Inception

Not only should you... I'm considering requesting that a bill be submitted to congress that would require every American to see Inception at least two times.

I'm behind on my reviews; I've seen The Sorcerer's Apprentice and Despicable Me and I just watched From Paris with Love at home... I'll go back to them, but I need to submit this post now because everyone needs to go out and experience this film as soon as possible.

I saw it twice. On Wednesday, I woke up and was at work by 10:30am. I worked until 9pm and then watched Inception, a two and a half hour film, at 1am (technically Thursday morning). I was exhausted, first from the day and then from trying to follow what was going on in the movie. I drifted off once or twice and needless to say, I had several questions at the end of the movie. I watched it again at 10:45pm on Thursday night and everything became clear. There are no words to describe the epic nature of Inception, the closest I can get would be with "Brilliant", or "Mind-blowing", or "Astounding".

When I say everything became clear, I don't mean to imply that I could verbalize the complex plot or the rules created by the genius writer/director that govern the world(s) the film takes place in... I just don't have the vocabulary or the articulation necessary to explain it. Suffice it to say Inception is one of the most extraordinary pieces of film making to hit the screen in... forever(?). The fact that anyone could put something like Inception together in a way that is even remotely coherent, is staggering.

Christopher Nolan. He hasn't made a "bad" movie yet. Memento was phenomenal, Insomnia was OK. Batman Begins was great and The Prestige was really good as well... you should know by now how I feel about The Dark Knight and now he pulls Inception out his hat. His next film will be the final entry in his Batman trilogy and if he is successful with "Batman 3", he may earn the coveted role of "Mike's favorite director". (Yes, it is coveted.)

Needless to say, the writing and direction are unbelievably good. The acting is stellar all around; there isn't a single weak link in the cast. The visual and sound effects seamlessly bring you in the world of the dreams, and the orchestral score is emotive and exciting. The action sequences will keep you on the edge of your seat and the love story is absolutely heart-breaking.

My suggestion to you is that when you go to see Inception... and you will go see Inception... you pay attention when the characters are talking... even some of the "throw away" lines of dialogue are important. Go see it tonight. And tomorrow... I'm going for a third time next week, let me know if you wanna tag along.

P.S. Warner Bros - Thank you for not releasing this in 3D.

Robin Hood

No...

...but to be fair, I slept through most of it. I'm curious as to how Universal got the exhibition industry to agree to the 7 month running time of the movie. I was expecting to see snow on the ground when I left the theatre.

Isn't the Robin Hood legend supposed to be a swashbuckling good time? I know this was technically a prequel, but come on, it's still Robin Hood. Lighten up a little bit.

I feel like the whole project was ill-conceived, anyway. I picture a sombre lunch meeting where Russell Crowe looks at Ridley Scott and says, "Remember Gladiator?"

Scott says "Yeah, those were some good times."

Crowe perks up a bit, "Let's do that again..."

"Well, we can't just make the same movie. Can we?"

They sit in silence, picking at the remnants of their meat lunch. Suddenly a weight is lifted as Crowe comes to an unfortunate realization.

"Why not?" says Crowe.

... and out of that meeting we got Robin Hood.

Clash of the Titans

No.

I honestly can't remember one aspect of the movie that I could say is worth having to sit through the rest of the movie to see. It sure as shit wouldn't be the 3D, which was awful to say the least. They did such a rush job on the 3D conversion that the whole movie just looked warped... like a curved mirror. In one scene, Sam Worthington's eyes appeared to be set back so far in his head that he could have been a villain in a Dick Tracy movie. The only part of the 3D that was mildly entertaining, was when he was flying on Pegasus through the Kraken's tentacles. That lasted for less than a minute though, so I'm gonna stick with my original statement that not a single thing about the 3D made this movie watchable.

Some other things that did not make this movie watchable are Sam Worthington's portrayal of the Australian Perseus, Ralph Fiennes's "VoldeHades", or -any- of the dialogue (but more specifically, Pete Postlethwaite's overly melodramatic "One day, somebody's gonna have to make a stand..." line).

Clearly I'm not a big fan of this movie. If you must see it, DO NOT see it in 3D.

Avatar

... really? No, but I'm still gonna say yes.

So here's the skinny. Avatar is visually stunning. A real modern marvel, some phenomenal special effects; it's true movie magic... then the movie goes on for another 2 hours.

It's absolutely shocking to me that people are claiming that James Cameron has changed the face of movies forever and giving the film rave reviews. We fell into this trap before with Cameron and Titanic. I was 'on board' with the 'titanic' buzz about Titanic (see what I did there?) all the way through to it's Oscar wins and it's VHS release (remember that? it was on two video tapes... you had to take out the first tape and put in the second one to see the rest of the movie... I don't think my copy of the first tape ever made it into the VCR). Now when I look back at Titanic, I cringe. The movie really was terrible. The story was barely passable, but the dialogue was horrific. Then the selfish bitch goes and throws that rock into the ocean... WHAT?!?! James Cameron needs to spend more time coming up with an original, plausible story and realistic dialogue, then complement it with dazzling special effects. Not the other way around... with bad writing... like he does.

For instance, if the natives know that we are using avatars to access their tribe and learn about them, why do we need the avatars? Why not just put on gas masks and go down to the planet that way? Do you think it might be a more suspenseful plot if the humans were going to the planet as avatars... undercover to try to infiltrate their clan without the natives knowing that they were human at all? I do. Also... unobtainium? Really? is that 'cause it's really hard to get or is there a scientific reason we're calling it that? Maybe we can send the Vampanese from Cirque du Freak to get the unobtainium for us. Stupid...

Look, I'm going to say that, yes, you should go see Avatar... in 3D... preferably in IMAX (I didn't see it in IMAX, but I'm sure it enhances the experience). But a Golden Globe nomination? Everybody calm down! Give Cameron a Technical award for his wizardry at a ceremony held at a separate location, but let's not overreact... it's very cool to look at for about 30 minutes, tops... but that's about it.

"If I wanted to hear endless nonsense spewed from something good-looking, I'd watch The Tyra Banks Show."
- Matt Pais of Metromix.com

2012

Yes.

2012 falls into the category of movies that are so bad they're good. The writers and director must have known it was bad and/or realized that all anyone who was paying to see the movie would care about is the special effects.

In the year 2012, according to this movie, solar flares will release neutrino's which will melt the Earth's core causing the crust of the earth to collapse. Miraculously, this will all happen without microwaving everyone on the planet.

John Cusack plays a character with a name that no one involved in the films production could get straight... Jackson Curtis... or Curtis Jackson. Depending on who you ask or where you look it could be either one. Some people called him Jackson and others called him Curtis. The cover of the book he wrote says 'by Jackson Curtis' but his Driver's License says 'Jackson, Curtis'. So, what's his name? No one will ever know.

In order to save his family, Cusack figures out a way to get them to China where rescue might await them. I don't know how long the flight from L.A. to China is, but I would assume long enough for one to want to kick back and maybe take his tie off. Not Cusack. He flies all the way to China and continues to try to save the world in his suit, tie and all.

Look, the fact of the matter is that while all of these flaws prove how little the film makers care about story, continuity and common sense, they really deliver on the promise of epic eye-candy. If your looking for the disaster flick of all disaster flicks, 2012 is for you.

Australia

Yes. If you have 3 hours to spare.

Australia is epic. It's long, it has a sweeping score, long, soaring shots of a sprawling beautiful landscape. It has a cross-country adventure, a devastating WWII attack and a love story that is as grand as the exquisite countryside it takes place in. The villain is villainous, the hero is heroic, and the damsel is very often in distress. Australia has all the makings of an Oscar winning film... but it won't win; it probably won't even be nominated.

This movie is too self important for it's own good. It's trying to be epic even though it really already is. There was no reason for Australia to have a 3 hour running time except to make it epic-er. 2:15 or 2:30 would have been just the right amount of epicness as there were two or three times when I felt the movie was dragging.

That being said, I did enjoy it. I think your best bet would be to rent it, but if you wanna go to the movies this week and you've already seen Role Models and Quantum of Solace, Australia is your only choice. There is nothing worth going to until December 19th when Seven Pounds and Yes Man come out... we'll see how those go.

10,000 B.C.

God, NO.

This is Apocalypto for imbiciles.

If you haven't seen Apocalypto... rent it, or just buy it. Set in the Mayan civilization, when a man's idyllic presence is brutally disrupted by a violent invading force, he is taken on a perilous journey to a world ruled by fear and oppression where a harrowing end awaits him. Through a twist of fate and spurred by the power of his love for his woman and his family he will make a desperate break to return home and to ultimately save his way of life.

In Apocalypto, none of the characters speak English. None of the characters form bonds with deadly prehistoric creatures who then come back to save them at extremely opportune moments. None of the characters die and then come back to life. In Apocalypto, when a woman gets whipped until she bleeds, she at least winces a little bit. Finally, they didn't feel the need to narrate Apocalypto so that people could follow it's simplistic storyline.

There are absolutly NO redeeming qualities in 10,000 B.C.. The acting is obviously going to be terrible, but it's not as if the actors had anything decent to work with. On top of that, this is clearly a "special effects movie"... WITH ATROCIOUS SPECIAL EFFECTS!!!!

As far as the direction is concerned, with Stargate, Independence Day, Godzilla, The Patriot, The Day After Tomorrow and now 10,000 B.C. proving to be a steady decline in quality and entertainment... the path of Roland Emmerich's career as a director is such that I fear for the fate of mankind. Should he continue to make films in this manner, peoples' heads may begin imploding in 2009 with the release of his next movie called 2012. I can only imagine what the year 2012 will look like. The special effects will really have to be ahead of their time... If he can't make 10,000 B.C. look realistic, I don't know if he'll be able to handle the future.