films are notoriously cold and technical, though they excel when it comes to scope and visual beauty.  Emotion is usually quite lacking in his films.  This is not to say that there is no drama in a Nolan film.  There is emotional drama in everything he has done, but, at least for me, it has never been this effective.  Surprisingly, Nolan has found true emotion in a film that takes place largely in deep space, the loneliest possible environment. 

Interstellar is essentially a father-daughter story about a pilot/engineer (Matthew McConaughey) who missed his chance to go to outer space and his daughter (Mackenzie Foy), who feels abandoned by him when he does get the chance to leave.  McConaughey’s reason for leaving is pretty justifiable, though: he’s going to look for a new planet for the human race.  There are same vague comments about what has happened to Earth in this film (world wars over food, for one), but the real problems are just beginning with a blight that has wiped out most of our food supply except for corn, but corn might not be safe for long.  The film certainly makes Earth look miserable, though it’s done on a small scale.  We never get the broad view of what the world is like.  In fact, there are really only two locations for the film on Earth: a farm and a hidden NASA compound.  While a larger explanation of the status of the entire planet would be interesting on its own, it is not the point.  The film is called Interstellar after all.  You know McConaughey is going to leave; the question of the film is, how long will he be gone?

Leaving a child behind for an uncertain amount of time is emotionally charged already, but when the science of gravity and black holes is added, it becomes downright devastating.  Apparently, gravity near a black can mess with time.  An hour on, say, a planet near a black hole, could last years elsewhere.  (For the record, I have no idea why that is, but scientists claim this is true.)  This possible problem coupled with the fact that McConaughey and his fellow astronauts cannot send messages (they can only receive them) back to Earth makes his absence that much more heartbreaking.  This film, though very much science-fiction, is actually a love letter to Nolan’s daughter (the working title was Flora’s Letter), and you get the impression that going off to make these giant movies might be his version of leaving Earth while his daughter grows up.  It is quite clear that Nolan wanted to tug at the heartstrings with this one and, for me, at least, he accomplished his goal.  How else can you explain why a review of a science-fiction film written by an admitted dork has gone three paragraphs without gushing about visual effects and cool, weird robots? 

The emotional impact of the film was surprising, and it made me care about the characters in a Nolan film more than ever before.  It was truly unexpected.  The great visual effects and general cinematic excellence of the film?  That was expected.  This is what has been troubling me when it comes to reviewing Interstellar.  My first attempt ended up being a bit of a rant about why people should appreciate the movie (read it here if you want), and I explained how annoyed I was with people (critics and film buffs alike) calling the film “ambitious” in both negative and positive terms.  “Ambitious” is far too loaded of a word to use to describe any film (and I will attempt to stop using that word in my reviews from here on out).  It only implies that someone tried to do something.  Well, of course they did.  Interstellar is not an example of someone “trying.”  It is an example of Christopher Nolan and the rest of the filmmakers doing exactly what they set out to do: create an entertaining science-fiction film that adheres to reality as much as possible while also engaging the viewer on an emotional level.  And yes, it all looks great and should be seen on the biggest screen available (full disclosure: I saw it on a regular-sized screen at Tell City and still loved it).  My point is that it has become moot to discuss the technical brilliance of a Nolan film.  Let’s just assume the brilliance and move on.

Interstellar is much more interesting thematically, anyway.  The possibilities of life after Earth stayed with me, and I found, upon reflection, that the film was deeper than I initially thought.  It can be seen as a father-daughter love story, a save-the-Earth space thriller, a plea to stick with film instead of going digital, etc.  Any story that can be viewed symbolically always gets a few extra points from me.  The literal story of the film is more than enough, though.  Exploring deep space has always been more interesting to me on the human loneliness level than the visual level.  Normally, films in which characters are so far out in space are set in a distant future or world in which it is normal to be out there (like Star Wars or Guardians of the Galaxy).  This film keeps it grounded, so to speak, in reality.  Characters have to deal with being away from their loved ones.  This is rarely the focus in such films, and it is refreshing to see here. 

There's quite a bit of this.

Because of the focus on love and loneliness, the cast of Interstellar had a tough task.  They had to cry quite a bit and make the audience care about why they were crying.  To top it off, their characters were slightly one-dimensional in that everyone is simply trying to accomplish the goal of sustaining the human race.  Some would see this as a flaw, but I imagine (or hope) that people tasked with saving all of us would be singularly focused with the task at hand.  Because of this, there’s nothing terribly memorable about each character.  It’s up to the actors to bring their natural charisma to the role to make you care about them.  That said, Interstellar has an amazing cast.  McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, and everyone involved gets the job done. 

This review has been a long time coming because I loved the film on so many levels, and I wanted to see if that wore off a few days after watching it.  It didn’t, but I have still put off writing this in fear of not mentioning everything that was great about it.  Which reminds me: there are these amazing (and hilarious) robots in the film that look like the monolith from 2001.  The main robot, TARS, is actually my favorite character, now that I think about.  I’m sure I’m forgetting some other things, and I know I’m ignoring a lot of issues others have with the film (I will concede that McConaughey’s character definitely showed favoritism to his daughter and largely ignored his son, and that was never acknowledged in a fulfilling way).  It can’t be helped, though.  Interstellar is just such an awesome science-fiction film, and I am an unabashed fan of anything sci-fi.  I’m still trying to digest all of it (obviously), but it’s certainly going to be one of my favorite films of the year, and it’s definitely going to be a film I revisit over and over again.

Interstellar receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

"C'mon, TARS, let's go bust up the robot mafia."

I can't wait for the sequel in which McConaughey and his robot buddy, TARS, travel through the galaxy fighting crime.

Everyone seemed very much okay with Wes Bentley dying, didn't they?

Some have complained about the exposition in this film (and all of Nolan's films), but I like it. Is it weak storytelling?  Oftentimes exposition is, but here I don't think so.  I like that the characters explained the science and their plans every now and thing because that's how the world works.  How often do you do a job in which the manager/planner/whatever simply assumes you know what's going on?  Life deserves explanation sometimes.  Sometimes, it does not.  

Which brings me to all of these 2001 comparisons.  Who said that this was supposed to be just like 2001?  I never assumed that.  And I certainly didn't assume Nolan was trying to be Kubrick here, but many people have.  I suppose that's due to their nature of picking up on implications rather than looking at objective facts.  Nolan is not Kubrick and is not trying to be.  Interstellar is not 2001 and is not trying to be.  We can enjoy both of these directors/movies, by the way.  Just don't bring the same expectations to both.  If I went in to Interstellar wanting everything left to interpretation, I would leave extremely disappointed, and vice versa.  I'll never understand why some people who love one movie in a genre take up some unwarranted fight to crap all over anything else that comes after.  I just really like movies.  I guess I'm simple that way.  This doesn't mean I don't hate some movies, by the way.  Stay tuned for my Dumb and Dumber To review for proof...

"Inception"

*Quick note - I am giving this film a Vader. If you look at my rating system, you'll see that I claim that Vader represents the "perfect" movie. I've been meaning to change this for a while. It should say "near-perfect." I don't believe there is a perfect movie (though I stand by my statement that Vader is a perfect villain), so I just want to clarify that I don't think "Inception" is perfect. It's just near-perfect.

Inception - Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, and Ellen Page - Rated PG-13

Yeah, it's a Vader. What of it?

Inception is easily my most anticipated movie so far this year. It’s not because I loved the previews for it or I read some interviews or I heard the buzz about it. It’s because it’s directed by Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Dark Knight), it has an amazing cast, and it is based on an original script. That last one is almost unheard of in summer blockbuster land these days. I think it’s great that Nolan was able to get a huge amount of money to make a movie that didn’t have a built in audience. But there’s another reason why I like Inception; it’s the best film of the year so far.

I mentioned that the previews are not what garnered my interest in this film. In fact, I tried my best to avoid all information on this film. If I know I want to see a movie, then I don’t want anything ruined by the previews, which tend to give far too much of a film away. I bring this up because I am going to give a brief plot synopsis and I’m going to refer to specific scenes in this review. I’m not going to spoil anything, but if you’re like me, you may want to hold off on reading this review until you’ve seen the film. (Hopefully most of you aren’t like me and you’ll keep reading, though.)

Inception deals with dreams. There is no long introduction talking about the technology that was discovered that allowed people to inhabit others’ dreams or anything, though. The audience is thrown right in the middle of it all and you have to pick up information as you go. The film may completely baffle you in the first twenty minutes. I don’t want to be cliché and call “Inception” mind-bending, but I will say that it is a film that requires you to pay close attention. This film deals with dreams within dreams within dreams within dreams.

Dreams within dreams within dreams may sound complicated or even cliché itself when you think of past uses of the concept. It’s cliché in a horror movie kind of way where a character wakes up three or four times to be scared. It’s complicated in that it could potentially become a complete mess where you have no idea which dream you’re watching at any given time.

Inception doesn’t fall prey to either of these. I never felt cheated by Nolan when an “awake” scene turned into a dream. Nolan uses filmmaking standards in very interesting ways to create the dreams. A character asks another, “Do you remember how we got here?” As the audience, you don’t ask yourself that because it’s expected. In movies, characters suddenly change locations, even though their conversation keeps going on as if it never stopped for them to travel. That’s exactly how dreams work. First you’re here, and then you’re someplace completely different. The fact that there is no concrete signal that a dream is being shown made the movie very compelling to me.

That’s not to say that this film doesn’t feature moments that are completely dream-like and visually astounding. This film has a brain, but it is also just fun to watch. The horizon going vertical, excellent uses of slow motion, maze-like staircases that look like they go on forever but don’t, and, the best, zero gravity. Don’t go in expecting constant craziness in the dreams, though. The crew in the film (I promise I will talk about them specifically soon) is in a subject’s mind, trying to either extract information or insert an idea. To do that, the subject can’t know they’re dreaming (at least not at first), because when they realize it’s a dream they’ll wake up. So the dream world in “Inception” is not a magical land with wonderful creatures; it’s more like reality, but a bit off at times.

The dream within a dream thing never becomes too complicated. If I described how the last forty-five minutes played out, it would probably make your head spin. Thankfully, Christopher Nolan is the one telling the story, and he puts it together in such a way that I never wondered where the film was or what was happening. That is quite the feat, since at one point there are five versions of some characters in play. If you stop and think about it, it might confuse you (as it did me just now when I counted out the versions), but Nolan doesn’t give time to stop. The movie moves at such a great pace that you just go with it and it all, miraculously, makes sense.

Now for the crew. Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the leader of the group. He has to put together a team to put an idea into a businessman’s head. If he does this, he’ll be able to go home. (I’ll leave why he can’t go home for you to find out when you watch it.) The whole team concept basically makes this film a heist/con movie. Cobb’s second in command is Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Ariadne (Ellen Page) is brought in as a new architect for the dreams. Eames (Tom Hardy) is the forger (he can make himself look and sound like other people in the dreams). Yusuf (Dileep Rao) provides the sedatives that allow them to go into deep, deep sleep. And Saito (Ken Watanabe) is the benefactor along for the mission to make sure all goes well. The mark in this con is Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), who brings a trusted colleague (Tom Berenger) along in his subconscious. Also roaming the dreams is Mal (Marion Cotillard), Cobb’s wife. And Michael Caine is thrown in for good measure as Cobb’s father, though he has more of a cameo in a couple of “awake” scenes.

Okay, I know that was going overboard in just listing characters and actors, but I felt that everyone deserved mention because it is one of the best casts I’ve ever seen assembled. I’m not saying there are any Oscar-worthy performances here (and there really aren’t), I’m just saying that all of these actors are great and they do a great job. It’s just that this is a summer blockbuster and the cast is so large that no one stands out above the others. It basically turns into who you like the most. In my case, I’m a big fan of DiCaprio these days and he gives yet another strong performance. I’ve also enjoyed most of Gordon-Levitt’s work and he’s great here, too. I even enjoyed Ellen Page, who usually annoys me. But Tom Hardy (who was amazing in Bronson) is by far the coolest. His joking with Gordon-Levitt provided some needed comic relief and he’s very convincing in the action scenes. Also, it’s great to see Tom Berenger in a major release.

I called Tom Hardy cool and that can be applied to the entire film. Hardy may be the coolest, but all of these actors are as cool as they come. They get to wear suits and shoot guns, take down a snowy compound, traverse hallways as gravity changes, etc. It’s just plain cool. For the record, the gravity stuff was my favorite.

I may be glossing over the story and focusing on the action-type elements, but that’s only because I don’t want to ruin anything. There is a compelling storyline in this film and most of the movie isn’t action-packed. The lack of action in the earlier part of the film isn’t a problem, though, because all of the actors work so well together that even if a character seems a bit underdeveloped, you will hardly notice.

I haven’t read any other reviews yet, but I’m pretty sure I won’t be alone in singing this film’s praises. Maybe I am gushing over this movie, but this film is enjoyable and entertaining on every level. One thing I saw on a preview (it was impossible to ignore them this past week) was the quote comparing this film to The Matrix. I love this movie and everything, but please ignore people/critics when they call any movie the next anything. Do not go into this movie expecting a groundbreaking action movie like The Matrix. Yes there are people acting cool and shooting guns and whatnot, but Inception is a completely different movie. And while the film handles a dream world in completely competent ways, it doesn’t feature a new style that is going to change how action movies are shot, which is what happened with The Matrix.

Now I’m just rambling, so I’ll wrap this up (though I think I could go on for at least another thousand words). Inception is cool and I suggest that everyone watch it. There’s compelling drama, great acting and action, a bit of humor, and some absolutely amazing visuals. It’s completely entertaining and I think most people will walk out of the theatre pleased with this one. I certainly did.

Random notes - I wanted to point out a few things I noticed that aren't part of a review at all.

• First off, Cillian Murphy must be wondering what Nolan has against his face. Murphy has been in three Nolan films and in all three he has a bag placed over his head. I just found that amusing.
  

• The music was loud and awesome...that is all.
  

• This film looks great in IMAX.
  

• I loved that the movie didn't treat the viewer like a complete idiot when it comes to locations. I recently watched a film in which Big Ben is visible in the establishing shot, yet there is still a marker that says, "London." In Inception, a character says he is going to Mombasa. next we get an establishing shot of Mombasa, but there is no marker telling us this, because the film already did. And when they are in a more famous city, Nolan leaves it to us to realize where we are. I know it's nitpicky, but the overuse of location markers bothers me.
  

• I like the idea of the "totems" as a way of knowing if you're dreaming or not.
  

• The subject's subconscious was pretty funny. The idea that the subconscious (i.e. all the people in the background of the dream) would get suspicious and even violent was very interesting.
  

• Finally, and this is definitely a SPOILER for both Inception and Shutter Island, what is with DiCaprio playing the same role two times in a row? In both films he has a dead wife and he has issues dealing with his involvement in her death. He even dreams of her, much like he dreams of her in this film, in Shutter Island. I just couldn't ignore how similar the characters were. Nothing against DiCaprio, though. I'm certainly glad he's in both of those films, which, oddly enough, I think I would place at number 1 and 2 for the year so far, Inception being number 1.