Inception (2010)

There are two mainstream directors working today whose entire works I have seen that are, in my opinion, batting 1.000. The first guy is Darren Aronofsky. Every movie this guy makes is phenomenal. "Black Swan" was the best film I saw in 2010, I adore "The Fountain" in all it's beautiful sadness, and  "Requiem For A Dream" is a movie that's so powerful that I'll never watch it again. The man is 5 for 5 so far, and I'm fully anticipating 6 for 6 when "Noah," his next project comes out in 2014. Let's hope.

The other guy is Christopher Nolan. Now the interesting difference between Nolan and Aronofsky for me is that while I think that while technically Aronofsky makes the "better films," there's always a portion of my brain that gets more excited about the next Nolan project. The reason for that is because while I believe they both make powerful, objectively excellent films, I have to give it to Nolan in the entertainment department. His movies are just too much damn fun.

"Memento" and "The Prestige" are two of the best twisty-turny thrillers I've ever seen, and appear to have been made for the sole purpose of apologizing to the Universe for M. Night Shyamalan's fall from both talent and sanity. I consider his Batman trilogy to be the current apex of the comic book movie. Hell, when your weakest film is "Insomnia," a fantastic thriller featuring Robin Williams as a believable and kind of scary bad guy, you know you've either got supernatural amounts of talent or several deals with the Devil. Any one of these films would be considered a high-water mark in any other director's career, a movie they would be best remembered for - and Christopher Nolan has made a career of making those career-making movies.

Ken Watanabe is very strict about bathtime procedures.

Where Aronofsky's films are deep and leave me feeling like I've been punched in the gut and make me slowly nod my head as I contemplate life between deep, soul searching breaths, Nolan's films leave me sitting in my seat, a smile slowly drifting over my face as I have no words to say other than "Wow" as my brain fires 900 miles an hour in an attempt to process all that I just saw. Then I have conversations about it with my friends that last for hours, then I go and see it again, because all of his movies only get better the more you watch them. It's an equally powerful, if quite different reaction to two great filmmakers and their particular styles.

This brings us around to Christopher Nolan's "Inception." This 2010, labyrinthine, sci-fi mind-defiler was the second best movie I saw that year. And it was running in first place until late December when "Black Swan" was released. And even then it was a close match. Then again, it always is whenever Nolan and Aronofsky release a movie in the same year, which is surprisingly often. They both seem to go in two year cycles.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

The thing about "Inception" that I think earned it something of a bad reputation, and indeed the main reason some people came down harshly on this film, was that people were labeling it as an exceedingly difficult to follow film, and was nearly impossible to make sense of. People coming out the theater were saying they had no idea what was going on, and that it was a royal mess of nonsense.

This is all untrue. What people need to understand even to this day since there are still folks who refuse to see "Inception" based on these unenlightened opinions of it, is that it's not a difficult movie to follow. It's really not. It makes sense within the context of the story, and nowhere does the narrative fly off the rails. It's actually presented in as straight forward of a manner as you could possibly present a story involving plot elements like "dreams within dreams within dreams."

So why were there people getting all flustered over it and saying it was crap? Well, it's very simple, and I'm going to tell you the secret to understanding "Inception" right now. You ready? It's only four syllables long, so it's not hard to write down if you need to. Here we go:

PAY ATTENTION.

"Inception" isn't asking a lot of you, audience. It's really not. All it's asking you to do is to give it your undivided attention for two and a half hours. That's not that long of a time to not check Facebook on your phone or not go make a sandwich or not break out your Nintendo DS. You can manage. I know Michael Bay has gotten us used to not working our brains past the point that comprehending how big that last explosion was will allow, but seriously just pop some Ritalin and watch a filmmaker who knows what he's doing. You might thank yourselves later.

I've also heard it called pretentious. Honestly, I have no idea what people who say that are talking about, and I've never heard a proper argument to explain why anyone would say this movie wrongfully has its nose in the air. I just think "pretentious" is a word thrown around by people who didn't like a movie, but don't know how to describe why they didn't like it. But here's a news flash, "Inception" is not pretentious, because it is intelligent, it is well made, and it is an important movie by an important director. Pretentious only counts if the thing being accused isn't possessed of things like that. Like Terrence Malick. Now call him pretentious, and I'll agree with you completely. Christopher Nolan? Not a chance.

And by the way, isn't it strange that often when a director becomes popular and starts building up an impressive collection of films under their belt, if they're doing anything unique at all, some label them as "pretentious?" Give it enough time, so that we see a new generation of directors emerge, those that grew up watching Christopher Nolan films, and watch what they'll say then. Nobody will call him pretentious when every other filmmaker is copping his style. He'll be called a visionary.

You can't be pretentious if you actually are that important.

"Inception" is a story about industrial espionage. Using technology which allows a person to construct and enter dreams, these criminals steal secrets from the very minds of their subjects, presumably to sell to the highest bidder. A far more difficult task is inception, which is the planting of an idea into someone's mind. Inception is actually considered to be impossible by most everyone, expect for Dom Cobb, Leonardo DiCaprio's character. He's the only person who has been able to successfully pull it off. And as we find out, having done so is his biggest regret.

Cobb takes the customary "one last job" in an effort to bring himself out of the exile he finds himself in at the beginning of the film. The job is one of inception - to enter the mind of a businessman (Cillian Murphy) and plant the idea in his head to break up his father's huge energy conglomerate. Cobb and his team will go several layers into his mind as dreams within dreams within dreams are necessary to plant the idea deep enough to take hold.

That's where the movie starts to get a little nuts. As they go deeper into Cillian Murphy's mind the film jumps back and forth between "levels" of the dream, each level being in the head of a different team member, who "builds" that level. For instance, the first level of Cillian Murphy's dream is created by Yusuf (Dileep Rao). But when they go a level deeper within Yusuf's dream, everyone but Yusuf plugs into Arthur's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) dream, which he constructs. Then within Arthur's dream they go into Eames' (Tom Hardy) mind, so that the idea can be planted deep enough. And believe it or not they end up going deeper than even that.

(caption unnecessary)

That's the speed-bump in watching "Inception." You have to keep mental tabs going in your head as to whose dream you're currently in. But the dreams are all different from each other, and the settings unique enough to the point that you're never mistaking one level for another. True, by the end of the dream, when there are four or five levels of dreams going on and it's rapidly cutting back and forth between all of them, it does tend to get a little chaotic, but even if you're not completely following every last detail, the general idea is still solid enough to carry you through. But I can't lie and say that even looking back it isn't a chore to connect the dots.

Even typing the plot out is honestly an exercise in brain activity.

The cast of "Inception" is the standard Christopher Nolan stable of actors, although to call them standard is something of a misrepresentation since all these people are amazing. Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy and Marion Cotillard are all here, making it almost feel like part of the "Dark Knight" series. And I shall not complain about that, because it is purely a good thing. Add to the mix DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Tom Berenger and the late Pete Postlethwaite in one of his last films, and it's a good sampling of some of the best actors around. That's another reason Nolan is awesome: He always gets awesome people.

If there is one thing about "Inception" that I love more than anything else, it's that every time I see it, there is more to be considered that I hadn't found on a previous viewing. I've seen the film about six times now, I'd guess, and every time I find something about it that I get to thinking about that hadn't occurred to me earlier. At first, I'll sit back and ponder it until I've exhausted my brain, and my conclusion will be that I'd found a plothole or something that doesn't make sense. And I'll let that sit for a time.

Then, a few days later, out of the blue the answer will strike me as my brain has finally made sense of things, and I discover that what I thought was a plothole wasn't a plothole at all, but merely another layer of this dense onion of a story that I had yet to uncover. This happens nearly every time I rewatch "Inception." And how many movies can you say keep your brain working that long after seeing it? That's why I love "Inception."

Party hard.

In fact, there are a few theories I have about the end of "Inception" that I'd like to share with anyone taking the time to read these ramblings. If you haven't seen it yet, I'd recommend skipping these next parts, because there will be spoilers, and I'd hate to ruin it for you. Then again, if you haven't seen it, there's probably little chance you'll be able to make heads or tails of what I'm about to say anyway.

1) The first theory I have is one that many people probably had as well - which is that the end of the movie implies that Dom is still asleep, or has fallen in limbo again. This is a pretty safe theory considering that the chances are 50/50. Either the totem is about to fall over or it's not. But an interesting thing happens when you consider the following: That Dom's totem cannot be trusted to tell him if he's awake. And the reason for that is that the totem isn't his. That totem belonged to Mal.

"Mwahahaha! You can't trust me!"

They make it clear that the totem has to be uniquely known by the owner and the owner alone. No one else can know what makes it special, because that's the whole point. But Dom's totem didn't belong to only him, which invalidates it as a test. Also, he flat out tells Ariadne (Ellen Page) what its trick is, which makes it doubly invalid. And who knows how many others know about the totem at this point?

2) This being considered, I think it's entirely possible that we never see the waking world throughout the entirety of the film. If we can't trust the totem to tell us the truth, then we can't trust anything we see. There are also occurrences in the "real world" that are suspect. For instance, the entire sequence where they recruit Eames (Tom Hardy) is full of imagery which might be found in a dream. I'm referring not only to the gang of bad guys that spring out of the aether to give chase to Dom, but also the alleyway which narrows to a dubious level. I can't imagine anyone building an alleyway that narrows to be like a foot wide at the end. What would be the point?

In addition, when Saito (Ken Watanabe) just appears in a car to give Dom a lift and rescues him, it certainly seems overly convenient. It may just be a movie cliche, but perhaps in this case a movie cliche is being used to drop a hint that what we are seeing isn't real life, even in movie terms.

3) And if we are dreaming to whole time, which I think is entirely likely, I thought of something that I won't call a theory but I will call "a thought." Consider the following: If that were the case, I think it's possible that the entire film takes place not in Dom's dream, but in Mal's.

Wait. A dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream?! That's going one step too far!

Why is it that Mal is always popping up in the dreams that Dom goes into? Why is she alone brought along through his subconscious not being able to let her go? Why is Dom the only person who is doing that? Surely some of the other dreamers have issues they might not have resolved. And even if the rest of Dom's team did have their subconscious under control, there's still Saito and Fisher (Cillian Murphy), who are not, in fact, career dream thieves. Even Ariadne (Ellen Page) is a rookie. Why aren't they bringing anything crazy through? At the very least, Fisher clearly has daddy issues. That's the whole point of the job. So why don't we see Pete Postlethwaite popping in from dream to dream?

Maybe it's because Mal being dragged in from Dom's subconscious can't really happen. Maybe the reason she's always there is because we are, in fact, in her mind, and we are just following the story from the perspectives of the people sharing her dream. Think about it.

Then again that could be complete bupkis. I'm sure there are plenty of holes to be poked in that idea, which is why that is all that it is: an idea. But that just showcases one more reason I love "Inception" - because how many movies can be discussed using ideas like that?

Hur hur. Tom Hardy's is bigger.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Inception" is a movie that, like all of Christopher Nolan's films, you owe it to yourself to see. It's an amazing movie that rewards thought, conversation, and repeat viewings. Phenomenal film. Don't let what you've heard scare you off. See it. Multiple times. It only get better (and easier to follow) the more you watch it.

Batman Begins (2005)

Let's go back in time a bit. It's 2004. It's been 7 years since George Clooney and Joel Schumacher took Batman, one of the most iconic superheros of all time, and gave him a fluorescent makeover complete with his very own absurdly niche-market credit card. His most worthy opponent had been reduced to a mute, brainless, walking slab of ground chuck in a luchadore mask, and even Arnold Schwarzenegger, the King of The Awesomely Bad One-Liners, was unable to utter a single sentence that didn't physically hurt. But while the pain of Chris O'Donnell whining about wanting a Robin-Signal in the sky has finally begun to fade, still, there is a lingering sadness hanging over nerd culture.

Oh, true - "Spiderman 2" was still being fawned over by pasty comic book geeks everywhere, at least whenever they could spare a moment to stop arguing over important things like if they got Peter Parker's hair parted on the correct side. But for every "Spiderman" movie that didn't make nerds want to bludgeon things to death with their mint-condition Spider-mobile, there were movies like "Daredevil." Movies like "Catwoman." Movies like "The Hulk." And soon would come movies like "The Fantastic Four" and "Superman Returns." Truly, this was a time for some despair.

And beneath it all, that lingering sadness remained. Beneath everything else, hitting harder and cutting deeper than any other betrayal was that one sad, heartbreaking fact: They had done it. They killed Batman.

This paid for the funeral.

Then we start hearing things. They're bringing him back. Instant fear seeped down the pant leg of many a nerd as the 'Nam flashbacks of Alicia Silverstone donning the Batgirl costume rushed back, threatening to drive many to madness. I know that I was one of them, rocking back and forth in the corner of my room in the fetal position as echos of Clooney's fourth-wall desecrating line "This is why Superman works alone" bounced around in my head.

But then we started to hear other things. Things about this guy barely anyone had heard of named Christopher Nolan. The only thing anybody seemed to know about him was that he was "that one guy who made that one movie that went backwards, or something."

Well, I for one knew exactly who he was, and the name of that movie was "Memento." He had also done a movie with Al Pacino and Robin Williams called "Insomnia." I had seen both of those films, so I looked at "Batman Begins" with a new sense of hope, because after seeing those two films, I knew that Nolan was a guy who knew what the hell he was doing. And as more information came out, it became clear that finally, at long last, they were taking Batman seriously again for the first time since 1989.

I just going to come out and say it, "Batman Begins" is the best superhero origin story ever made. Period. Now, some may argue that the first Sam Raimi "Spiderman" was the best. I would say that while it's true that "Spiderman" was a great origin story, I have to give it to "Batman Begins" simply because to me, it made the most sense out of any origin story I'd ever seen. Most of this came from the first part of the film showcasing the often forgotten fact that Batman is, in fact, a ninja.

For all of you blowing a gasket at that, think about it. Bruce Wayne is trained in the mountains by people, who as we plainly see, are ninjas. He employs diversion, mind games, and stealth to take out enemies without being seen. He wears black and stays in the shadows whenever possible. He throws shurikens for crying out loud. Oh, true, he calls himself "The Batman" instead of "The Ninja-man," but if it looks like a ninja, moves like a ninja, and fights like a ninja, odds are it's a ninja.

No, nothing ninja-esque about this dude at all...

What that does is make Bruce Wayne a more realistic and interesting superhero. Let's compare Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne.

Peter Parker is a normal kid. Whether or not he's really super smart depends on the movie you watch (I'm not up on my comics, so I don't know what he's like in those), but for all intents and purposes, he's normal. Then he gets bitten by a radioactive spider and hey presto he has superpowers. These powers are just heaped on him without him really having to work to get them. Oh true, he has to fall off an occasional building before he masters his web shooters, but all of a sudden, he's doing back-flips and kung-fu battling villains like a madman, despite him never learning how to fight. He can just do that now.

Because spiders are natural warriors?

You wouldn't think it, but this dude holds 3 MMA championships.

Bruce Wayne trained his ASS off. There was not a single "power" he has that was given to him. He worked for every single bit of skill that he has, and every cut, every broken bone, every concussion, every single injury he sustained was willingly taken out of his obsession with stopping the crime that took his family away from him. And at the end of the day, he's human. And more than any other superhero, the physical strain that he goes through is clear to see. He's not a superhero, he's just an exceptional man who has no special powers to fall back on when he's in trouble.

For my money, this is a far more interesting character to follow than someone like Peter Parker, or god help me, that goody-goody two shoes Clark Kent. I've just always loved the fact that Batman has to leg sweep a guy once in a while, you know?

"My plan? Well, I was thinking about flying really fast and picking something up. It's all I seem to do."

More than any other "Batman" films, the Nolan series starts off by showing what Bruce Wayne actually went through to become Batman. Every other time it was just the prerequisite "dark alley gunshots" and Mr. and Mrs. Wayne lying on the wet sidewalk in a flashback/dream sequence. In this movie, his struggle seems more poignant because we see the buildup to those struggles, which is something the other films all lacked entirely.

I love Christian Bale as an actor, but out of everything I've seen him in, I think his turn as Batman is going to be what people remember him for, which is a good thing. I liked Michael Keaton as both Bruce and Batman, because he was the only guy to play Bruce Wayne like he was crazy enough to dress like a bat and fight crime. I even thought Val Kilmer was a great Bruce. He just wasn't great under the mask, frankly. But Christian Bale is the first guy who's played a good Bruce Wayne while still looking like he could be Batman physically. The way he carries himself and the way he is crazy ripped leaves little doubt that he could actually do these things. You look at Val Kilmer as Batman and wonder if he's worried about his hair getting messed up under the cowl.

As far as the rest of the cast goes, it's only one cast member away from perfect. Having Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgen Freeman, my unapologetic man-crush Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe, and even frigging Rutger Hauer in "Batman Begins" basically makes it a movie composed of a respectable chunk of my favorite actors. And then there's Katie Holmes. Her performance is tolerable enough I suppose, but when she's on screen with actors like Michael goddamn Caine, it's like watching Homer Simpson boxing Drederik Tatum: the best she can hope for is her corpse still looking vaguely human after he pounds into a meat-flavored pile.

"Now den. Oym gonna 'it ewe wiff dis bat, an' ewer gonna take it. 'Cause oym Muwhyco Caine."

Oh, quick side note, be on the lookout for future royalty on the streets of Gotham. 

Psychotic, inbred future royalty...

If there was a short coming with "Batman Begins," it was probably that I felt that it waffled slightly when it came to the question "Who is the bad guy in this?" Now, this is simply a matter of the movie pulling some twists on us, obviously, but it did feel on occasion that there was no central villain for the good middle hour of the film. And I must say that I was upset that Cillian Murphy's villain, The Scarecrow, was essentially made a non-issue about forty minutes after it appeared that he was the main bad guy. Of course, they work him into the main villain, Ras al-Ghul's plot, but he's really just a pawn in a bigger scheme. And he has what is undoubtedly the least dignified and most unsatisfying send off for a Batman villain that I remember seeing. Getting tasered in the face by Katie Holmes? Really? That's the resolution of that one? Lame.

I also wasn't a big fan of how the effects of Scarecrow's "fear-gas" were implemented. The visions that people are seeing when they are under its effects really don't seem that terrifying. I mean, most of the time, other people are just appearing as having glowing eyes. I suppose when Scarecrow sees Batman while suffering its effects it kind of works, but really all Batman looks like is a drooling gargoyle. Not really that scary. Now, if they were rotting, decaying, grotesque corpses or something, that I can see being scary. But how far could you push that and keep a PG-13 rating? Who knows.

Those little nitpicks aside, I loved "Batman Begins." I had been a fan of Christopher Nolan before, but his rescuing of The Dark Knight earned a spot in my favorite directors file.

And to think, we thought he knocked it out of the park on this one. If we only knew...

THE BOTTOM LINE - This was more of a retrospective than an actual review, I know. This is mostly because honestly, if you haven't seen "Batman Begins" yet, what the hell are you doing? It's one of the most important comic book movies ever, being the beginning of what I would call the best superhero trilogy ever made. Very Highly Recommended.