My Favorite Movies

This is a true marvel in cinema. Quentin Tarantino has become one of cinema's most intriguing and entertaining writer/directors. This is his opening, and greatest, achievement. The film is about a group of thieves, who do not know each other, pull off a bank heist that goes dreadfully wrong. They collect themselves and head back to the rendezvous point to sort out what just happened. Their conclusion is that there is an undercover cop within the team.

The film progresses out of order, and the bank job is never shown on screen, although it is talked about quite a bit. All of the characters are called under aliases that are colors (Mr. White, Mr. Pink, Mr. Blonde, etc.). It is the ultimate gangster, heist, mistrust, and deception film ever.

Tarantino writes one of the most prolific scripts in history. He is able to capture the tone and manner in which people naturally speak. Not many other writers are able to do that. The dialogue is fluid and does not seem like typical scripted dialogue. It was a unique experience hearing and watching this movie unfold.

People say this movie is incredibly violent. I have to tell them something, it isn't. Violence plays like another character in the films. It looms over what is going on making it feel uncomfortable and gruesome, knowing that at any second mass amounts of violence could break out at any second. It doesn't. The violence is very contained and strategized. In fact, the most vicious act of violence is not even shown on screen, while most people are convinced it is. That is another trick that makes the movie complex and entertaining.

All in all, this is my favorite movie of all time. I recommend this movie to any lovers of film, or anybody who just likes to see a great movie once in a while.

(Revisions Can Come Later)

This is a film I go back and forth on. There are many of the aspects of the film I throughly enjoyed, but there are also elements that are irritating and do not like. First off, the main reason the film is worth seeing is to see the marvelous portrayal of The Joker by the late Heath Ledger. This is The Joker that most Batman fans have waited to see. He is sadistic, funny, and just all around intriguing. It is very similar to the portrayal in Brian Azerello's graphic novel "Joker," which is one of the greatest novels ever written. I wish that the entire film had been centered around him because, frankly, he is more interesting than Bale's Batman, but I will get into that later. Another new face in the franchise is Aaron Eckhart, as Harvey Dent. Eckhart has always been an actor that I do not like. Here, he is no different. The way that the character is portrayed by Eckhart is basically the same character that he plays in all his other movies like "Thank You For Smoking," a movie I did not like. Truth be told, it is a bit strange to have Dent introduced now considering the fact that they have created the character of Rachel Dawes. The character of Rachel was essentially the same role of Dent in "Batman Begins," except that there is a love interest. Now, with the introduction of Dent, it is a bit uneasy to have both characters befriending Bruce Wayne. Also, he does not really serve a point in the main plot until the very end of the film. It seems he is there throughout the movie as part of the romantic subplot between Wayne and Dawes. I would have saved him for another film, where he could be the center of what was going on. The last new face I am going to talk about is actually not a new face at all, well it's the same character just played by a different actress. Maggie Gyllenhaal takes on the role of Rachel Dawes, and frankly I do not feel she was an improvement on Katie Holmes' work in "Begins." The character is played on much of the same notes as in its predecessor. Another problem with casting Gyllenhaal is that the person who has the love interest of two of the most esteemed men in Gotham should be one of the most attractive women ever laid eyes on. But, no offense to Miss Gyllenhaal, she isn't. That's all I have to say about that. Now I will move on to the reprised roles. Christian Bale returns as the caped crusader and not much has changed. He plays the three sides to Bruce Wayne pretty good. The Batman growl of a voice is very distracting and I do not care for much, but other than that, he is fine in the role. The problem is that he doesn't take any initiative to make the character incredibly interesting. Everything is all a bit flat. Gary Oldman comes back as Gordon. This is the second best performance in the film. He is the only relatable character in the movie, which helps us connect and feel what he is feeling. The role is very subtle, but it is brilliant. The story was good. As I said before, I am not to keen on the Dent side of the story but The Joker side is fantastic. The special effects were great and so was the sound design. Technically it is a very astounding film. Overall, it is a good movie that has been over-hyped by most but still should be seen.

Duck Soup is a comedic masterpiece in epic proportions. This the last films featuring Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Zeppo and it is their finest. It is the story of newly appointed dictator Rufus T. Firefly, Groucho. Actually, the plot doesn't matter. It's the characters that make the movie. The Marx Brothers have perfected every aspect of their personas. Groucho is the wise cracking, bushy browed lead with the painted on mustache, and Chico and Harpo portray the most unique partners as the mute and fake Italian. Their timing and brilliance is perfect. It is rare that every joke in a film is funny. This movie has that. Each joke works. No comedic team will ever be The Marx Brothers.

More will Come Later.

Quentin Tarantino's latest film Inglourious Basterds is one of the most thrilling, suspenseful films I have seen in recent years. It remains unique due to the fact that the suspense is brought along by long stretches of dialogue. This is Tarantino writing as a serious author. His previous two films, Kill Bill and Death Proof, were fun and enjoyable but this is a well-thought and gripping story that draws you in from the opening scene. The first scene, that lasts around 20 minutes, revolves around a Nazi detective named Colonel Hans Landa, played with theatrical charm and perfection by Christoph Waltz, visits a French dairy farmer (Denis Menochet) about hiding Jews. However, Landa cannot simply go in and do a simple search and leave. He has to extend it to a full out performance, breaking the farmer beat by beat. This is one of, if not the best scene Tarantino has written. If this scene wasproduced as its own short film, it would easily win best short film at the Oscars.

The film then moves on to the next chapter where we meet the "Basterds". They are a group of Jewish-American soldiers who go behind enemy lines in France to brutally murder and scalp as many Nazis as they possibly can. They are led by Lt. Aldo Raine, played with southern shtick by Brad Pitt, who is obviously the comedic frontman in this story. Also in this chapter we are introduced to the maniacal, egotistical, power hungry super villain that is Adolph Hitler (Martin Wukke). He is so far into caricature in his almost secret layer, with his 30 foot tall self portrait along one side of the room. This chapter is really fun and enjoyable, which is an escape from the dramatic tension and suspense that we got in the first chapter.

In the third chapter we are introduced to Shoshana Dreyfus, played by Mélanie Laurent. In the first chapter, her family was massacred by Landa, and she was the only survivor. This is four years later where she is hiding out in Paris under the alias Emmanuelle Mimieux, where she owns a cinema. She is approached by a German soldier (Daniel Brühl) who is smitten with Shoshana and is a cinema lover. We find out the soldier has performed a great exploit for Germany that Joseph Goebbels (Sylvester Groth) decided to make a film about him and chose him to star in it. They decide to hold the premiere of the film at Shoshana's cinema. She decides to burn down the theater during the premiere to get revenge from her family's slaughter.

The fourth chapter we find out that the OSS has a similar plan for the cinema, except instead of burning it down it's blowing it up. The plan was created by a famous German actress/double agent Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger). She meets with two German-born members of the Basterds and an English film critic who speaks fluent German (Michael Fassbender) in a tavern. This scene, which extends over 30 minutes, is the most suspenseful scene in the film. I do not want to reveal too much about this scene, but it is gripping over something as simple as an accent. The fifth chapter is where the plans are executed and the film wraps up.

The best thing about this film is Christoph Waltz. He plays one of the best on-screen villains that I have ever seen. The man is smart, devious, eccentric, narcissistic, and charming. He is not your typical mustache-twirling Nazi that we get in so many WWII films. Another unique thing about him is that he is a linguistic genius. Throughout the film he speaks German, English, French, and Italian, and he is menacing in any tongues. I could go on and on about how much I love this character, but I will have to move on.

Another great thing is that everyone speaks the language they would speak, whereas other Holocaust films, like The Reader and Defiance, they just have an accent. The marketing sells this as the Brad Pitt Nazi slaughterfest. However, this movie is much more like a slow burn. It is a lot of talking and conversing, with about 45 seconds of action and violent frenzy at the end of the tension that you have during the scene.

Tarantino has crafted another masterclass that is in the ranks of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. This is also the best movie of 2009 and the decade.

WARNING! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

This is a hard film to dive into. I guess I will start off with a basic plot synopsis. Well, nothing about this film is basic, but this is a plot synopsis none the less. The film centers on Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a hired thief who infiltrates people's dreams to steal, or extract, secrets and information from their subconscious. He is hired by Japanese businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) to perform inception, which is where instead of taking an idea from someone's mind, you plant one. If he successfully performs this task, Saito will arrange for Cobb to return to the United States to be with his children. There, I think that was basic enough. It is in the forthcoming paragraphs where the spoilers will run amuck.

With this being a Christopher Nolan film, everything is multilayered. The story, characters (well, some of them), and the dream space itself are all fully realized. Everything serves a purpose in order to go from one place to another. As is also the case with many Nolan films, the mastery of subtle foreshadowing is everywhere in the film. This is where in the first viewing you do not even realize you have already been given a clue and upon future viewings, you realize they had already given something, or part of something, away. For example, in the scene where Cobb, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and Nash (Lukas Haas) try to extract information from Saito, they awake on a train. After they realize they failed in extracting all of the necessary information, the three men quickly try to remove themselves from his presence, going separate ways. Cobb is first to leave in a hurry stating tat he does not like trains. Later in the film, you realize it was a train that was the kickstart to Mal's (Marion Cotillard), Cobb's wife, delusion in the real world. Like I said, every line serves a purpose to the story, and this is just one of the many.

A complaint that I have noticed spring up from what I have read is that the supporting characters are not fully formed characters. I disagree with that statement. I do agree that maybe one or two are not very well delved into, namely Yusuf (Dileep Rao), but the rest, I got a full sense of their personality and how they operate. Also, in most cases of heist films, and this film is a heist film, the team members who help the leader achieve the goal are never fully realized. Had the film gone on to explain who all these people were, what are their private lives like, etc., the film would have bogged down to much more expository dialogue than it already had. Besides, for those characters, it is all about the job in this story. It is in the character of Cobb where the backstory is crucial in what is going on. The film delves deep into his grief and remorse over the suicide of Mal, for which he is partly, if not solely, responsible.

Leonardo DiCaprio gives what is one of his best performances. He is one of the few actors who can portray grief and sadness so honestly and emotionally resonant that you would swear it was real. This was the first time I have actually liked Ellen Page in a movie (take that Juno lovers). Her character, Ariadne, has the difficult task of being thrust into this world of the dream to be an architect (someone who designs the layout of a dream), not to mention function as Cobb's psychiatrist. Aside from Cobb, she is given the most difficult character, having to deal with Cobb and look out for the other team members, and Miss Page pulls it off. I know have a new found respect for her. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Cobb's right hand man, Arthur. He specializes in the research of the subject to which they will extract information from. The way I interpreted the character is that he is so devoted to Cobb that he almost wants to be him. They even have the same slicked back hairstyle. JGL also gets to take part in one of the most breathtaking fight scenes I have seen, which I will get into in a bit. Tom Hardy, who gave my favorite lead performance of 2009 in Bronson, almost steals the movie as Eames. He is the fun loving forger who can impersonate others in dreams. Almost every scene he is in he commands. He can deliver the very funny one liners and has a great comedic chemistry with Gordon-Levitt. He is just a ton of fun to watch on screen. If you hadn't noticed, this film has quite a large ensemble cast and I am trying to hit everyone, so sorry if this section seems quite long. Cillian Murphy, a Nolan veteran, is the target for their inception. He can play the smug stereotype of an heir, but is also able to break down into raw emotion. He is quite a staggering figure on screen, which I did not expect. I have never been too taken with him, but this film changed that. Ken Watanabe, also a Nolan veteran, is quite good as Saito, the employer and tourist. His trouble is that he is shot in one of the levels of the dream and almost becomes a burden to deal with. He is still very good in his small role. This brings me to Marion Cotillard. Anyone who has talked with me about her knows she is about one of four actresses working today that I will see anything she is in. Every film I have seen her in she has been captivating from start to finish. This film is no exception. I think she is the only actress working where you can feel drawn to her/detested by her/hate her/love her/feel sympathy for her/be scared by her all at the same time. I have absolutely no idea how she can capture that kind of range in a single glance, but it is truly something special to watch. I am so glad she has become somewhat of a staple in mainstream film because she deserves it.

The visual aesthetic of this film is unparalleled by anything I have ever seen before. I remember how people were immersed in the world of Jim Cameron's Avatar. I never was. I had that experience though with this film. From the obviously beautiful cinematography from Wally Pfister, I was brought into the different layers of the dreams. What did this was not the 3D, because there was none. What did it was that most of what was happening were practical effects. Nolan hardly implements CGI in the film, and it feels that way. Everything has a texture to it that can not be reproduced with computers. I mean, obviously, there is some CGI (i.e. the city folding over on itself), but that is the only prominent way it is used. The hallway fight scene that I mentioned before has no use of CGI. It was filmed on a hallway that stretched 100 feet long which rotated on 8 circles to give it the effect of shirting gravity. The actors were able to maneuver from the floor to the ceiling to the wall without the use of computers. Nolan jut used his camera to follow the actors. It feels real because it is.

Another criticism of the film I have seen pop up is that there is too much expository dialogue. I do agree that it is there, but I do not think it is a criticism of the film. I have racking my brains to find out another way to reveal that under heavy sedation, being killed in a dream will send you into Limbo. That fact has to be explained. Also, most of the exposition is warranted because it is Ariadne learning the rules and ways of a dream. It is told to her in a classroom setting, probably the most logical way to teach someone something quickly. I think the actors handle the dialogue extremely well too. It never comes across as forced or awkward. It may be unwanted exposition by some of the viewers, but it is ultimately necessary for things to make sense in the already complex story. And on multiple viewings, the exposition hardly seems noticeable. I think this complaint is just nitpicking on the part of the viewer who wants to find something wrong with it.

I want to get to a hot button issue: the ending. I have now seen the film three times and after each one, the audience reaction is the same. They are aghast that they do not get to know whether or not Cobb's top stops spinning to determine if he is in reality. Here is my take on it, and I go much further than the top. On the third viewing, I noticed a tiny detail that you would only really catch on that viewing. Throughout the film, Cobb's character has a slight shift in appearance from reality to the dream world. In the real world, Cobb does not wear a wedding ring. Whenever he is in a dream, he does. In the last scene, he is not wearing a wedding ring. Also, now I get to the top, whenever the top is spun in a dream, it consistently spins without any sign of altering. So, the last scene is the only scene, where we don't see it fall, in which it wobbles. Combining these two elements, I believe that the ending portrays him in reality and not a dream. But, that is definitely up for interpretation.

If you had not guessed by my overly long and overly enthusiastic response to the film, I really liked this movie. In fact, it is my favorite movie of the year and one of the best from the 21st Century. I have this same eclectic response to a film about once a year. 2009 was Inglourious Basterds. 2008 was In Bruges. 2007 was There Will Be Blood. And so on and so forth. This film has already penetrated my favorite top 25 films, and, who knows, after more viewings, it may proceed to move further up on the list. I want everyone to go out out and see the film, at least twice. Also, if at all possible, see this in IMAX. It is the full experience that this film deserves. I hope you all enjoyed my review, if it was even that.

Grade: A+