"Lincoln" Is an Amazing Film, Clothed in Immense Entertainment

Lincoln - Directed by Steven Spielberg, written by Tony Kushner, starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Lee Pace, Bruce McGill, James Spader, John Hawkes, and David Straithern - Rated PG-13

 

It’s strange.  Abraham Lincoln has been all over Hollywood lately, yet there has not been a real story told about him in decades.  I’ve seen his assassination recreated in National Treasure: Book of Secrets and The Conspirator, and he’s even battled the undead in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (a very fun book, by the way, but a disappointingly dull film).  Lincoln can be killed over and over and be turned into a superhero, but he can’t be a man.  The way Hollywood has avoided tackling the man is a statement on where Abraham Lincoln fits into America’s history.  He is not a man, but a legend.  It’s hard to even think about Lincoln as a human being, which is what most likely has scared off many filmmakers.  Thankfully, Steven Spielberg, Tony Kushner, and Daniel Day-Lewis stepped up to make a film about a man, and it turned out to be a brilliant film on every level.

 

The main reason that Lincoln not only meets but also exceeds expectations is that it is not a traditional biography of the man.  We do not see Lincoln growing up in the log cabin or courting Mary Todd.  We don’t even see his youngest son die, which is something that happened in the White House.  Lincoln, rather than taking the arguably boring broad view, focuses on Lincoln trying to get the Thirteenth Amendment (the abolition of slavery) passed near the end of the Civil War in order to make sure that the war has at least served a lasting purpose.  Believe it or not, the passage of an amendment in the House of Representatives turned out to be far more interesting and entertaining than a life story. 

 

Story and focus is important, but a film like this hinges on a single performance.  Once Daniel Day-Lewis was announced to play Lincoln, it seemed perfect.  Who else but the lanky, gaunt method actor could portray Abraham Lincoln with any seriousness?  (Liam Neeson was attached at one point.  A good physical choice, for sure, but I’m not sure how it would have turned out.)  As an admitted fanboy of Day-Lewis (I count his performances in The Crucible, Gangs of New York, and There Will Be Blood among the best of all time), I became very excited about this film.  When the first picture was released, it was almost creepy how much he looked like the President.  Then the preview was released and I finally heard the voice; I was sold.

 

Abraham Lincoln, according to historical reports, had a high-pitched voice with a Midwest twang that some even described as painful to listen to.  He was not a booming, baritone giant as many have imagined him over the years.  When I first heard Day-Lewis’s take on the voice, the history buff in me was very pleased.  After watching the entire performance, the film critic in me was amazed.  It’s no shock that Day-Lewis completely inhabited the character of Lincoln, but I was surprised by how much Lincoln was able to be portrayed as a human, rather than a legend.  As Lincoln tells his funny stories and plays with his son, you start to forget you’re watching a portrayal of one of the most beloved political icons in the history of the world.  You realize you’re watching a man. 

 

I was afraid when this project was first announced that it would be a film that simply added to the legend.  Steven Spielberg is a director I love, but I wasn’t sure he could create a very interesting film about Lincoln.  I thought he might sugarcoat the subject or just give a gung-ho “Go America!” movie.  While I did leave the theater quite proud of my country, it certainly wasn’t because I just witnessed some propaganda.  It was because I had seen a film about one of our greatest politicians fighting for a noble cause.  It didn’t hurt that the film turned out to be quite funny, as well.

 

The humor of Lincoln will most likely be the most surprising part of the viewing experience.  The images and previews for the film have sold it as this somber, serious portrait of a man and a mission to end slavery, and it is slightly that, but it also takes backroom politics (trading favors and promising jobs) and turns it into entertaining spectacle.  The humor is nearly deceitful, though, as it overshadows the fact that votes for the Amendment are basically purchased.  Under normal circumstances, that would create moments of internal struggle, but the topic up for debate is slavery.  The question posed (and pretty much answered) both onscreen and off is whether or not the end justifies the means.  It seems like the typical answer to that issue in film these days is that individual good is more important than the big picture.  Thankfully, Lincoln makes no bones about the fact that ending slavery is the right thing to do, even if a few “wrong” things are done to achieve this. 

 

More importantly, the humor makes Lincoln a feel-good, fun experience.  The laughs are well-deserved, too.  Lincoln’s stories are always amusing, especially when told with Day-Lewis’s energy.  Writer Tony Kushner has crafted a very tight script, dialogue-wise.  Lincoln's stories and speeches are great, but the debates on the House floor are equally compelling and entertaining.  Sure, most of this can be chalked up to historical record, but if you actually research the words of the time, it is still impressive that Kushner was able to piece all of this together in a coherent and interesting fashion. 

 

Riveting political speeches on paper are one thing, but the words float off meaningless if not for a good performance.  I have already stated my awe of Day-Lewis, and the rest of the cast deserves plenty of praise.  Tommy Lee Jones is a standout as Thaddeus Stevens.  In the previews, we are given a cheesy scene in which he addresses a group of people, “Abraham Lincoln has asked us to work with him to accomplish the death of slavery,” waving his cane with each word to prove his sincerity.  Taken out of context, that looks like a scene that belongs in the film I was afraid had been made.  He is actually being a bit sarcastic in this moment and it is part of an overall wonderful performance as Stevens represents the character that does have to struggle with the decision to be dishonest for the greater good.  Sally Field, David Straithern, Lee Pace, and Bruce McGill round out the heavier parts of the cast, but the list could go on.  Lincoln is certainly one of the finest casts of 2012. 

 

The film is tied together with a John Williams score (this is a Spielberg film, after all), and it is the perfect bow to put on top of this great film.  Lincoln provides the complete movie package.  It is interesting and informative, it's entertaining (surprisingly so), and it showcases some powerhouse performances.  If pressed, I could probably give you a couple of things to complain about, but looking back on the film, I can't really single out any real issues.  Simply put, Lincoln is my favorite film of the year.

 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

I want to clarify that bit about being a little deceitful to gain something important.  Usually, the lesson of the film is that if you are willing to sell your soul a little bit, then you can become totally evil.  Telling one white lie could lead to the downfall of mankind.  What a joke.  Compromising your values in a small way to gain something greater is an American tradition.  It is a good trait to showcase on film?  Absolutely not.  Is it realistic?  Yep.  I found it refreshing that Thaddeus Stevens had to swallow his pride and lie to get what he wanted all along.  Maybe that isn't heroic by Hollywood standards, but that's the point.  Life is all about picking your battles, and in reality, you don't get rewarded for nitpicking.

"Looper"

Written and directed by Rian Johnson, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, and Jeff Daniels - Rated R

 

"This time travel crap just fries your brain like an egg..."





Time travel movies are fascinating…and can be mind-blowing.  Wait, did I write, “mind-blowing”?  I meant irritating.  The concept can lead to fun, interesting, exciting, and gloriously complicated films, but it also makes your head hurt if you try to wrap your brain around every minute detail.  (Don’t worry.  I am not going to write a lengthy thesis about the ins and outs of time travel.  Go to the message boards if you want to read theories written by the time travel “experts” that populate IMDb.)  The films that use time travel to great success, like 12 Monkeys, The Terminator, or Back to the Future (to name a few), rarely waste much time with complicated plot points about time travel.  Those films feature a lot of explanation, 12 Monkeys being the closest film that could be complicated.  On the other end of the spectrum, you have films like Triangle, Timecrimes, and Primer.  These films, while great and thought provoking, can almost feel like homework assignments when you stop and think about them.  They become complicated because of all the alternate universes and timelines they create.  You almost need to take notes to keep track of it all.  (Sorry to the fans that find those films easy to follow.  They just feel more like work than play to me.)

 

Looper, the latest from writer/director Rian Johnson, thankfully falls in the former group.  It is an interesting, entertaining sci-fi movie that doesn’t get bogged down with the rules of time travel.  That is not to say that this is a simple film.  It is still about time travel and it still contains a paradox or two.  But if we’re willing to forgive The Terminator its paradox (sorry, I don’t buy any theories about how it is possible for John Connor to send his own father back in time to become his father) because of its awesomeness, then we should do the same for Looper. 

 

Looper is a great movie for many reasons, Rian Johnson being number one.  He has crafted such an interesting story.  In the relatively near future, time travel has yet to be invented, but it will be thirty years later.  Since it is impossible to get away with murder in the future, crime lords will use time travel to send undesirables into the past to be taken care of by hit men, or loopers.  Eventually, since time travel is so illegal in the future (and to protect the criminals’ own interests), a looper must close his own loop.  This means he must eventually kill his own older self.  All of their marks show up hooded, so a looper doesn’t know he has essentially killed himself until after the job is done. 

 

Enter Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), an addict (he's addicted to some future drug taken in the form of eye drops) who quietly goes about his business in the hopes of saving up plenty and eventually having a happy retirement.  Things go awry when Joe has to close his own loop.  His older self, or Old Joe, shows up without his hood on.  Being face to face with his older self (Bruce Willis) startles Joe, giving Old Joe enough time to distract Joe and get away.  Someone from the future being loose in the past is a huge problem for the mob, so young Joe must stop Old Joe no matter what.

 

What makes the plot of Looper more interesting is that Old Joe doesn't run simply because he wants to live longer.  He's there to kill the child version of the future's evil overlord.  I think it makes the film more interesting because it takes the common time travel scenario of going back in time to kill someone like, oh, let's go with the mainstay, Hitler, but adding the problem of said Hitler-type being a child.  You start to rethink things once you see a gun pointed at a child who has done nothing wrong...yet.  The moral implications of Old Joe's plan fascinated me and Willis did a fine job of showing steely reserve as he contemplated murder. 

 

Bruce Willis is right at home in a sci-fi film (he's even done the time travel thing a time or two, as well), and his scenes with Young Joe discussing time travel are great.  At one point it's almost as if he's predicting the internet message board arguments by yelling at Joe and telling him to forget about the time travel crap.  I'm with him on that; just enjoy the show. 

 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt makes it very easy to enjoy this film.  The first thing you notice is how different he looks in this film because they put makeup and prosthetics on his face to make look more like a young Bruce Willis.  The true joy of his performance, though, comes through his mannerisms.  His constant squint, that bark of a laugh; it's a great performance and it makes the film a lot of fun.  I only wish they shared more screen time. 

 

The rest of the cast is well-rounded.  Jeff Daniels plays a somewhat disinterested future immigrant in an interesting way.  Paul Dano is in his wheelhouse playing a nervous, stuttering looper.  Emily Blunt is does okay as a single mom on a farm.  Garrett Dillahunt has a great, tense scene.  And Pierce Gagnon is admirable if for no other reason than he is a child actor in a sci-fi film and he isn't annoying at all.  Kudos to the marketing team behind this film completely leaving the child out of the previews even though it is a vital part of the film.  I'm serious, this film probably did better because people were unaware that a child factored into the plot.

 

Speaking of marketing, this film is being touted as one of the “best action films” of the year.  But it's not really an action movie.  The few action scenes are great, though.  Willis's big action scene might go down as one of the best of his career, and that is certainly saying something.   

 

But Looper is not an action movie.  It's a sci-fi/time travel movie.  There's a great future world created with very few answers to any questions that might arise (and that's the way it should be, most of the time, in sci-fi).  There is a multiple time line aspect to the film, but it is handled in a very clear and stylish way.  In fact, the film is flat out stylish and it works on nearly every level.  I was left with only one issue with Rian Johnson's great film: I wanted more.  I wanted to see more of the world, I wanted more of the future world Bruce Willis came from, I wanted more one-on-one scenes with Gordon-Levitt and Willis, etc.  If the only issue you have with a film is that you wish there was more of it, then that is a good problem to have.  Check out Looper.  It might not be one of the best “action” movies of the year, but it is one of the best movies of the year.

"The Dark Knight Rises"

Directed by Christopher Nolan, written by Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer, starring Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Marion Cotillard - Rated PG-13

"When Gotham is...ashes, then you have my permission to die."

There has already been way too much online controversy concerning The Dark Knight Rises (hereafter just Rises) after the first few negative reviews came out.  I don’t want to get into a whole film criticism in an internet age debate, but I will say that having a different opinion is not a big deal.  It makes no sense for people to freak out about a bad review, especially if they haven’t seen the movie yet.  When I heard about a handful of negative reviews, I had a little impulse to get defensive as well because I am a Batman fan.  I didn’t freak out and write a threatening letter or anything, but I did start to think, “What a bunch of crap! They just want to be different.”  Maybe that actually is true (there are certainly people out there who only want to be contrary to get a reaction), but odds are there are people who honestly won’t like Rises. 

I bring all of the critic backlash stuff up because Rises is destined to be a victim of hype and that is certainly why “fans” are defending a film they haven’t seen.  I also think that some critics (or people like me, who are not “professional” critics) will be negative because their lofty expectations were not met.  That is an unfortunate way to judge a film (and I am guilty of doing it from time to time).  The Dark Knight did not face this same fate because people were pleased with Batman Begins but did not freak out about it.  Heath Ledger as the Joker got people hyped up for the film and most people were blown away.  That’s a hard act to follow and it’s easy for someone to be disappointed if the exact same type of film is made for the sequel.  I am not one of those people.  I loved the newest Batman film and I think director Christopher Nolan has delivered an amazing endpoint to a great trilogy.

Rises is closure in the best sense of the word.  Batman Begins was all about Gotham City and whether or not it deserved to be saved.  Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) lives only to save his city.  In The Dark Knight that idea seemed to be focused more on the people rather than the city itself.  Batman wasn’t trying to save the physical city; he was trying to save the soul of the city.  In Rises, the city itself is up for grabs.  In fact, nearly everything is up in the air in this film.  All of the buildup has led to this giant film about the fate of a troubled city.

Gotham has never felt more real.  There has always been a personality to Gotham City in these films, but it’s been a growing process.  Gotham just feels like more of a character in this film than the others.  That is immensely important since the whole point of the film is whether or not the city survives.

Of course, the main reason to watch the film is to see the people fighting for the city, and there are a lot of them.  There’s the usual crew of Batman, Alfred (Michael Caine), Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman).  Added to the lot are young cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), philanthropist Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), and veteran officer Foley (Matthew Modine).  Then there’s Selina Kyle, a.k.a. Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), who plays both sides to her advantage.  And finally, there’s Bane (Tom Hardy), the masked mercenary who wants to destroy Gotham and make Batman suffer immeasurably. 

Sounds like a busy film, right?  It is.  In fact, when I first heard about the extended cast I started to worry if this film would make the same mistakes that so many sequels do: overstuffing to try and please everyone.  I was surprised by how well it all tied together.  Sure, some might complain that some characters do not get enough attention (Batman, for instance, feels nearly like a supporting player rather than the hero), but I thought the film was perfectly balanced.  In fact, the lack of focus on one individual adds to the point of the film: Batman is not meant to be an unmasked hero, but a persona that anyone can step into to do good.  Who said the Dark Knight had to be Batman or Bruce Wayne, anyway? 

This brings me to why this trilogy has been so special in the first place: themes.  Sure, themes can be applied to all films, but there’s something about Christopher Nolan’s trilogy that always makes me think a bit more than other superhero films like, say, The Avengers.  Perhaps it’s Batman’s constant preaching about what Gotham needs, but I always find myself thinking about what it means to be “good” in society and when, or if, it is ever okay to lie a little to protect a lot.  No matter, these films have a self-importance to them that doesn’t come across as pretentious but rather makes everything happening onscreen that much more compelling.

Thankfully, what’s happening onscreen is also pretty awesome.  Nolan has always been able to bring the goods when it comes to cinematic set pieces and he keeps it going with Rises.  I don’t want to go into specifics, but what impressed me the most was the transformation of Gotham.  Aside from that, just know that you get to see every dollar that was spent on this movie.

The characters of the Batman world have always been the real appeal, though.  No offense to Mr. Wayne, but as a character, both he and Batman have grown a bit less interesting with age.  This went unnoticed in The Dark Knight because everyone loved the villain so much.  But is Bane an interesting enough villain to keep things fresh?  I say yes.  The mask and the physicality of Tom Hardy make Bane an imposing villain already, but the boldness of his actions and his words make him interesting.  I still like the Joker more, but Bane is right up there with him.  As for the whole voice controversy, I did have trouble understanding him here and there and the sound of the voice is kind of jarring at first because it seems too loud, but I got used to it and, after a second viewing, really liked it. 

The other big addition that had everyone talking was Catwoman.  (To be clear, she is never really called Catwoman, but it’s easier to refer to her that way.)  I have never been a fan of the character so I was very skeptical about her inclusion, but I was dead wrong.  This is mainly thanks to Hathaway’s performance (and her physicality doesn’t hurt, either).  She does a great job of playing the victim, then quickly reverting back to her natural survivalist state.  She definitely livened up the screen when Bane was away. 

Gordon-Levitt was a bit of a shot in the arm for the franchise, as well.  He seemed like a pointless addition when I heard about it months ago, but once again, I was wrong.  His do-gooder cop works well with Oldman as he keeps things moving in the film when they would otherwise come to a crawl.

The rest of the actors do their usual fine job as their characters haven’t changed very much.  I will point out that Bale was a bit better this time as Batman.  His growling has been toned down a bit and didn’t sound as ridiculous as it did in The Dark Knight.  I also liked his portrayal of Bruce Wayne as a broken man.  This may be the best performance he has given in the trilogy.  

The Dark Knight Rises simply delivered everything I wanted in a final chapter to my favorite superhero franchise.  This is not a perfect film or anything, though.  But I’ll ask what I always ask: is there such a thing as a “perfect” film?  Many have written articles about the faults of the film and, to be honest, I agree with a few of them.  But I did not really notice any problems while I watched it.  I just loved it because I am a dorky fanboy and if I get to see Bane and Batman throw down, I can ignore some logic problems with the story.  And I write this having seen the film a second time and still not having major issues with it.  So this makes Rises one of the best films of the year for me and a more enjoyable film than The Avengers.  But the larger question remains: does it live up to the hype?  In other words, is this better than The Dark Knight?  Well, time will tell on that one.  But why even separate the films?  The first time I watched Rises was as part of a marathon screening of all three films (I mentioned I was a dork, right?), and it felt like one long story with a couple of intermissions.  So is it better?  I don’t know.  I do know that it is part of the greatest comic book storyline of all time and a fitting end to a great trilogy.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I think I ended up absolutely loving this film because I realized how engrossed I was in it.  I've read where people were spotting the twist that Miranda Tate was actually Talia al Ghul very early on but it was completely lost on me.  This is ridiculous because I'm normally focused on predicting the ending or the twist of a film and this one is pretty easy to spot, especially when you pay attention and you know who Talia is before watching the film (and I was aware of the character before the film came out).  Even after seeing the child escape the Pit I didn't put it together.  I wondered how the child escaping could be Bane since it didn't have a mask on, but I was so into the movie that I didn't realize that it had to have been someone else.  When a movie gets me like that, then it's good enough for me.

I also liked where this leaves the franchise.  I was recently extremely disappointed with the decision to reboot the Spider-Man franchise so quickly and I was already bracing myself for the Batman reboot sure to come in less than a decade.  But since Blake was left the keys to the castle, so to speak, the films could continue on with him as Batman.  Nolan is done, but at least the films can go on without rebooting it and giving yet another origin story.  Of course, they'll probably completely reboot it anyway.

Bane and Batman duking it out was great.  I loved their first encounter and it was awesome to see Bane "break" Batman. 

There was a Joker in this movie.  Matthew Modine was Joker in Full Metal Jacket.  Does that count?

The happy ending was a little cheesy, but I'm okay with it.  Doesn't Bruce Wayne deserve a little happiness?  Initially, I wanted Batman to die, but I can accept a fake death.

It was great to see the Scarecrow back in action as a judge.  I really wish he had gotten more screen time throughout the trilogy. 

It was refreshing for the mob bosses to be out of the picture.  It made this seem more realistic (even though this is arguably the least realistic film in the series what with the whole Escape from Gotham scenario).  Let's face it: Batman facing off against mobsters seems a bit anachronistic. 

"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.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt: The Anti-Shia LaBeouf

It occurred to me recently that former child actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("Third Rock from the Sun") and Shia LaBeouf ("Even Stevens") have chosen career paths that are polar opposites. Gordon-Levitt has gone the respectable route with the recent 500 Days of Summer (which I look forward to watching, but has not out in theaters near me), and the critically acclaimed Brick and The Lookout. I found his performance in Killshot to be quite impressive as well. He seems to be searching for quality roles in low budget films and it has worked. His appearance in G.I.Joe is questionable, but I'll wait to see it before I cast judgment on him. Regardless of his upcoming big budget film, Gordon-Levitt has become a solid actor who adds prestige to any picture he is involved in.

LeBeouf, on the other hand, has starred in one big budget movie after another, usually playing clichéd or completely bland characters that require him to react to a green screen. But this has led to massive success. I must admit, I wanted to hate this guy from the get-go, but his unoffensive, plain characters are almost impossible to hate. The worst I can say is that I feel indifferent about each character he plays. Can anyone honestly say they cared about what happened to Sam Witwicky or Mutt Williams. To me, those two characters just got in the way of the action. This is not to say that I haven't enjoyed LaBeouf's movies. I enjoyed both Transformers movies for what they were (loud, hectic action movies) and I am even one of the few people out there that really enjoyed the latest Indiana Jones. Labeouf was amusing in his comedic side roles in other big budget films as well (Constantine and I, Robot), but there is really nothing to this guy. There are plenty of lesser known actors who could play the goofy, dorky high school kid. That might be the one thing that is keeping him going. He can play a high school kid (like in the unlikely hit movie Disturbia) and he seems sincere when freaks out about his lack of iTunes access and cell phone privileges.

So the younger crowd might be able to identify with him on a technological level, but he won't stay young forever, and that is obviously becoming a problem. LaBeouf went with a more adult type role in Eagle Eye (though he was a childish, scared adult) and that didn't turn out nearly as well as Transformers. He is about to hit a major brick wall: adulthood. Joseph Gordon-Levitt saw this coming a mile away and has been working on it for the past few years.

Take Brick, for instance. This is a film noir set in a high school. Gordon-Levitt takes the high school role, but he gets to play it like he's Bogart as Sam Spade. He acknowledges that he's not an adult, but he can act like one at least. Gordon-Levitt knows that he looks young, but that doesn't mean his characters have to act like it. The Lookout is another prime example of this. He plays a brain damaged (memory loss) former high school star athlete who gets caught up in a bank robbery scheme. This was his major step out into film adulthood. He followed this with a quality performance in Stop Loss, followed by a great turn as a redneck stick up man in the under seen Killshot. In Killshot, there is certainly an immature side to his character, but I would hardly consider him a high school kid. If anything, Gordon-Levitt played a kid who probably dropped out of school by the time he was sixteen. Now he is Cobra Commander and even if G.I.Joe turns out to be garbage, I doubt that people will claim that Gordon-Levitt is the problem.

I am not just comparing these two actors side by side because they both started out as child actors, though. I feel that these two actors represent two sides of American youth. The popular kids in school and the trendy people who don't follow movies too closely probably identify with LaBeouf because it's easy. The dorks and movie buffs out there shrug off LaBeouf (or downright hate him) and side with Gordon-Levitt because of his acting ability and his character decisions. I'm willing to bet that the people who identify with LaBeouf don't even know who Joseph Gordon-Levitt is. Me, I'm proud to be part of the dorks and geeks. I'm just a bit worried that Gordon-Levitt is entering LaBeouf land with Cobra Commander. But I'm sure it's just a bump in the road on his way to continued and more prominent critical success.