Recently some of my more faithful blog readers have advised me that I need to review more of the “classics.” Well to acquiesce, I recently watched the 1982 favorite of many, Tootsie starring Dustin Hoffman and Bill Murray. Many consider this one of the defining roles of Hoffman’s then somewhat young career. The premise of the movie is that Hoffman dons blouse and heels in an attempt to pull his way out of unemployment (did I just hear a plan for ending the recession?) as an actress. Even though the plot was did not supremely pique my interest, I felt it my duty to see such a popular film.
First of all I am hesitant to categorize this film. As strange as it may sound, I feel that the genre that it may best fit under would be romantic comedy, which brings me to my first problem with the film. Call me immature or simple, but some of the strange relationship dynamics kind of weirded me out. The fact that a man dressed as a woman had a crush on a female whose dad tries to propose to said woman while yet another male costar tries to make a move on the man dressed as a woman who is trying to hold a friendship with another woman together who thinks that there is more than just friendship after the two spent the night together from when he was a man didn’t sit well with me. While even though in one scene they are trying to recap the whole scenario and it seems quite comical, as for driving the plot, certain points become a little awkward.
Don’t get me wrong, Dustin Hoffman is great. His female portrayal is very convincing and not nearly as frightening as John Travolta’s in Harispray. Another part that I got hung up on was the differentiation between Dorothy Michaels (Hoffman’s character as a female) and Emily Kimberly (her character on the soap opera). When Hoffman is trying to land the role he make a commotion in an attempt to grab the director’s attention. The director, seeing through his ploy, asks if it was authentic or if it was an attempt to audition. This exemplifies how I felt about the Michaels-Kimberly relationship. They were one in the same person. The woman Hoffman acted as of screen seemed to be the same he tried to be off screen. Had the two had much different personalities, I would have even been more impressed with Hoffman’s performance.
I don’t want to be all down on this movie. I was still amused and entertained. One of my favorite aspects was Bill Murray’s character as Hoffman’s roommate. He supplied a couple of great lines that recognize how strange some of the situations are in actuality. Hoffman should be applauded for his performance and insofar as his performance goes I can understand (don’t necessarily agree, but understand) why people deem this a classic. Because of the movie in its entirety, I would just say that it is an average movie with some impressive acting.
2.5 stars out of 5.
Again, sorry for the lack of recent posts. I promise the new website is close! Please e-mail us with your suggests and ideas for our new home! Thanks for being a loyal reader during our time of growth.
Out on The Town
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Sorry for the absence of reviews. Big things are coming from Joe Claw and I, and we have been spending our time working on our new website (she’s close to up and running!).
What are two guys to do when their lady friends are out of town? You guessed it, go on a mid-week movie date. For our MANdate, Joe and I saw the new Ben Affleck film, The Town. Set in a town on the outskirts of Boston, the movie follows a group of blue collar bank robbers on their criminal expeditions.
The movie opens with a bang as the foursome, clad in Skeletor masks, hit a bank in Boston. The team has the heist down to a science and the efficiency with which they work is an intriguing element of the movie. As they “work” it becomes apparent that they are not violent in their burglaries, presumably an attempt at encouraging the viewers to root for the convicts. The first major conflict between the groups leaders Doug MacRay (Affleck) and James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) further drives this home as their opinions differ on the extent to which violence should be employed. It also exalts Affleck as the film’s protagonist.
Affleck’s character has a depth that drives much of the plot (and he is absolutely shredded, ladies, shield your eyes). His bond with Coughlin and his good heart serve to endear him to the viewer. Like most films in this genre, the plot focuses on the attempt to stay one step ahead as the FBI close in on our criminals. However, as aforementioned, the development of Affleck’s character differentiates this film. His character’s inner struggle stems from the conflict between a desire for a new life and the feeling of being shackled to the life that has been given to him as a result of his upbringing and circumstances out of his control (real Freudian for you psychology nuts). An interesting scene at some type of self-help group meeting may be overlooked, but it brings some of this struggle to the forefront. The discussion at the meeting raises some interesting religious/moral questions and seems to be a catalyst for Doug’s desire for reformation.
As the film is written, directed, produced, and starred in by Affleck, it is no surprise that his character plays such an integral role. But he skillfully carries the plot in such a way that it is not a case of shining the spotlight on himself just for the sake of it. The Town is an ok story that becomes a good movie because of great character development. I don’t want to get to crazy (remember Gigli was atrocious) but Ben may have put himself back on the map.
What are two guys to do when their lady friends are out of town? You guessed it, go on a mid-week movie date. For our MANdate, Joe and I saw the new Ben Affleck film, The Town. Set in a town on the outskirts of Boston, the movie follows a group of blue collar bank robbers on their criminal expeditions.
The movie opens with a bang as the foursome, clad in Skeletor masks, hit a bank in Boston. The team has the heist down to a science and the efficiency with which they work is an intriguing element of the movie. As they “work” it becomes apparent that they are not violent in their burglaries, presumably an attempt at encouraging the viewers to root for the convicts. The first major conflict between the groups leaders Doug MacRay (Affleck) and James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) further drives this home as their opinions differ on the extent to which violence should be employed. It also exalts Affleck as the film’s protagonist.
Affleck’s character has a depth that drives much of the plot (and he is absolutely shredded, ladies, shield your eyes). His bond with Coughlin and his good heart serve to endear him to the viewer. Like most films in this genre, the plot focuses on the attempt to stay one step ahead as the FBI close in on our criminals. However, as aforementioned, the development of Affleck’s character differentiates this film. His character’s inner struggle stems from the conflict between a desire for a new life and the feeling of being shackled to the life that has been given to him as a result of his upbringing and circumstances out of his control (real Freudian for you psychology nuts). An interesting scene at some type of self-help group meeting may be overlooked, but it brings some of this struggle to the forefront. The discussion at the meeting raises some interesting religious/moral questions and seems to be a catalyst for Doug’s desire for reformation.
As the film is written, directed, produced, and starred in by Affleck, it is no surprise that his character plays such an integral role. But he skillfully carries the plot in such a way that it is not a case of shining the spotlight on himself just for the sake of it. The Town is an ok story that becomes a good movie because of great character development. I don’t want to get to crazy (remember Gigli was atrocious) but Ben may have put himself back on the map.
More Blue than Green: A Review of Green Zone
Monday, August 30, 2010
More Blue than Green: A Review of Green Zone
Political themes have long found their way into film. In a film class I took at Northwestern, our instructor pointed out many of the anti-communist aspects prevalent in the 1960 film, Spartacus. Fifty years later, politics are just as heated and people feel that movies are great way to express their opinions. While I do see the benefits of using film to convey political messages, Green Zone goes too far.
The entire plot of the film is straight from the headlines. Matt Damon is the head of an army regiment that is saddled with the task of finding WMD’s in Iraq. Of course, they can’t find any, and of course the intelligence they have is faulty. We’ve heard this all before. In the end, (SPOILER ALERT) it turns out that a bureaucrat intentionally lied to force troops into an unnecessary war in Iraq. The liberal agenda is not a undertone in the film it is the very plot.
Regardless of your political persuasion, the movie lacks depth. There is no twist, no exciting new information, no intense fight sequences. The plot is predictable because it is what the media has been telling us for years now (speaking of media, Amy Dayne’s somewhat corrupt journalist character happens to work for the Wall Street Journal, go figure). Furthering the ties to actual occurrences, the film’s producer takes an open shot on President Bush as he is shown given a speech to military in the film, thus tying him to the conflict.
The cinematography is intentionally shaky and curt, presumably to give it more of a documentary type feel. It is just another step in trying to convince people that these are actual occurrences. The average civilian has no idea what life is really like in the camps in the Middle East and so however they are portrayed in movies is often the picture that is cemented into our minds.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that this type of filmmaking is dangerous (although some might), but it does seem lazy. At least the liberal message in Avatar was shrouded behind intense images and an entirely new civilization. Again, it is clear that those who tend to vote blue will be more likely to agree with the film’s overall message (that Bush and his administration knowingly started a war in Iraq on faulty if not manufactured intelligence), but even then I have a hard time believing anyone will be entertained by this lack of creativity.
1.5 out of 5 stars
Whether you voted for Obama, McCain, or even Perot, you should definitely follow us on Twitter @clawtomicbaum and make sure to post our links on your Facebook. Let me know what you think of my review, I promise I won’t bite. And keep the requests coming. Don’t forget get to comment below if you think Joey should write a review before the year is over. Thanks for checking us out.
-Nuss
Political themes have long found their way into film. In a film class I took at Northwestern, our instructor pointed out many of the anti-communist aspects prevalent in the 1960 film, Spartacus. Fifty years later, politics are just as heated and people feel that movies are great way to express their opinions. While I do see the benefits of using film to convey political messages, Green Zone goes too far.
The entire plot of the film is straight from the headlines. Matt Damon is the head of an army regiment that is saddled with the task of finding WMD’s in Iraq. Of course, they can’t find any, and of course the intelligence they have is faulty. We’ve heard this all before. In the end, (SPOILER ALERT) it turns out that a bureaucrat intentionally lied to force troops into an unnecessary war in Iraq. The liberal agenda is not a undertone in the film it is the very plot.
Regardless of your political persuasion, the movie lacks depth. There is no twist, no exciting new information, no intense fight sequences. The plot is predictable because it is what the media has been telling us for years now (speaking of media, Amy Dayne’s somewhat corrupt journalist character happens to work for the Wall Street Journal, go figure). Furthering the ties to actual occurrences, the film’s producer takes an open shot on President Bush as he is shown given a speech to military in the film, thus tying him to the conflict.
The cinematography is intentionally shaky and curt, presumably to give it more of a documentary type feel. It is just another step in trying to convince people that these are actual occurrences. The average civilian has no idea what life is really like in the camps in the Middle East and so however they are portrayed in movies is often the picture that is cemented into our minds.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that this type of filmmaking is dangerous (although some might), but it does seem lazy. At least the liberal message in Avatar was shrouded behind intense images and an entirely new civilization. Again, it is clear that those who tend to vote blue will be more likely to agree with the film’s overall message (that Bush and his administration knowingly started a war in Iraq on faulty if not manufactured intelligence), but even then I have a hard time believing anyone will be entertained by this lack of creativity.
1.5 out of 5 stars
Whether you voted for Obama, McCain, or even Perot, you should definitely follow us on Twitter @clawtomicbaum and make sure to post our links on your Facebook. Let me know what you think of my review, I promise I won’t bite. And keep the requests coming. Don’t forget get to comment below if you think Joey should write a review before the year is over. Thanks for checking us out.
-Nuss
Weekend With Steve: Reviews of Dinner for Schmucks and Despicable Me
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
My girlfriend and I were trying to decide whether to see The Other Guys or Dinner for Schmucks this past Friday night. I shot Joey a text to ask his opinion. His response, “Do you like Carell or Ferrell more?” Being huge fans of The Office we both replied Carell and Joey told us our decision was made.
Things that would have been more worth our time:
Watching Steve Carell in The Office reruns.
Watching Steve Carell in Date Night after we rented it from the store.
Watching Steve Carell sleep.
Seriously. If you remember my Date Night review, you know that I was not overly impressed. Let me assure you that it was markedly better than Carell’s latest big screen endeavor. The humor in this film is derived mainly from misunderstandings that arise from the idiocy of Carell’s character, Barry. Paul Rudd’s character, Tim, meets Barry and henceforth nothing that he does goes according to plan. The two continue to find themselves tangled in awkward situations that cause problems for Tim. It may sound similar to the premise of the Meet the Parents franchise but they are world’s apart. Even if you disregard the terribly shallow characters (Larry Wilmore’s character is literally one of the worst I have ever seen) and plot, you are still left with situations that are based solely upon entirely unbelievable characters.
Some of Barry’s quirks (such as the fact that he creates scenes with taxidermic mice) are plausible and funny, but the go overboard in many occasions and make his character a total dolt. Many of his actions do not mesh with the rest of what we know about his character and he is taken from tremendously socially awkward to complete and utter idiot, which seemingly contradicts itself.
Furthermore, the writer appeared to be torn on whether one should feel sorry for Barry and empathize with him or just find him totally laughable. The dynamic between the two does not work well and makes for a feel good ending that leaves you with a confused and dumbfounded feeling. This is one of the worst comedies I have seen in recent memory and certainly the worst work I have seen from Carell. As he transitions away from The Office, hopefully this is not a sign of things to come from Steve Carell’s live action movie projects.
.5 stars out of 5
The reason I say live action projects is because Saturday brought a new day, and I decided to give Steve another chance as I went to see the new Dreamworks animated blockbuster Despicable Me. When you come out with an animated film weeks after the largest grossing animated film to date (Toy Story 3 if you live under a rock and haven’t read this), your expectations have to be tempered. The same must be true when going to watch such a film. If you do, you will be pleasantly amused with Despicable Me. The film’s plot is fairly original as super-villain Gru (voiced by Carell) learns to father three young girls that he has adopted in order to use for his dastardly plan to become the greatest thief of all time. The story is entertaining for both young and old. Children will enjoy the gentle humor and goofy minions while adults will sympathize with some of Gru’s lot and will appreciate some of the jokes intended for a more mature audience (including a jab at the company formerly known as Lehman Brothers).
The difference between this film and Carell’s other recent ones is that it is not based solely upon his character. Gru is in no way similar to Michael Scott and so Carell can successfully create a character that has no ties to what made him big.
Despicable Me is a fun movie that does not try to do too much, but lets Carell break away from what seems to be a patterned typecast. Its humor is driven by good writing, and I’ll say it again, good stories make good movies.
3 stars out of 5
Moral of the story, Joey cannot be trusted. Just kidding. If you haven’t been able to tell by now the two of us have slightly different movie tastes. Hope you are still enjoying the blog, and please feel free to share this link on Facebook or post it on your Twitter. We would greatly appreciate it. Speaking of Twitter be sure to follow @clawtomicbaum for the latest from the minds of two geniuses. And don’t forget to send us requests!!!!
-Nuss
Things that would have been more worth our time:
Watching Steve Carell in The Office reruns.
Watching Steve Carell in Date Night after we rented it from the store.
Watching Steve Carell sleep.
Seriously. If you remember my Date Night review, you know that I was not overly impressed. Let me assure you that it was markedly better than Carell’s latest big screen endeavor. The humor in this film is derived mainly from misunderstandings that arise from the idiocy of Carell’s character, Barry. Paul Rudd’s character, Tim, meets Barry and henceforth nothing that he does goes according to plan. The two continue to find themselves tangled in awkward situations that cause problems for Tim. It may sound similar to the premise of the Meet the Parents franchise but they are world’s apart. Even if you disregard the terribly shallow characters (Larry Wilmore’s character is literally one of the worst I have ever seen) and plot, you are still left with situations that are based solely upon entirely unbelievable characters.
Some of Barry’s quirks (such as the fact that he creates scenes with taxidermic mice) are plausible and funny, but the go overboard in many occasions and make his character a total dolt. Many of his actions do not mesh with the rest of what we know about his character and he is taken from tremendously socially awkward to complete and utter idiot, which seemingly contradicts itself.
Furthermore, the writer appeared to be torn on whether one should feel sorry for Barry and empathize with him or just find him totally laughable. The dynamic between the two does not work well and makes for a feel good ending that leaves you with a confused and dumbfounded feeling. This is one of the worst comedies I have seen in recent memory and certainly the worst work I have seen from Carell. As he transitions away from The Office, hopefully this is not a sign of things to come from Steve Carell’s live action movie projects.
.5 stars out of 5
The reason I say live action projects is because Saturday brought a new day, and I decided to give Steve another chance as I went to see the new Dreamworks animated blockbuster Despicable Me. When you come out with an animated film weeks after the largest grossing animated film to date (Toy Story 3 if you live under a rock and haven’t read this), your expectations have to be tempered. The same must be true when going to watch such a film. If you do, you will be pleasantly amused with Despicable Me. The film’s plot is fairly original as super-villain Gru (voiced by Carell) learns to father three young girls that he has adopted in order to use for his dastardly plan to become the greatest thief of all time. The story is entertaining for both young and old. Children will enjoy the gentle humor and goofy minions while adults will sympathize with some of Gru’s lot and will appreciate some of the jokes intended for a more mature audience (including a jab at the company formerly known as Lehman Brothers).
The difference between this film and Carell’s other recent ones is that it is not based solely upon his character. Gru is in no way similar to Michael Scott and so Carell can successfully create a character that has no ties to what made him big.
Despicable Me is a fun movie that does not try to do too much, but lets Carell break away from what seems to be a patterned typecast. Its humor is driven by good writing, and I’ll say it again, good stories make good movies.
3 stars out of 5
Moral of the story, Joey cannot be trusted. Just kidding. If you haven’t been able to tell by now the two of us have slightly different movie tastes. Hope you are still enjoying the blog, and please feel free to share this link on Facebook or post it on your Twitter. We would greatly appreciate it. Speaking of Twitter be sure to follow @clawtomicbaum for the latest from the minds of two geniuses. And don’t forget to send us requests!!!!
-Nuss
Video games don't make good movies: a review of Mortal Kombat
Friday, August 13, 2010
Ok all you loyal readers out there, trivia question. What is the only movie reviewed on CLAWtomic BAUM that is based on a video game? . . . If you said Prince of Persia (review here) you are a true fan of our blog (good job Joey). Following in the video game theme, I recently watched Mortal Kombat and thought it was review worthy. This film had long been on my list to see as I was a big fan of the video games.
The best place to start with this one is the title. Why the heck is combat misspelled? I know it is spelled this way for the games too, but I still don’t get it. The best part of this movie is the first five to ten seconds. A voice yells “MORTAL KOMBAT!!!” and then the theme song plays. After this, I would suggest you turn of the movie, bust out the N64 and play the game for the hour and a half that you were planning on watching the movie. It is flat out awful.
The main theme of the movie mirrors the plot of the game in that there is a tournament of one-on-one martial arts bouts. Although contrary to common sense, the fighting scenes were apparently not a priority. Most of their clashes were about as realistic as an OJ Simpson alibi. Bad example he got off. They’re about as realistic as. . . the Cubs chances of salvaging this season.
Many of the characters are present with their own shticks and terribly forced conflicts. However, the information surrounding them is shallow at best. Rather than telling the back story of how Scorpion can throw snakes out of his hands or how SubZero can freeze you before he breaks your head off, they settle with just telling you that the two are enemies while the rest is left to your imagination. Speaking of the characters, the leader for the ‘good’ characters is Lord Rayden, God of Lightning. Unfortunately, I think he looked a lot like Phil Hartman, so every time he was on screen I started laughing and could hear Arnold Schwarzenegger yelling “Put that cookie down!!!” Another good laugh was how Liu Kang’s beautiful feathered Asian mullet stays perfectly in place through all of his tussles. It’s about as immovable as Barry Bonds at the top of my all-time least favorite baseball player list (I would have said athlete, but Lebron is closing in).
Mortal Kombat is at very best one you should only watch if you have Netflix and you are streaming it instantly (huge fan of Netflix). It is B-level acting with a plot that rivals the intrigue of watching a NBA regular season game between the Grizzlies and the Clippers. I can safely say that I will never watch it again, but for some stupid reason, I still want to see the sequel.
1 out of 5 stars
Hopefully this blog isn’t as utterly disappointing to you as this film was to me. Let me know what you think. Shoot us an e-mail or leave a comment below. And unless you hate puppies or beautiful sunsets you should check out our twitter @ClawtomicBaum. You won’t regret it.
-Nuss
The best place to start with this one is the title. Why the heck is combat misspelled? I know it is spelled this way for the games too, but I still don’t get it. The best part of this movie is the first five to ten seconds. A voice yells “MORTAL KOMBAT!!!” and then the theme song plays. After this, I would suggest you turn of the movie, bust out the N64 and play the game for the hour and a half that you were planning on watching the movie. It is flat out awful.
The main theme of the movie mirrors the plot of the game in that there is a tournament of one-on-one martial arts bouts. Although contrary to common sense, the fighting scenes were apparently not a priority. Most of their clashes were about as realistic as an OJ Simpson alibi. Bad example he got off. They’re about as realistic as. . . the Cubs chances of salvaging this season.
Many of the characters are present with their own shticks and terribly forced conflicts. However, the information surrounding them is shallow at best. Rather than telling the back story of how Scorpion can throw snakes out of his hands or how SubZero can freeze you before he breaks your head off, they settle with just telling you that the two are enemies while the rest is left to your imagination. Speaking of the characters, the leader for the ‘good’ characters is Lord Rayden, God of Lightning. Unfortunately, I think he looked a lot like Phil Hartman, so every time he was on screen I started laughing and could hear Arnold Schwarzenegger yelling “Put that cookie down!!!” Another good laugh was how Liu Kang’s beautiful feathered Asian mullet stays perfectly in place through all of his tussles. It’s about as immovable as Barry Bonds at the top of my all-time least favorite baseball player list (I would have said athlete, but Lebron is closing in).
Mortal Kombat is at very best one you should only watch if you have Netflix and you are streaming it instantly (huge fan of Netflix). It is B-level acting with a plot that rivals the intrigue of watching a NBA regular season game between the Grizzlies and the Clippers. I can safely say that I will never watch it again, but for some stupid reason, I still want to see the sequel.
1 out of 5 stars
Hopefully this blog isn’t as utterly disappointing to you as this film was to me. Let me know what you think. Shoot us an e-mail or leave a comment below. And unless you hate puppies or beautiful sunsets you should check out our twitter @ClawtomicBaum. You won’t regret it.
-Nuss
Dreamweaver I(nception) Believe You Can Get Me Through the Night
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Well it's been a while (Stain'd style) since my last entry, but that is just the way the wind blows these days. Free time is few and far between. However, due to all of this crazy talk (girl, please) about the new summer hit Inception, I knew I had to get out and see it before someone ruined the ending for me (In which case the temper tantrum I would have thrown would have looked eerily similar this). Hopefully, I will not spoil this movie for anyone after reading my review. Consider this my spoiler alert and if you have not seen this yet (you're a loser) click this to entertain yourself instead and proceed reading the rest of this review at your own risk.
Not long after James and I started this gold mine, I had dreamed (see what I did there?) it would be cool if he and I tried to go see a movie at the same time and do a joint review. After lots of planning and cancelling then planning and cancelling then planning and cancelling again we finally went and saw this movie together. Also, it should be noted, somehow, shockingly we each were able to persuade a couple of beautiful girls to accompany us to this movie (They are merely after us for the $1.84 we have made off of this blog. And because we are famous, that too).
Before I give my thoughts on this film, I would like to point out a few things that I randomly noticed that might interest y'all:
- I spent the first ten minutes (big mistake, if don't pay attention for a second it's all over) wondering where I knew the initial architect in the first dream sequence(His name is Lukas Haas if you don't remember that start of your movie like the start of a dream) from. Then it hit me. Uhhhhh, was that guy in Mars Attacks? Yes, yes he was. Joey- 1 Inception- 0
- When Cobb is explaining the concepts behind the dreams to Juno (Where was her baby, by the way? What a turrrrible mother) and illustrates the image on the napkin, did anyone else notice that the UPS guy played DiCaprio's stunt double for that part of the scene? Those arcs and the circle were perfect!
- Why did they need heavy sedatives to sleep for four hours? Umm, have you seen me nap? Anyone that knows me well enough knows that I don't need to be drugged to sleep all day. This fella didn't need any help sleeping that long either.
- This movie at times had striking similarities to Shutter Island (Same lead actor, he loses his mind, it was over hyped, etc.).
- How much fun would it have been to smack the crap out of your fellow cast mates? I couldn't help but laugh out loud (also known as LOL) every time they did this in the movie. And it occurred on more than one occasion.
I thought this movie was too farfetched and out there (obviously). It also seemed to drag on too long especially for a movie that was packed with SO much information. And please, don't get me started on the three separate dreams at once stuff… I'm just not going to go there.
But, literally ALL I heard this weekend was how awesome Inception was and how it would blow my mind to Reese's pieces (which yes, I would have eaten had that actually happened. In fact that actually sounds like a good spin off commercial to promote Reese's pieces.), but it did not seeing as I am here typing this. Please take a minute and look at some of these tweets I saw over the past few days:
- Did I mention how awesome Inception was???? Oh yeah I did. 4 minutes ago via web
- Inception film is like taking the best of The Matrix, Oceans 11/12/13, & any James Bond film & setting them to a crazy deep plot. #Amazing
4 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone
- Inception was even better the second time =) 5 minutes ago via txt
- Inception was out of this WORLD! Crazy. Mind is blown. ! 5 minutes ago via UberTwitter
- I don't think I'll ever be able to look at life the same again after seeing Inception. 5 minutes ago via UberTwitter
- Inception could possibly be one of the best movies I have ever seen 5 minutes ago via txt
- INCEPTION was awesome beyond words 5 minutes ago via web
- Special effects were solid. The slow motion shots in the action scenes were a nice touch. Nolan has always been known for making his effects very special.
- I enjoyed the overall flow of the movie. It seemed to adopt the style that Pulp Fiction mastered when they showed the final scene at the beginning of the movie and then spent the rest of the film getting you to that point, which I have always been a huge fan of.
- This film throws a lot at you and rightfully so because it is a deep and complex film, much like an actual dream. For a movie that people assured me would leave my brains like this, I actually felt like I followed it pretty well.
- When the characters were dragging around the city in their dreams like they were playing on an iPad, I was amazed.
I know everyone probably thinks I'm snorting zanex after reading this review. And I could even be wrong (But I never am). I would love to hear what the CLAWtomicBAUM nation feels about this movie.
Best Regards, Salutations, and Thanks for your continued dedication of reading this blog (You're the best James!)
-#0, The Claw
Sweet Dreams are Made of These: A review of Inception
Ever since the inception (wow terrible pun) of our blog, Joey and I have been talking about having a date night where the two of us would reunite like old times to go check out a new movie. For the last six months we have been trying to get together and it almost happened this weekend. Being the great friend and co-blogger that he is, Joe asked if I wanted to see Inception and I was pumped. But like that day when you realize the NBA is not a viable career option, my dreams were dashed as Joey had to go into work at 6:30 (on a Friday night mind you). I know, some friend.
To make a long story short, I am not really sure how it all came together or how we got there, but we ended up on a double-date at Inception (Joey mentioned our last double date here). The typical hype that surrounds each new mind-bending thriller had made me pretty excited to see the latest pairing of Nolan and DiCaprio. The last time DiCaprio paired with a first class director (see Shutter Island review here) I was very impressed, so my expectations for this one were very high.
The movie throws your right into the action and confusion. The first couple of scenes begin as a dream within a dream and quickly alert the audience that they will have to pay attention to all that is said. The story reminds me of the Matrix insomuch as it centers around questions of reality and consciousness. The imaginative creativity that expresses itself in the creation of entire cities and bends physical boundaries is the most compelling aspect of the movie. It drives the plot and allows for some impressive visual effects (still kind of wish I saw it in IMAX).
Overall the acting was satisfactory. Headliner DiCaprio’s character in many ways mimics his portrayal of Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island. While the east coast accent is gone, the fact that he (SPOILER ALERT) sometimes struggles with defining reality and is haunted by his suicidal wife makes his characters nearly identical. I was pleasantly surprised by Tom Hardy who played Eames (the witty quick talking forger of dreams). He brings a suave demeanor and eccentricity that bring his character into a reality (another terrible pun). Ellen Page was good but nothing to write home about and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was the winner of best actor whose career has been defined by a baseball movie. He starred in Angels in the Outfield and beat out Tom Berenger who was Jake Owens in Major League (in all seriousness his performance is pretty good and he had one of my favorite lines of the whole film when he steals a kiss from one of his co-stars.
All in all, the movie borders on the edge of confusion for confusion’s sake. The plans were well discussed and therefore explained to the audience until an added layer of complexity in the last half an hour of the plot. The story skillfully incorporates common knowledge about dreams and weaves (third bad pun) it into the details behind dream-sharing technology. An example is how each layer of the dream causes the dream to occur in less time in reality. This allows for building of anticipation as one layer of the dream reaches its culmination and the others to continue on leaving the audience hanging. The plot is intriguing and the idea of stealing valuable information through dreams has to make you wonder.
The last quarter of this one kept it from being a great movie. Don’t get me wrong , it was still really good. But towards the end, I was feeling tired, my head was spinning, and I felt disoriented. But then again the easiest way to tell if you are in a dream is whether or not you can remember how you got there. I thought the end of the movie was a cop out, then again, since I can’t remember how I got there, maybe I’m just dreaming.
3.5 Stars out of 5
As always, we'd love to hear your thoughts. Comment below and make sure to follow us on Twitter. And if any of you have hookups with the Daily Journal or any other publication that needs some movie review help, let us know. Also if you want to treat me and Joey to a free movie, or even tell us you're going to treat us and then make us pay (thanks Megan McCarty) give us a holler. I promise it'll be a good time.
-Nuss
To make a long story short, I am not really sure how it all came together or how we got there, but we ended up on a double-date at Inception (Joey mentioned our last double date here). The typical hype that surrounds each new mind-bending thriller had made me pretty excited to see the latest pairing of Nolan and DiCaprio. The last time DiCaprio paired with a first class director (see Shutter Island review here) I was very impressed, so my expectations for this one were very high.
The movie throws your right into the action and confusion. The first couple of scenes begin as a dream within a dream and quickly alert the audience that they will have to pay attention to all that is said. The story reminds me of the Matrix insomuch as it centers around questions of reality and consciousness. The imaginative creativity that expresses itself in the creation of entire cities and bends physical boundaries is the most compelling aspect of the movie. It drives the plot and allows for some impressive visual effects (still kind of wish I saw it in IMAX).
Overall the acting was satisfactory. Headliner DiCaprio’s character in many ways mimics his portrayal of Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island. While the east coast accent is gone, the fact that he (SPOILER ALERT) sometimes struggles with defining reality and is haunted by his suicidal wife makes his characters nearly identical. I was pleasantly surprised by Tom Hardy who played Eames (the witty quick talking forger of dreams). He brings a suave demeanor and eccentricity that bring his character into a reality (another terrible pun). Ellen Page was good but nothing to write home about and Joseph Gordon-Levitt was the winner of best actor whose career has been defined by a baseball movie. He starred in Angels in the Outfield and beat out Tom Berenger who was Jake Owens in Major League (in all seriousness his performance is pretty good and he had one of my favorite lines of the whole film when he steals a kiss from one of his co-stars.
All in all, the movie borders on the edge of confusion for confusion’s sake. The plans were well discussed and therefore explained to the audience until an added layer of complexity in the last half an hour of the plot. The story skillfully incorporates common knowledge about dreams and weaves (third bad pun) it into the details behind dream-sharing technology. An example is how each layer of the dream causes the dream to occur in less time in reality. This allows for building of anticipation as one layer of the dream reaches its culmination and the others to continue on leaving the audience hanging. The plot is intriguing and the idea of stealing valuable information through dreams has to make you wonder.
The last quarter of this one kept it from being a great movie. Don’t get me wrong , it was still really good. But towards the end, I was feeling tired, my head was spinning, and I felt disoriented. But then again the easiest way to tell if you are in a dream is whether or not you can remember how you got there. I thought the end of the movie was a cop out, then again, since I can’t remember how I got there, maybe I’m just dreaming.
3.5 Stars out of 5
As always, we'd love to hear your thoughts. Comment below and make sure to follow us on Twitter. And if any of you have hookups with the Daily Journal or any other publication that needs some movie review help, let us know. Also if you want to treat me and Joey to a free movie, or even tell us you're going to treat us and then make us pay (thanks Megan McCarty) give us a holler. I promise it'll be a good time.
-Nuss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
