Looking back on past experiences, I'm beginning to wonder if Goldilocks and the Three Bears was originally a parable about Sex. "Too long, too short, just right."
....
I'm talking time pervert.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Reviews from the Pad: On that Inception ending...
Oh, I'm writing this in the moment but it's gonna sit in Drafts for a week or so so folks can get out there and see the movie before I go and play with Spoilery type stuff. In case you haven't figured out what about, read the title again....
Waiting...
Ok, that should be enough time. Spoilers from here on out; bugger off if you don't want to read them.
So, anyways, the Inception ending is quite possibly my least favourite kind of film closing scene yet I can understand why writers love it: done right it offers the chance to add additional layers to what you just watched and make the audience question what happened. Let's consider some of those possibilities:
1) The top was obviously going to fall; it happened off screen!: Awwwww... you cute little kitten... lets take you and your happy ending over here to the kid's table while the adults keep talking...
On a more serious note, this means that the writer, director, and actors have succeeded in one of the harder aspects of filmmaking: seeing to it the characters are likeable enough that you actually give a damn what happens to them and hope for a positive outcome.
2)The top didn't fall; Saito and Cobb are gods of their Subconscious: It's established in the movie that once you're locked at the level Saito and Cobb are at you're essentially gods of your own little pocket universe - is Cobb merely directing Saito in letting them live out more healthy lives there since they've missed all the "kicks" on the other levels? You could easily spin their final dialog in that direction. To flip it around a bit, is Saito backhand delivering on his commitment to Cobb by letting him live out his family reunion in a dream?
3)The top didn't fall; part of it was a dream: Is there a point in the film where Cobb himself is infiltrated? Perhaps when he's alone with the Chemist and Forger? At some later point? Saito does warn him to be more cautious about who he trusts. Was the entire point of the Fischer job not to just implant the idea, but learn how to do it from the one person who would know how? Is his (step?)father using Ariadne to find out what really happened to Mal or force him to come to terms with what he did? These are the kinds of things you layer into a film so that when it goes on to make $200 million+ you've topics to attack in the sequel.
4)The top didn't fall; the entire thing was a dream!: And here's where that suggestion that Psych majors are going to have a field day with this film comes in because, if we accept the rules of the universe as presented, suddenly a good percentage of the characters in the film are aspects of Cobb's subconscious. Who's ego? Id? Creativity? Or, to really fuck with your mind, who's an aspect and who's a possible agent of Mal? Is Mal randomly dropping into his dreams to try and bring him out alongside the Mal that represents his Guilt? What, if any, tells are there? Or, in reverse, has Cobb become so attached to being in the dream state that his subconscious is actively keeping him dream jumping to hide from Mal? Perhaps Mal realized what he'd tried to do to her and locked Cobb in his own dream prison to try and convince him to come back down to where they were Gods again; with only him finally locking her out of his subconscious denying her the ability to control the dream and knock the top off it's axis? Again, threads you leave there to attack in a sequel.
There are likely more options to consider but those are good points of discussion to start out with. The thing is though, this style of ending doesn't work out for the best in every occasion and it's more often "right" to avoid using it. While Inception is a story built around the conceptual argument of what's real and what's a dream - which makes the question posed by the final scene relevant and promotes consideration as to what's really happened - just tacking "---Roll Credits---" at a point of the script which calls for a "conclusive" ending purely for effect frequently comes across as being a cocktease; you want the audience to think something has happened but you won't show them what. Lacking that additional layer of plot to build upon all you're really doing is denying a clear ending to the story.
Which can be incredibly frustrating for the viewer and where a lot of backlash to even something with that depth like Inception will come from.
Waiting...
Ok, that should be enough time. Spoilers from here on out; bugger off if you don't want to read them.
So, anyways, the Inception ending is quite possibly my least favourite kind of film closing scene yet I can understand why writers love it: done right it offers the chance to add additional layers to what you just watched and make the audience question what happened. Let's consider some of those possibilities:
1) The top was obviously going to fall; it happened off screen!: Awwwww... you cute little kitten... lets take you and your happy ending over here to the kid's table while the adults keep talking...
On a more serious note, this means that the writer, director, and actors have succeeded in one of the harder aspects of filmmaking: seeing to it the characters are likeable enough that you actually give a damn what happens to them and hope for a positive outcome.
2)The top didn't fall; Saito and Cobb are gods of their Subconscious: It's established in the movie that once you're locked at the level Saito and Cobb are at you're essentially gods of your own little pocket universe - is Cobb merely directing Saito in letting them live out more healthy lives there since they've missed all the "kicks" on the other levels? You could easily spin their final dialog in that direction. To flip it around a bit, is Saito backhand delivering on his commitment to Cobb by letting him live out his family reunion in a dream?
3)The top didn't fall; part of it was a dream: Is there a point in the film where Cobb himself is infiltrated? Perhaps when he's alone with the Chemist and Forger? At some later point? Saito does warn him to be more cautious about who he trusts. Was the entire point of the Fischer job not to just implant the idea, but learn how to do it from the one person who would know how? Is his (step?)father using Ariadne to find out what really happened to Mal or force him to come to terms with what he did? These are the kinds of things you layer into a film so that when it goes on to make $200 million+ you've topics to attack in the sequel.
4)The top didn't fall; the entire thing was a dream!: And here's where that suggestion that Psych majors are going to have a field day with this film comes in because, if we accept the rules of the universe as presented, suddenly a good percentage of the characters in the film are aspects of Cobb's subconscious. Who's ego? Id? Creativity? Or, to really fuck with your mind, who's an aspect and who's a possible agent of Mal? Is Mal randomly dropping into his dreams to try and bring him out alongside the Mal that represents his Guilt? What, if any, tells are there? Or, in reverse, has Cobb become so attached to being in the dream state that his subconscious is actively keeping him dream jumping to hide from Mal? Perhaps Mal realized what he'd tried to do to her and locked Cobb in his own dream prison to try and convince him to come back down to where they were Gods again; with only him finally locking her out of his subconscious denying her the ability to control the dream and knock the top off it's axis? Again, threads you leave there to attack in a sequel.
There are likely more options to consider but those are good points of discussion to start out with. The thing is though, this style of ending doesn't work out for the best in every occasion and it's more often "right" to avoid using it. While Inception is a story built around the conceptual argument of what's real and what's a dream - which makes the question posed by the final scene relevant and promotes consideration as to what's really happened - just tacking "---Roll Credits---" at a point of the script which calls for a "conclusive" ending purely for effect frequently comes across as being a cocktease; you want the audience to think something has happened but you won't show them what. Lacking that additional layer of plot to build upon all you're really doing is denying a clear ending to the story.
Which can be incredibly frustrating for the viewer and where a lot of backlash to even something with that depth like Inception will come from.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Lazy Friday: On a Monday...
'cause there's a massive Inception post lurking in my edit box awaiting some spoiler space, a couple limited release films I've found I want to get to later this week, and everyone can use a Monday laugh...
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Reviews from the Pad: Salt
Salt is one of those movies that feels like it's essentially a 2 hour TV Show Pilot. This makes sense if you consider it might as well be titled: "Chasing an Action Franchise- The Movie".
Driven relentlessly forward by back to back action sequences interspersed with flashbacks and just enough time to establish who the characters are, Salt largely succeeds at that not through storytelling (which is pretty rote and true to genre tropes), but through casting solid actors to pull off the roles. The thing is that the franchise created is essentially 24 mixed with the Manchurian Candidate staring Angelina Jolie in the Jack Shaw role; someone thrown into the middle of a conspiracy taking place in short order and finding themselves having to dig their way out.
It's hard to attack a lot of the rest of the film without stepping on story points so lets cut to some short points:
- The action is decent enough though most of the fights are shot in that quick cut closeup way that gained a lot of current favour with Bourne
- Jolie does an excellent job shifting through the emotional beats and chameleon nature of her character while the supporting cast does a solid job within the reality that there's very little given to them to do in comparison.
- The script is thin but it holds together well enough. The movie is basically an action sequence roller coaster though and it's deliberately open ended; by the end of you'll have a good idea who the characters are and where they fit in the universe but only the current "Bauer Day" is concluded and it's stated outright more are coming.
Overall though, it's a decent enough little spy thriller if that's what you're in the mood for.
PS: that's not a typo. I may be inferring something though....
Driven relentlessly forward by back to back action sequences interspersed with flashbacks and just enough time to establish who the characters are, Salt largely succeeds at that not through storytelling (which is pretty rote and true to genre tropes), but through casting solid actors to pull off the roles. The thing is that the franchise created is essentially 24 mixed with the Manchurian Candidate staring Angelina Jolie in the Jack Shaw role; someone thrown into the middle of a conspiracy taking place in short order and finding themselves having to dig their way out.
It's hard to attack a lot of the rest of the film without stepping on story points so lets cut to some short points:
- The action is decent enough though most of the fights are shot in that quick cut closeup way that gained a lot of current favour with Bourne
- Jolie does an excellent job shifting through the emotional beats and chameleon nature of her character while the supporting cast does a solid job within the reality that there's very little given to them to do in comparison.
- The script is thin but it holds together well enough. The movie is basically an action sequence roller coaster though and it's deliberately open ended; by the end of you'll have a good idea who the characters are and where they fit in the universe but only the current "Bauer Day" is concluded and it's stated outright more are coming.
Overall though, it's a decent enough little spy thriller if that's what you're in the mood for.
PS: that's not a typo. I may be inferring something though....
Friday, July 16, 2010
Reviews from the Pad Double Bill: Inception, Sorcerer's Apprentice
Ok... not exactly a double bill 'cause I caught SA Wednesday but... whatever...
Sorcerer's Apprentice is your basic tent pole summer film that delivers just what it advertises: some daring do, flashy FX, a few jokes, and Nicholas Cage being Nicholas Cage.
The film expands upon Arthurian legend by giving Merlin three Apprentices of his own: Balthazar (Cage), Veronica (Bellucci), and Horvath (Molina) who, through the twists and turns of the opening sequence, end up seeking Merlin's replacement as an immortal, trapped within an Matryoshka doll, and Merlin's betrayer to Morgana le Fay respectively. From there's it's mix and match with Hero's Journey and the famous scene from Fantasia as our hero Dave (Baruchel), a bumbling anti-social physics nerd with some childhood trauma driven confidence issues and apparent heir to Merlin's power, stumbles his way into Balthazar's world, is thrust into the conflict between Balthazar and Horvath, and proceeds to find his own power/confidence while getting the girl.
In other words, it's an action fantasy version of just about every "loser teen" film ever made - Better Off Dead would be a good through-line parallel. Admittedly, it would be one of the better ones because it's good solid fun and worth your time if you're in the mood for simply being entertained for a couple hours but that's still whats on the table here and what you can expect.
Inception, on the other hand, is an idea film about, well, ideas and how they can be pulled from or manipulated through your dreams....
The basic plot revolves around a team of "Dream Thieves" led by DiCaprio who specialize in a kind of psychic corporate espionage; stealing ideas and plans from the very minds of the people who dreamt them up in the first place. They're chasing one final job designed to allow DiCaprio return to his normal life.
Cleverly crafted, it's a film that, like The Matrix before it, is gonna have people dissecting it for a good long time; 'through I might be spoiling things a bit by suggesting it will be Psych majors and not Philosophy this time. That said, it does attack a core philosophical argument of: "Are you dreaming, or in reality?", while building a consistent world around that idea with fixed rules that are based on things's we've all experienced in our own dream states; like how dreaming of falling, or the act of falling itself, tends to jolt you awake. There will also be further comparisons to the Matrix in terms of some of those rules, specifically how the victim of this process reacts within the dream to those entering it, as well as some of the combat. But, it feels like it's own film and the combat itself arguably surpasses that of The Matrix at points: particularly an impressive sequence in the third act where the fighters are grappling with each other in an environment that is constantly rotating.
All that said, Inception's a rare film that has enough going on in each scene that it requires your attention but is paced well enough that it doesn't feel like it's demanding it. Well worth seeing in it's entirety.
Sorcerer's Apprentice is your basic tent pole summer film that delivers just what it advertises: some daring do, flashy FX, a few jokes, and Nicholas Cage being Nicholas Cage.
The film expands upon Arthurian legend by giving Merlin three Apprentices of his own: Balthazar (Cage), Veronica (Bellucci), and Horvath (Molina) who, through the twists and turns of the opening sequence, end up seeking Merlin's replacement as an immortal, trapped within an Matryoshka doll, and Merlin's betrayer to Morgana le Fay respectively. From there's it's mix and match with Hero's Journey and the famous scene from Fantasia as our hero Dave (Baruchel), a bumbling anti-social physics nerd with some childhood trauma driven confidence issues and apparent heir to Merlin's power, stumbles his way into Balthazar's world, is thrust into the conflict between Balthazar and Horvath, and proceeds to find his own power/confidence while getting the girl.
In other words, it's an action fantasy version of just about every "loser teen" film ever made - Better Off Dead would be a good through-line parallel. Admittedly, it would be one of the better ones because it's good solid fun and worth your time if you're in the mood for simply being entertained for a couple hours but that's still whats on the table here and what you can expect.
Inception, on the other hand, is an idea film about, well, ideas and how they can be pulled from or manipulated through your dreams....
The basic plot revolves around a team of "Dream Thieves" led by DiCaprio who specialize in a kind of psychic corporate espionage; stealing ideas and plans from the very minds of the people who dreamt them up in the first place. They're chasing one final job designed to allow DiCaprio return to his normal life.
Cleverly crafted, it's a film that, like The Matrix before it, is gonna have people dissecting it for a good long time; 'through I might be spoiling things a bit by suggesting it will be Psych majors and not Philosophy this time. That said, it does attack a core philosophical argument of: "Are you dreaming, or in reality?", while building a consistent world around that idea with fixed rules that are based on things's we've all experienced in our own dream states; like how dreaming of falling, or the act of falling itself, tends to jolt you awake. There will also be further comparisons to the Matrix in terms of some of those rules, specifically how the victim of this process reacts within the dream to those entering it, as well as some of the combat. But, it feels like it's own film and the combat itself arguably surpasses that of The Matrix at points: particularly an impressive sequence in the third act where the fighters are grappling with each other in an environment that is constantly rotating.
All that said, Inception's a rare film that has enough going on in each scene that it requires your attention but is paced well enough that it doesn't feel like it's demanding it. Well worth seeing in it's entirety.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Reviews from the Pad: Despicable Me
Grumpy Curmudgeon gets shown the error of his ways/joys of being a parent by some kid(s) foisted on him is one of the older plot devices in Entertainment (see also: Annie), but that doesn't mean it's not still viable when executed well.
Which Despicable Me does.
This, folks, is how you do "Family Entertainment"; successfully juggling the needs of kids (fun, vibrant, fast moving), with those of Adults (subtle humour that flies over the kids heads and storytelling that doesn't make you want to run for the insulin injector) to create an end product with elements and characters relatable and enjoyable by both. DM covers both grounds in spades; with solid action sequences, slapstick that's well executed, a high paced story that's compelling without becoming saccharine, and more than a few bits for everyone in the room (including a killer Lehman's Brothers reference), that bring the fun right into the final credits*.
Well worth seeing and one of the better films of the summer so far.
* While I watched the film in 2D, so am not positioned to comment on the other elements in the film, it's readily apparent that the the credits also happen to be where the creators are really playing with the 3D - with a slowly building bit of perspective slapstick that's well worth sticking around to watch.
Which Despicable Me does.
This, folks, is how you do "Family Entertainment"; successfully juggling the needs of kids (fun, vibrant, fast moving), with those of Adults (subtle humour that flies over the kids heads and storytelling that doesn't make you want to run for the insulin injector) to create an end product with elements and characters relatable and enjoyable by both. DM covers both grounds in spades; with solid action sequences, slapstick that's well executed, a high paced story that's compelling without becoming saccharine, and more than a few bits for everyone in the room (including a killer Lehman's Brothers reference), that bring the fun right into the final credits*.
Well worth seeing and one of the better films of the summer so far.
* While I watched the film in 2D, so am not positioned to comment on the other elements in the film, it's readily apparent that the the credits also happen to be where the creators are really playing with the 3D - with a slowly building bit of perspective slapstick that's well worth sticking around to watch.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)