Inception (2010) – Cinema Review (7.5/10)

Almost Back On Form

Inception is the new film from Christopher Nolan, the acclaimed director of films such as Momento, The Prestige and The Dark Knight.

The lead character of Cobb, played by Leonardo DiCaprio (Blood Diamond, Titanic, Revolutionary Road, Shutter Island), is essentially a freelance corporate espionage agent. He and his team invade the dreams of high powered individuals, and construct dream worlds that enable them to steal their secrets. Cobb is soon hired to do the supposedly impossible. Inception. The planting of an idea into the mind of another person. In true heist-movie style, he must them assemble a team of the best in order to stand a chance of succeeding, whilst dealing with his own personal demons.

The general ideas within Inception are hardly original, but have all been combined to make something reasonably different and enjoyable. Take a dash of Mission Impossible mixed with a little of any heist movie, slip in a hefty portion of James Bond action, throw in a chunk of Dreamscape, the mind-bending industrial espionage and the worlds-within-worlds of eXistenZ or Cypher and then a heavy dose of tragically misunderstood hero, and Voila!

Perhaps my biggest disappointment with Inception, was that its most interesting moments always felt like the tip of the iceberg. In a world of dreams, the imagery and imagination are unlimited. Instead, it often feels like an excuse for a lot of superfluous, time wasting Bond-style escapades. It also suffers from showing its best (Or at least its most visually impressive) moments in the trailers.

The characters, other than DiCaprio, are all thinly drawn, relying almost completely on the actors' performances to give them what little definition they have. The most notable of which is Ariadne (Clearly a reference to the daughter of King Minos, instrumental in the escape of Theseus in the legend of the Minotaur and its labyrinth), played by Ellen Page (Juno, X-Men 3). To Page's credit, she gives her rather flat part the suggestion of a personality, which is utterly lacking in the script. It could be argued that the lack of character in others, nods toward the possibility of the film's final moment, but it doesn't seem likely. Ariadne, whilst being the most defined character besides DiCaprio's, also lacks some basic motivations. She is a seemingly innocent university student suddenly plunged into this world of illegal industrial espionage, yet barely blinks an eye at the legality, danger or morality of what she is embarking on.

On the plus side, I think DiCaprio gives his best performance since Blood Diamond, simply because now and again you do occasionally think of him as the character, rather than DiCaprio 'acting' (See my review of Revolutionary Road for a better idea of what I mean). The story also becomes more interesting as it proceeds, changing from a slightly underwhelming heist-style thriller with a twist, to the realisation that the surface plot is simply a device to aid in dealing with the deeper character story (which could almost be a contemporary/future retelling of DiCaprio's previous film, Shutter Island).

I don't mind saying that despite the commonly held opinion that Nolan's previous film (The Dark Knight) was a masterpiece, I found it a bloated and repetitive mess. Not drastically so, but enough to make it a very mediocre and disappointing film, so I went into Inception with a little trepidation. It sounded interesting, but the hype was similar to The Dark Knight. Pleasingly, Inception is somewhat of a return to form. Before The Dark Knight, Nolan also directed Batman Begins, which was a successfully tight character piece with a well structured story that justified its own length. The Dark Knight was longer, but had nowhere near the story or character to support it. Inception lies somewhere in the middle. Nolan is dealing with an interesting idea, and there's a lot of ground to cover. Having said that, it does start to drag and wallow in its own overly-convoluted story, while characterisation seems to have been swapped in favour of repetitive and superfluous action.

Personally, if you enjoyed the ideas and possibilities that Inception uses, I would suggest seeing David Cronenberg's eXistenZ. It deals with very similar themes, but much more successfully. It's not quite such mainstream or easy viewing, but explores the concepts with far more daring and depth. I don't normally give half-marks, but Inception clearly felt better than an 'enjoyable but average' mark of 7, but didn't quite warrant that step up to 8. It's slickly made, intelligent, and (for the most part) well thought out within the logic of its own world. It won't stretch your imagination (except perhaps in keeping track of the convoluted plot) or provoke many deep questions, but it's an interesting and enjoyable ride.

7.5 / 10

All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.

Shutter Island (2010) – Movie Review – 5/10

You'll See it Coming

Set in 1954, Shutter Island is an asylum for the criminally insane. An isolated facility far off shore, where the worst of the worst can be held, and escape is impossible. Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, Blood Diamond, Romeo and Juliet) is a Federal Marshall by the name of Teddy Daniels, sent to the island to investigate the escape and disappearance of a female inmate. As things progress, he discovers all is not as it seems...

For director Martin Scorsese (famous for films such as Taxi Driver and Raging Bull) this is his second foray into what could loosely be described as 'Horror Movie' territory (His other being Cape Fear). Though personally I would call it a psychological thriller, it has been filmed more like it was intended to capture a horror movie atmosphere, and seems to have been classed as such. So I will cover it in that context.

It's a strangely mixed bag. The cinematography for the most part is excellent. It looks superb, but the pacing and editing never quite gel. A perfect example is the introductory scene as DiCaprio and Mark Rufullo (playing DiCaprio's sidekick, Chuck Aule) arrive at the gates to the asylum. The 'menacing' music is so over-the-top and heavy handed, not to mention jarring and unnecessary, to the point where it immediately ruins any feeling of menace, creepiness and suspicion that it is supposed engender. It is edited together and filmed in a way that feels as though someone who has never been a big fan of horror movies, thinks horror movies are made this way. A feeling that pervades the entire film.

As a result, few if any of the moments that are meant to be 'scary' or 'creepy' ever achieve their goal. The film has very much the same tone and pace from beginning to end, where the viewer feels like they are being lead by the hand very slowly through a path they can clearly see the end of, and make their own way to, much more quickly

Unfortunately this is also one of those films that succeeds or fails on the strength of its 'surprise twist' ending (If it was not intended to, it was certainly filmed and edited that way). The problem being that said-ending stands out a mile after about the first ten to fifteen minutes or so. I won't give it away, but it feels as though it were taken from a book entitled: “How to end a movies with crazy people and an asylum - Ending #1”

The conclusion, such as it is, is also drawn out and ponderous beyond need. A single line by DiCaprio's character adds an interesting note to the very final moments, but beyond that it is simply a relief to finally reach the conclusion.

DiCaprio's acting is functional, but a little forced, Ruffalo plays his part well enough, and Ben Kingsley (playing one of the head doctors) turns in a performance that, depending how you view it, could be seen as quirky or camp. Meanwhile the ever-reliable Max Von Sydow (Playing another doctor) is sorely underused.

From an artistic perspective, it would be very easy to become blind to Shutter Island's faults, and convince oneself that it is an interesting work of art. However, if one stands away and judges it objectively, you quickly realise that it is simply a predictable and drawn out mediocre thriller with a polished sheen.

Revolutionary Road (2008) - Movie Review - 2/10

An Excuse For 'Acting'

I have to admit, I went into this with a little trepidation. The trailers implied a film with little-to-no plot, and two people shouting and arguing a lot. Unfortunately, I wasn't proved wrong.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of an interesting drama documenting the break down of a marriage and/or abortion issues, but Revolutionary Road has no subtlety or progression in dealing with these. Essentially, the marriage is already broken at the start of the film. They start to dream of a new life that will give them a fresh start and fail. The marriage then descends into collapse and the unintentional death of a character.

Of course there's all sorts of 'meaningful' messages here. The real question, is whether they're told in an interesting and effective manner. With the exception of the 'slight' hopefulness of the two leads moving to Paris, the film is utterly one-tone. The characters are never really established with back-story or through any other narrative method. In essence, all we ever learn about them, is: "This is a suburban couple in the 50s. They shout at each other a lot and are apparently unsatisfied with their lives" They even have a couple of children that appear briefly in one or two scenes as plot devices, but otherwise seem not to exist. It's as though they have been shoe-horned in after 90% of the film has been completed, to be causes for more of the 'dramatic' scenes between the leads. Obviously this is not the case, but the way it is filmed and told, it may as well have been.

Any messages this film may have had, are lost in the contrived plot and barely even two-dimensional characters. Yes, the basic 'facts' of the story are as realistic or unrealistic as you want them to be, but they are all bound up in a false and extremely forced package. A sign of good characterisation is the ability to think "If (random event) happened to the character, how would they react?" and being able to formulate some idea of your own, based on what you have seen and heard. The two leads in Revolutionary Road had no consistency of character at any point. They were just hollow shells for DiCaprio and Winslet to 'act' with.

The whole film comes over as a contrived mess. One of those movies that make the old mistake of thinking "Lots of dramatic shouting, crying, and vacant long looks, equals good acting and drama." Yet perhaps that was their main point. To give Winslet and DiCaprio a vehicle in which to indulge in melodramatic over-the-top acting, without lumbering any of the 'acting' scenes with the problems that can be encountered when you establish characters, or give them real reason to behave the way they do. The 'plot' was simply a device by which to have 'emotional acting' scenes for the actors to enjoy getting their teeth into.

The highlights of the film, and some of the few moments it comes alive, are when the somewhat disturbed character of 'John Givings' (Played by Michael Shannon) pops up to deliver some 'home truths' so-to-speak. Sure, he's a blatant device used to hammer home the film's plot points/messages in case we missed them while watching, but nevertheless, he easily becomes the most interesting character in the whole mess. Inadvertently (Especially in his final scene) his character truly sums up the utter banality and pointlessness of the whole story, and how shallow and empty the characters are. Another highlight, is the very final moment of the film when the character's father turns off his hearing-aid in order to blank out the inane ramblings of his shallow wife. Which again, sums up the entire film perfectly.

Perhaps Revolutionary Road is best summed up as the acting equivalent of a bland, plotless summer blockbuster with lots of special effects. Except in this case the 'effects' are Winslet and DiCaprio's 'acting' for the sake of acting, and once you get past that, there's not a lot left that's Revolutionary.

Blood Diamond (2006) - Movie Review - 10/10

A Resounding Surprise And Success

I have to admit, I wasn't expecting a great deal from this film. Leonardo DiCaprio, and a Hollywood 'message' movie rolled into one. I am very happy to say that I was truly surprised and impressed, and my worries were proven unfounded.

Djimon Hounsou is excellent as Solomon, while Jennifer Connelly is good in a somewhat limited and slightly stereotyped role. However, the real stand out performance is DiCaprio. I will freely admit I have never been a fan, usually finding him weak and unimpressive in his younger roles, and in more recent years he has proved reasonably good but not awe inspiring. In Blood Diamond he got me. For the first time, I wasn't watching DiCaprio act, but the character he played. Rightly, both DiCaprio and Hounsou were Oscar nominated for their performances.

Whether Blood Diamond is an accurate or exaggerated portrayal of events I don't know, and only those who experienced what happened in that time and place could say. As a story though, it fires on all cylinders, providing a thought provoking and hard-hitting tale. There are various themes, and it portrays its characters fairly even-handedly. Danny's character is a grey and nuanced individual, who doesn't fit all the typical stereotypes. He can be selfish, insulting and prejudiced whilst also showing that beneath it all he can be self-sacrificing and thoughtful. The other characters and events make him re-evaluate his priorities and goals, but not in a typical 'life changing' way. It's more as though he already was that person, he just needed reminding. It makes a change from the type of character who 'sees the light and suddenly becomes good'.

Jennifer Connelly does well in what is really a thankless role. In essence she is a sounding board for revealing Danny's character, and getting over the film's political and social conscience and/or message. Her character is also somewhat of a stereotype, with the 'shocking-news-exposing incorruptible reporter', but it's to her credit that we do not lose sympathy with Maddy.

The film is not perfect. For example, there is one scene where Solomon acts stupidly and out of character, shouting at a passing truck in the darkness, but this can be forgiven as it does not affect the story, and is primarily a device used to trigger a dark character moment between Solomon and Danny. The conclusion of DiCaprio's character is possibly the most predictable and clichéd event, but from a story perspective, it is the most effective and meaningful. Sometimes such story devices have to be used, as they work well for a reason.

Some have criticised the film's ending for being too 'Hollywood' and proceeding beyond what was necessary. In all honesty, I felt that without that ending, without that conclusion for the characters, the impact of the overall story would have been lessened. It is like the ending of a movie such as The Shawshank Redemption, where critics managed to complain about its ultimately uplifting 'Hollywood' ending, stating that it was out of place and at odds with what went before. Yet that is the whole point. It is the contrast that lifts up the story's conclusion, and gives everything leading to it, a point and reason.

With regards to how it was filmed, it has to be said there is some wonderful cinematography to be found. I genuinely felt drawn into the film and its story, and was never jolted out of it by any false and forced 'documentary' style camera work, which has become an over-used technique in recent years. The pace and editing show their quality, when you suddenly realise you have watched a film that is over two hours, without once feeling it.

All in all, it is a very human and personal tale, set against tragic events. By concentrating on the characters, it tells its story and message to best effect, without too much preaching and posturing. If you took away the message, it would still be an intense and riveting tale about the individuals involved, and that is why it works so well, and makes for an excellent film.