"Legend" Is Good Because What's Better Than a Tom Hardy Performance? Two Tom Hardy Performances.

Legend

Tom Hardy seems to be an actor always looking for a challenge, which is what makes him one of the more interesting actors out there. While most of his impressive performances were physical in their difficulty (Bronson, Warrior, The Dark Knight Returns, Mad Max: Fury Road, the upcoming The Revenant), Legend presents possibly his biggest challenge: playing the real life London gangster twins, Reggie and Ronnie Kray. Hardy's two performances (which end up being impressively different) for each brother elevate what could have been a very forgettable gangster movie. 

Legend has been accused of being derivative of other gangster films, but that is not really the case. True, it is about gangsters, and it is told from the perspective of a gangster's wife (Emily Browning, who was hired to apparently look constantly scared and sad), but this is not like other gangster movies because you don't get to see very much gangster activity. Sure, there are the typical violent scenes, and there are plenty of meetings in bars and hotel rooms discussing gangster activity, but you never really get to see exactly what the Krays did to become a "legend." Ronnie, the more unbalanced of the two, talks about being a gangster in nearly every scene he's in, but we don't get to see it. 

Instead, Legend focuses more on Reggie's marriage. It's not that the marriage plot isn't interesting; it's just something we've seen so many times before, even if it is based on a true story. So Legend is like portions of other gangster movies because we've definitely seen the gangster's wife struggle with her husband's work. But in films that include that plot, there is also a compelling main plot involving...gangster stuff. 

This is not to say Legend is a bad film; it's just disappointing because there are great scenes between the brothers that will leave you wishing that was all the movie was about. The relationship between Reggie and Ronnie is much more interesting than Reggie's relationship with his wife. Reggie is trying to be business-like gangster while Ronnie wants all out war. This, again, is not exactly new territory in a film, but to see two Tom Hardys argue and fight about it makes it much more entertaining. 

Hardy devotes himself completely to both brothers. Ronnie, at first glance, is the more impressive performance. Ronnie is an openly gay paranoid schizophrenic. There's more to do there in a performance and Hardy makes the most of it. But that performance only truly becomes impressive when you see Hardy as the more controlled (though not that much more) Reggie. Hardy's performance as Reggie is the less flashy, but there's more struggle in it. Reggie cannot figure out what he is or really wants to be, whereas Ronnie seems to have always known he wanted to be a violent gangster. The performances are so impressive because they look better when compared against each other. 

Hardy's dual performances make Legend worth watching. In fact, they make it worth watching more than once. Hardy single(or should I say double?)-handedly saves Legend from mediocrity. It's hard not to imagine what might have been, but what is is still pretty great.

Legend receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Even though Reggie is the more nuanced performance of the two, Ronnie is my favorite. His upfront dialogue and general awkwardness led to the film's funniest moments. 

This is definitely near the top of my favorite Hardy performances, but Bronson is still the best. I'm not sure he'll ever top that.

"Lawless"

Directed by John Hillcoat, written by Nick Cave, starring Tom Hardy, Shia LaBeouf, Jessica Chastain, and Guy Pearce - Rated R

Surprisingly fun movie from the director of The Road...that just doesn't sound right for some reason.

 

 

I’ve been following the careers of director John Hillcoat and writer/musician Nick Cave since I saw their phenomenal film, The Proposition.  Hillcoat followed that film with The Road which, while divisive, I found to be very engaging, if not extremely depressing.  The Proposition was certainly depressing as well, so I was surprised to find that Hillcoat and Cave’s latest collaboration, Lawless, was a fun movie.  Don’t get me wrong, Hillcoat’s previous films are enjoyable, but they are miles away from fun. 

Lawless lends itself to a fun tone because of the true story/legend of the Bondurant family of Tennessee during the Prohibition years.  The story of the Bondurant brothers is certainly violent, but it’s handled in a folksy, old-fashioned tall tale kind of way that left me with a smile on my face.  The story is a lengthy tale of a backwoods Virginia bootlegging family that had to deal with everything except actual law enforcement.  The setting of the film is truly lawless, as the cops seem to be much more villainous than the criminals.

The cops as the bad guys routine is nothing new.  If anything, Lawless makes it much simpler and removes any trepidation from the viewer.  Typically, when I find myself rooting for the lawbreaker of a film, I have to stop and deal with the fact that I am rooting for someone who is causing others harm (the first seasons of “Breaking Bad” come to mind).  Lawless can sidestep that because of the law that is being broken.  Most people, at this point, find Prohibition to be a ridiculous moment in our history.  It didn’t stop anyone from drinking and it gave rise to mass crime and corruption.  With that mentality, you can easily look to the cops as problems rather than solutions. 

The Bondurant boys of the film are just making their way in Franklin County, Tennessee.  It’s just that making their way involves making moonshine.  In a typical movie, the main issue would be cops busting up the stills.  That’s still the an issue, but the cops are only after the Bondurants because they don’t want to cut a deal with a mobster who wants to consolidate all off the alcohol he sells in the big cities.  The leader of the Bondurant clan, Forrest (Tom Hardy), is stubborn to say the least and decides to take the family down a different path, and brothers Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) have to accept that.  Creepy crooked cop (hello, alliteration) Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) represents the forces attempting to stop the Bondurants.  What follows is less backwoods war and more lighthearted, folksy goings-on scattered with extreme violence and surprising comedy. 

Tom Hardy creates most of the comedy, and violence for that matter, even if he is not the focus of the film (unfortunately).  He mumbles and grunts through each scene and it makes for some very funny moments.  He is also a very imposing character; this is the same guy who played Bane in The Dark Knight Rises.  But because he is a man of grunts rather than words, the movie relies on Jack to progress the story.

Shia LaBeouf does a fine job as Jack; it’s just that he is not nearly as interesting or talented as Tom Hardy.  This is certainly a step up from Transformers, though.  He plays a typical LaBeouf character as Jack wants to rush headfirst into everything and prove himself to anyone who is willing to pay attention.  Unfortunately for all involved, Guy Pearce is the person paying attention.

Pearce (a Hillcoat regular) livens up the screen with his portrayal of a strange, sadistic big city cop.  Every scene featuring Pearce is cringe-inducing, but he manages to keep it from becoming a moustache twirling villain role.  He is definitely the guy to root against, but he’s too weird too hate outright. 

Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain (the woman who is in every other movie now) round out the cast as the love interests of two of the brothers.  They are a bit more than simple love interests, but they get the least to do in the film. 

Gary Oldman is also in the film, but I only mention him because I thought it was strange how he was plastered all over the marketing of the film yet his role is little more than a cameo.  His few scenes are great, though.  A little Oldman is better than none at all, I suppose.

The real star of the film is the writing.  This could have been a by-the-numbers “root for the outlaws” movie.  There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s been done so many times.  Instead, the writers (and reality, since this is based on a true story) injected some tall tale humor into the mix.  I don’t want to ruin anything, so I’ll just say that there are a few moments in which severe violence happens and the resolution of said violence is not what you might expect.  It makes the movie slightly ridiculous a few times, but it is a welcome kind of ridiculous.  I laughed aloud multiple times watching this film, and I believe the filmmakers wanted that response.

Overall, Hillcoat and Cave have created an interesting film.  It’s much lighter than their previous collaboration, but if anyone needed to lighten up for a next film, it was these two.  So check it out when it comes out on video, because this is about as inviting and crowd-pleasing as Hillcoat and Cave are going to get…and that is definitely a compliment.

           

"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. 

"Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Directed by Tomas Alfredson, written by Bridget O'Connor & Peter Straughan, based on the novel by John le Carré, starring Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Colin Firth - Rated R

A completely solid and amazingly atmospheric spy film.  One of the best films of the year overall.

A good Cold War movie is hard to come by. Sure, plenty of great, cheesy action movies are products of the capitalist/communist conflict, but movies about the actual spying business of the conflict are few and far between, especially truly good films (although I consider the underrated The Good Shepherd, the justly lauded The Lives of Others, and the criminally under-watched Confessions of a Dangerous Mind recent examples of how these films should be done). Based on the novel by John le Carré, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (just Tinker from here on out) not only covers the Cold War in a realistic, interesting way, but is also quite possibly the best spy film of all time.

Now, hyperbole like that is likely to raise doubt and cause one to begin nitpicking Tinker and decrying all of its “faults.” A classification of what makes a movie a “spy” movie must be made before anyone cries foul of my bold statement. First, there is a difference between spy movies and action movies featuring spies. The vast majority of “spy” films (including all of the James Bond movies) are really just action movies. And anyhow, these action movies don’t attempt to portray spying in a realistic manner. Other films, like the above-mentioned Shepherd, Lives, and Confessions, are about realistic spying. The action is limited to a few gunshots and there are almost no explosions. Oh, and the plot is extremely hard to follow.

Tinker is so complicated that it cannot be truly enjoyed with just one viewing. This is not a fault. This makes Tinker a great spy film as you watch it twice or a third time to get all the details of the intricate plot hammered down and you start to pick up on all the details that blurred past the first time through. You notice that the film requires you to spy on the characters since so little is directly stated. Flashbacks that seemed slightly superfluous the first time through now contain the meat of the story just through showing characters interact with each other at a party.

In essence, as you watch and, for lack of a better word, study Tinker, you become like the main character, George Smiley (Gary Oldman). Smiley has recently been forced out of the “Circus” (a nickname for the British intelligence agency) along with his boss, Control (John Hurt). Control and Smiley were forced out after a mission gone wrong in which Control hoped to find out the identity of a KGB mole planted at a high level within the Circus. Once in retirement, and after Control dies, it turns out that there really is a mole and Smiley is tasked to find out who it is. There’s much, much more to the plot of Tinker but the simple fact that Smiley is searching for a mole is enough info to give you a basic idea of the plot.

A plot involving spies, much less double spies, naturally leads to paranoia and tension. Tinker certainly contains both, but those are not the film’s strongest elements. Don’t be put off by that, though. There is a constant element of paranoia since both the viewer and the main characters have no idea who they can trust and there are quite a few tense scenes. In fact, this film contains two of the tensest scenes of the year (I’ll elaborate in the spoiler section). It’s just that Tinker is one of best films in recent memory not for paranoia and tension, but for acting and atmosphere.

From the first scene, director Tomas Alfredson (Let the Right One In) sets up Tinker as a deadly serious, quiet film. The piano-heavy score instantly and perfectly establishes a constant mysterious mood. The locations, the 70s-ness of it all, the slow, pervasive zooms, and the excellent performances come together to make this a film that you’ll wish never ends. If all of that isn’t enough, Tinker also features one of the most impressive casts in recent memory.

Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Mark Strong, Toby Jones, Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, Ciarán Hinds, Stephen Graham, Simon McBurney, Benedict Cumberbatch, and David Dencik. It’s like a who’s who of the best working British actors of the moment; kind of a New Year’s Eve or Valentine’s Day, but with integrity and actual entertainment value. Jokes aside, this cast is great and if there is a downside to it, it’s that some of these actors are too good to be relegated to such small roles. Hinds gets the short end of the stick, but everyone can’t be onscreen all at once. Everyone does a fine job, though. Hardy is the only one who gets to have a bit of fun as he seems to be one of the only characters with a slight sense of humor. Toby Jones plays smug to perfection. Cumberbatch gets a few emotionally charged moments. Strong gets a nice subplot as a schoolteacher. And John Hurt shines in his short scenes (I could listen to him yell the phone book and be entertained). But this is Oldman’s show.

Gary Oldman has made a name for himself over the years as an over-the-top villain and he is great at it, but Tinker allows him to simply act. Smiley is not a character that allows big, showy emotional scenes. Oldman only gets to show emotion a couple of times, but those instances are great. What is truly great about his performance is the presence behind it. Smiley doesn’t talk much and he doesn’t have to. Oldman’s performance is one of reaction as he spends most of the film learning new information. It is not a performance that can be expressed in a clip during an awards show (as you’ll surely see it in the next few months); it is a full bodied performance for a complex film. Like Tinker itself, Oldman is more impressive with each viewing.

All hyperbolic praise aside, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is still a film that many will dismiss. It cannot be understated just how difficult this film can be. Some may tune out after the first half hour simply because they can’t keep track of who everybody is and when everything is happening. But if you are a patient viewer with a hankering for a great spy (not action) film, then you need to watch this…twice. If you’re Cold War/spy junkie (like me), then watch it over and over and over.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

My review was already on the long side, but I still want to gush over this one a bit more.  First off, I absolutely loved this movie not only because of its quality as a film, but also because of the subject matter.  I just find the Cold War fascinating.

Those tense scenes mentioned above: Mark Strong's meet in Budapest at the beginning.  Great spy stuff in that scene as everyone looks suspect.  The other scene is when Benedict Cumberbatch has to steal a file from the Circus.  Do yourself a favor and watch that scene a few times to see every great element.

Oldman doesn't get to emote much in this, but I thought his discovery of his cheating wife and his outburst to Firth in the end, "Well, then what are you, Bill?!" was done quite well. 

Oldman's monologue about Karla was pretty great as well.  Somehow it was better as a monologue than a flashback.  Plus, the film had enough flashback as it was.

Loved the ending of Oldman sitting down to applause, what a great way to end the film.  Here's hoping they get a sequel made.

Enough's enough, so I'll finish with this: I haven't even scratched the surface of some of the elements of this film.  I could go on with the character of Karla, the lighter, the fact that we never really see Ann, the relationship between Firth and Strong, etc.  The point is, this movie doesn't give you all the answers.  It respects the intelligence of the viewer enough to figure it out and it leaves something to talk about once it's over.

"Warrior"

Warrior - Written and directed by Gavin O'Connor, starring Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton, and Nick Nolte - Rated PG-13

Three Chigurhs in a row...I haven't reviewed much lately, but what I've seen has been pretty great.

MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) has overtaken boxing as the most popular fighting sport in recent years. It was only a matter of time before someone attempted to make the Rocky of the MMA world. Warrior attempts to fill that gap and it ends up being worthy of the Rocky comparison.

Warrior isn’t a film just about fighting. It’s really the story of two brothers, Tommy (Tom Hardy) and Brendan (Joel Edgerton). Tommy is a quiet but intense Iraq war vet who just seems to have a need to fight (and an undiagnosed case of PTSD). Brendan is a school teacher who moonlights as a fighter to make ends meet. The brothers are estranged, but are connected by their hatred for their recovering alcoholic father (Nick Nolte). Both fighters decide to enter a winner takes all tournament with a purse of $5 million.

The film is much deeper than just brother vs. brother for a bunch of money, though. It’s truly a character piece that follows a family through some very trying moments. In fact, there’s enough going on with each character that the entire film could focus on a single character and still be compelling. Thankfully, though, it shares the wealth and allows all three characters to have their moments.

The fact that the film doesn’t focus on one brother more than the other and doesn’t make one of them out to be a villain helps Warrior immensely. The problem with most fighting films is that there are no surprises. There’s a good guy and a bad guy, they match up, it looks like good guy might lose, but good guy finds an extra bit of courage and prevails, credits. That doesn’t happen in Warrior because there is no good guy or bad guy. Both brothers have noble reasons for wanting the prize money as well so it doesn’t make sense to root for one over the other for that. Not having a clear individual to root for makes the movie much more interesting.

It also helps that some great, dedicated actors portray the family in question. Tom Hardy is quickly becoming one of the most exciting actors working today after his role in Bronson and his turn here. It’s going to be very interesting to see how he does as Bane in next year’s The Dark Knight Rises. Edgerton, an accomplished Australian actor, is impressive as Brendan. Hopefully this is the first of many good performances in American cinema. And Nick Nolte is simply perfectly cast as their troubled father.

Most people will want to check out Warrior for the fight scenes, though, and the film delivers on that front as well. The fights are always intense and suspenseful. The handheld style of the film makes a few of the scenes a little hard to follow, but overall that handheld style really places you in the fight. The two leads were willing to get bulked up for the film as well and they make for some imposing fighters, especially Hardy. The fights manage to remain realistic, as well, while being amped up just a bit for cinematic effect. Warrior also handles the required training montage with a bit of style in a split screen portion of the film.

A training montage might sound like a bit of a cliché in this day and age, but it’s actually refreshing to see an old school type fighting movie. A potential problem when dealing with a film like this, however, is repeating other fighting films. There are definitely a few in here along the lines of a doubting, reluctant wife, but since the film is spread out amongst so many characters that aspect doesn’t take center stage. And there are a few cheesy attempts at humor here and there when it comes to fans and local people watching the fights but it all works in the end because the film has earned these moments by being so great on every other level.

Warrior is simply a great film (definitely on my top five of the year thus far) that keeps you hooked from the opening scene and never lets you go. It’s good enough that you barely even notice that it is well over two hours long. The film manages to keep you interested to the point that you forget you’re watching a movie because you feel so much for the characters and you are not sure what is going to happen to them. In a weird sort of way writer-director Gavin O’Connor embraces typical fighting movie tropes but manages to keep things fresh. It’s impossible to undercut just how important the structure of this film is. Warrior is about a family, no good guys or bad guys, just a family. You want things to work out for everyone but you don’t have a clue how it’s going to work out, and that makes Warrior one of the most compelling films of the year.

"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.