Coraline (2009)

Some might be tempted to call this film a modern Alice in Wonderland but to stop a description there would woefully mischaracterize this film as something of a knock-off. Truth be told, Coraline is a breath of fresh air amidst a sea of paint-by-numbers animated kids films. Not only is it more mature in its approach to children but it also features a mesmerizing combination of stop-motion animation and computer effects.

Coraline Jones does not like here living arrangements one bit. Her parents moved the family into an old house converted into apartments. While her parents work slavishly on completing a gardening catalog for a client, Coraline is left to entertain herself. The other residents of the apartment-house are old and very weird. The only young person around is the grandson of the landlady, who strikes Coraline as equally odd and a little annoying to boot. Feeling neglected and along, Coraline longs for an escape from her reality.

She gets just such an opening when she discovers a small door in the living room that opens up at night to a passageway to a much more desirable mirror world. In the Other World, Coraline’s Other Mother is affectionate and caring. Her Other Father is musically inclined and hard-working around the house. Coraline makes repeat visits to this Other World but is warned by a talking cat that all is not as it appears to be in this ideal getaway place. In time, Coraline learns the truth about the Other World, putting her in a dangerous conflict with her Other Mother.

There is a lot to like about Coraline, both the film and the character. Both are perfectly modern takes on familiar concepts. Coraline the girl is a believable creation. The creators clearly had a pulse on the tween attitude when committing this story to film. Kudos to Dakota Fanning for giving a voice to a charming yet witty young girl. Coraline has the right amount of sarcasm, venom and remorse in her voice and mannerisms to appease those film-goers who demand realism even in an animated film.

Accompanying the titular character is a well-rounded supporting cast. Even credit is again due to the animators and the voice actors (particularly to Terri Hatcher for being nothing short of creeptastic) for making the film flow with realism. This is not an old-school fairy tale where everything fits into certain generalizations or stereotypes. Lines are not so well-defined and intentions held back until just the right moments. Despite a few similarities to other child-fantasy-adventure tales, Coraline’s story is unique enough to avoid tipping its hand. This keeps the film fresh, entertaining and rewarding.

Like deep sea diving, Coraline gets darker the deeper you get into the tale. This is a great move because too few films are made for older children in mind. While it will probably be too scary for kids under eight years old, it’s perfect for everyone else. Tweens and teens will connect with the hip lead character while adults nod their head in agreement that Coraline is one sharp girl and the world presented is real enough (minus to gonzo neighbors at least). Parents may also see some of their own unintended failing in Coraline’s parents or at least see enough to vow not to be like that.

Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t going to be some John Hughes-ian tale that makes it seem like parents and children can find perfect common ground, living in harmony the rest of their days. It certainly won’t be a miracle film to bring families together but it will give them things to talk about. That’s at least a start, right? Then again, that’s a moot point because familial strengthening outside of the story isn’t one of the film’s goals to begin with.

As entertainment, it’s a hit. As art, it could very well be groundbreaking. The producers sank a lot of money into the technique behind Coraline’s seamless stop-motion animation, so you’re unlikely to see any indie directors springing for this kind of project. Still though, how many CGI films come out every year now? Even the good ones can get passed over because we’re becoming immune to the marvel of CGI. One could argue that, by using stop-motion animation, Coraline is taking the animation genre a step backward but consider this- as time-consuming as stop-motion is, Coraline was still less expensive than its CGI counterparts. I dare say that the choice to be different makes the film stand out all the more.

Everything about this film, foreground and background, is rich with detail you wouldn’t expect from a stop-motion animated film. A few digital effects thrown in help complete the illusion. There were times when I doubted Coraline was stop-motion. It just looks too good to be true. Thankfully, this is one case where it still is true.

Check this film out if you get the chance. It’s sassy, fun, scary and even has a good moral base to it. I may have to watch this one again. I fear I may have short-changed it on the rating.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Alice in Wonderland (1951)

This is a tough film to place. I have never studied, nor even read, Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass. I don’t know if that leaves me at a disadvantage when approaching this film from a critical perspective. Literary types go gaga over the source stories and artsy-fartsy types (not to mention recreational drug enthusiasts) adore the trippy animation employed by Disney’s team. Seeing as I don’t really fall into any of the above categories, it should come as little surprise that this film fails to get much of a reaction from me.

The young and lovely Alice grows tired of living within the strict rules of reality. Dreaming of a world unlike her own, she spies a White Rabbit hurrying along and talking to himself. Following the curious creature, Alice falls down his rabbit hole and into a world full of nonsense. Along her pursuit of the White Rabbit she meets various unique characters that have become timeless: the Mad Hatter, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, and the grinning Cheshire Cat, just to name a few.

Not many of the characters Alice meets along the way are helpful but her quest isn’t much to get excited about. Through most of the tale she is merely trying to catch up to the White Rabbit and find out where he is running to. She does a good job of staying on task, despite being bombarded by gibberish and nonsense at every turn. Once she gets to where the Rabbit is headed, her life is put in jeopardy by the headstrong Red Queen.

The story itself is interesting, despite going off on a tangent with the seemingly random vignette of ‘The Walrus and the Carpenter.’ Then again, there’s really not much to the story at all. Alice is trying to find the White Rabbit the whole time and eventually realizes what a mess a world of nonsense would be. I guess the point of the tale is for Alice to learn a simple lesson while encountering a world of bizarre people and creatures. In many ways, this is similar to a number of other children’s fantasy tales. Alice in Wonderland just happens to be wittier and smarter than most.

Disney keeps much of the manic wordplay that made Carroll’s stories popular with the literary crowd. It is fun to hear the double entendres and usage of dual-meaning words. It is also enjoyable to watch the weirdness play out. The Cheshire Cat is really the only animation marvel in the film though, as he fades in and out of existence with ease. Yes, there are plenty of creative settings but Alice features Disney’s plainest animation since Dumbo. That takes away from the visual impact that could have turned the film into a real mind-bender.

I understand why Disney played up the story for a family-friendly vibe but Alice in Wonderland misses the mark a hair for modern audiences. I don’t know how kids were back in the 50s but nowadays it’s mostly the under-10 crowd that goes to see Disney movies. Kids that young won’t get much of the wordplay and will be more likely to watch it on the surface as a goofy fantasy with funny characters. Parents may pop it in just to entertain the kids and not think much, but they’re apt to find their brains in overdrive processing the literary lunacy being cut loose.

The utter weirdness of Disney’s Alice in Wonderland has made it memorable for generations. I remember seeing it and reading the Diseny read-along-on-tape book when I was a kid. Do I remember it for being awesome and fun like Cinderella? Nope. I remember it for being weird and being creeped out by the Cheshire Cat. Elements of the story remain in our cultural consciousness and I believe that this animated version has kept it there for the past 60 years much in the same way that Disney’s Cinderella has for that tale. Do many parents read Carroll’s stories to the kids anymore?

Maybe I just don’t belong to the niche audience that Alice in Wonderland was made for. It is entertaining to watch, albeit frustrating at times, but the conclusion lacks profundity. Alice learns that a world of nonsense is not a place worth living in. Any adult could have told her that but, like any stubborn child, Alice has to learn it for herself. Unlike most other Disney films, there are no central themes or morals to the story. Perhaps, given the source material, none are needed, and I’m just used to children’s stories having a lesson behind the colorful, musical fun.

Perhaps I’ll change my tune once I read the works of Lewis Carroll. Until then, I’m not surprised that this film isn’t remembered as part of the upper echelon of Disney classics.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Bedtime Stories (2008)

Believe it or not but Adam Sandler can be tamed! Leave it to the family-friendly folks at Disney to put the perennial man-child in his place. Perhaps they had to put him in some sort of decompression device or just severely medicated him during filming. Whatever the cause, the effect is a kinder, gentler Sandler flick that’s safe to show your children without totally diluting his signature goofiness.

Skeeter Bronson (Sandler) grew up helping his father run the family hotel. His father promised to make him manager some day but the hotel was sold to new ownership. They’ve kept Skeeter around as handyman and he is enticed at the prospect of managing a new hotel for the chain. Standing in his way is Kendall (Guy Pearce), the current #2 and major suck-up to the boss.

Skeeter’s sister (Courtney Cox) heads out of town for a job interview and needs him to watch her two children for the week. Her friend (Keri Russell) pitches in to help the kids get to and from school for the week and it’s clear that she is unimpressed by Skeeter. The kids take to his imaginative bedtime stories though. Injecting his own management dreams into the stories (with a few added twists from the kids), Skeeter begins to see parts of his stories coming true. This leads to an escalation in the grandiosity of his tales in an attempt to force his dreams into reality.

In several ways, this film echoes Billy Madison. Sandler plays a supposed heir-to-be for the family business but is blocked by a corporate butt-kisser. Helping Sandler’s character rise to the top are some kids. He teaches them a few things and they return the favor. There is also an unlikely romance that develops for the immature lead. There are enough differences though to avoid being a retread. The resolution pans out in a completely different way, the main character is actually fairly responsible and capable, and the film never goes over the top.

Long-time Adam Sandler fans run the risk of being horribly disappointed with this film. If you come into Bedtime Stories expecting the typical frat house humor Sandler is known for, you will have wasted your time. This is not Billy Madison or Happy Gilmore 10 years later. This is Sandler doing his best impression of (mostly) normal family-oriented comedy. This is PG territory, so brace yourself for a bit of a shock.

If you’re not a Sandler fan, this isn’t a must-see film. If you’re willing to give the man a shot though, this is a decent film to start with. It won’t corrupt your kids either. I for one enjoyed the kinder, gentler Adam Sandler. His zaniness comes out during the bedtime story sequences and that keeps the film fun. They are full of imaginative characters and special effects. Kids will especially get a kick out of these parts because Skeeter’s niece and nephew constantly change elements of the stories, leading to abrupt and humorous changes to the visualizations as they play out.

Bedtime Stories fits the mold of most family-oriented comedies- kids will probably enjoy it more than parents; parts of the film are fairly predictable but there is enough random weirdness in play to keep a few things secret until the end; and most of the humor is aimed at the kids but there are a few one-liners and comments there for the adults in the room to smile at.

The end result is a tame Adam Sandler movie but is that such a bad thing? How much longer can he try to play goofy immature roles? The man is 44 years old for crying out loud. Bedtime Stories didn’t usher in a new era for Sandler’s career but it is nice to know that he can tone it down a few notches. It shows that, while his popularity may wane, he will still be able to take on comedic roles in the future. Few people will be able to remember much about this film but give Sandler some time to hone a new craft and he will probably deliver a zinger or two in time.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Cinderella (1950)

From August of 1942 until the end of the decade, Walt Disney and his animation studio were in a kind of Dark Ages. Half of their animators were being used to make pro-Allied Forces propaganda films for the US military. After the end of World War II the studio didn’t have the funds to pull off a full-length stand-alone story. Thus they were stuck with the cheap-to-make package films that modern audiences have all but forgotten entirely. Walt Disney took a chance and nearly broke the bank to produce Cinderella. The rest is history.

If you don’t know the story of Cinderella then you have either been living under a rock or led a horribly sheltered life. Just in case anyone does fall into either of those categories, I will summarize. A beautiful young woman is mistreated by her step-mother and ugly step-sisters. The prince of the kingdom seeks a wife and the poor maiden gets help from her animal friends and a fairy godmother to transform her from a servant into beautiful woman. She captures the heart of the prince but leaves her suitor before the enchantments end at midnight. The prince is left to search the countryside for the maiden who fits a glass slipper left behind at the castle.

The motto ‘go big or go home’ may seem clichéd now but you can’t help but look back at history and point to instances of this motto working in magnificent ways. Cinderella is one such event. Had the film tanked, Disney was prepared to close up shop. Can you even fathom a world without Disney films? What a sad existence that would be! It’s hard to believe that that was a possibility, but it was.

Thank goodness Disney pulled out all the stops. The animation may not be as layered and gorgeous as Snow White or Pinocchio but Cinderella has enough colors and textures to dazzle the eyes. In fact, the animation has very little to do with the success of the film. That credit belongs to the following factors: a timeless story, charming characters and unbeatable music.

While this film version now serves as an introduction for most young people to the classic fairy tale, Cinderella has been around for hundreds of years. Operas, plays and even ballets have been written and produced to tell this timeless tale of love breaking through the boundaries of class and status. Even a half-dozen incarnations of the story were committed to film before Disney had his animators ink the tale in Technicolor. Returning to popular lore was the first step toward success. Cinderella exists in the hearts and minds of everyone. It’s a tale that resonates with just about all of us. Who doesn’t want to rise above their current situation and fulfill a dream? That’s the stuff Cinderella is made of.

With all the success Disney’s animators had over the years with bringing animals to life, it makes perfect sense for them to include anthropomorphic critters to the tale. Sure, it’s only the mice that walk, talk and sing like people, but the collection of personalities enhances the story instead of distracting from it. Plus, kids are easily entertained by animals doing human-like things. The trials and tribulations of Cinderella’s mouse friends are added in the right places, providing an extra dramatic kick or a much-needed dash of humor at just the right times. The step-mother and step-sisters are also developed with the right aura of coldness and haughtiness as to prevent them from being likeable in any way.

Finally there is the music. Virtually all of the songs in this film are memorable and fun to listen to. “Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo” is still among the greatest Disney film songs of all time. On top of this rollicking treasure are other signature classics like “A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes,” “Sing Sweet Nightingale,” and “The Work Song” as sung by the mice to relay Cinderella’s plight. The only Disney film to this point to feature so many songs that have stood the test of time is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Everything about this film is iconic. Along with Snow White, Cinderella helps define Disney. The stars aligned for Walt and his crew and this film gave new life to the company. This film furthered their move towards a simpler animation style but it grips you where it matters most. Sixty years after its release, Cinderella hasn’t lost an ounce of its magic.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Jazz Singer (1927)

Sometimes it’s difficult to unravel the legacy and history of a film to find its true merit. Some films have such a strongly-established myth of greatness that viewers feel disappointed if it fails to live up to all the hype surrounding it. Oscar winners fall into this trap all the time and any film listed among the ‘greatest’ examples of the medium do as well. So do films known for being the first of some kind. For the better part of a century, The Jazz Singer has been propped up by the fact that it was the first ‘talkie’ film. While this technical milestone is certainly worth remembering, it’s also a bit misleading.

Growing up in the Jewish ghettos of Manhattan, Jakie Rabinowitz (Al Jolson) is expected to become a synagogue cantor like his father. The boy has different plans, however, when he falls in love with the jazz music played in saloons and cafes. The boy displays a natural singing talent but his father and his Jewish community are shocked by his behavior. After being disciplined by his father for disobedience, Jakie runs away in pursuit of his dream of becoming a jazz singer.

Years later, Jakie (now going by Jack Robin) is a rising star, singing in cabarets and clubs on a nightly basis. Attracting the attention of a few big stars, Jakie earns a shot at the big time vaudeville circuit in his hometown of New York City. He writes home to his mother to share his happiness and success and stops by for a visit between rehearsals. His homecoming is welcomed by his mother, who is glad to see her son is happy, but his father wants nothing to do with him. When the elder Rabinowitz suffers ill health, Jakie’s mother and the Jewish community put him in a difficult position. They ask him to put his heritage ahead of his career by performing the Kol Nidre at synagogue on Yom Kippur- directly conflicting with opening night of his big shot.

Call me crazy but I was expecting more talking out of the first full-length ‘talkie’ film. The Jazz Singer is more like a silent film with a few musical numbers. Most of the ‘dialogue’ still occurs within title cards like a traditional silent film. Every now and then, in and around the songs, there is a bit of dialogue. Usually it is just Al Jolson saying a few words but there is a scene where he talks for a few minutes with his mother. The incorporation of synchronized musical numbers and the synchronized dialogue was groundbreaking because synchronized sound had only been used in short films and to provide soundtracks up until that point.

The story itself isn’t that exciting but it is worth noting that The Jazz Singer is one of the earliest films to depict a child spurning his family to pursue an artistic dream. This has since become a Hollywood cliché, especially the stern, elder father proclaiming “I have no son!” Perhaps this is why I was unable to become fully engrossed in the film- it’s been remade to death! But this, on top of the incorporation of sound in a full-length film definitely gives The Jazz Singer a rightful place in film history.

Firsts are always worth respecting because they are usually the innovators and oftentimes impact whatever comes after it. There is no doubt that this is true for The Jazz Singer. Not only would this bold production launch the sound era but it also gave audiences a new way to appreciate music. Now people wouldn’t have to go to the theater to see musicians and performances. In just a few years time, Hollywood would perfect the art of the early movie-musical and pave the way for popular musicians to break into new mediums. This whole concept and trend owes its existence to this film.

Just because something is the first, however, doesn’t make it one of the best. In fact, this film has plenty of shortcomings. Sound synchronization and Al Jolson’s talents are the main attraction here. The sets and action play out like a stage production for the most part. The camera typically stays static and director Alan Crosland never employs intentional framing to emphasize any moods or action. Granted, at this point the Unchained Camera technique was in its infancy but employing some of the new cinematography techniques could have helped the film be even more special.

The story itself is uncomfortable to a point. Yes, Jakie runs away and becomes a rising star, but the homecoming component just doesn’t fit. The man is guilt-tripped into putting his career in jeopardy. I can understand him wanting to make peace with his father but I felt that his former Jewish brethren were asking too much. Would they rather him be Jewish and miserable or successful? I’m not condoning the selling out of one’s beliefs for personal gain but Jakie never displayed any real passion for his heritage as a boy. I don’t see how his mother and others could use his religion to tug at his heartstrings so much.

Perhaps there is something of a generation gap with the understanding of Jakie’s decision. Young people today aren’t bound to their heritage or intent on pleasing their parents like they used to be. Maybe that’s how it worked in the 1920s but it just screams of unjustified guilt trip to me. There may be a happy ending for all parties but it seems like an unnecessary dilemma for our protagonist to endure.

Did The Jazz Singer change the film industry? Yes. Is it a good film? Yes, for the most part. Would anybody remember it had it not been the first ‘talkie?’ Probably not. There you have it- had the production been delayed or slated to be the second film of the sound era, the aura that hangs around this film would not exist. Perhaps it’s harsh and unfair to suggest that its status as the first ‘talkie’ is the only reason anybody remembers it, but I am fairly confident that that is the truth. An interesting watch for film buffs but probably not very exciting for everyone else.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)**

Despite a simple premise that has been replicated too many times to count, this is a beautiful film. There’s something inherently charming about silent films for me. Perhaps it’s because it seems quaint to look back at films from simpler times. Everyone has a soft spot for nostalgia and, as a film lover, silent films represent an innocent age for the industry, before films became obsessed with special effects, sex and violence. Then again, all one has to do is watch Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans to realize that the all-but-forgotten films of this era did tackle serious and potentially controversial issues.

A nameless couple lives in a small countryside village. The Man is having an affair with a Woman From The City. The Wife is aware of her husband’s indiscretion but says nothing, shedding tears when he isn’t looking. The Woman From The City grows tired of sharing this country boy and asks him to run away with her- kill his wife, sell his farm and move into the exciting City. The Man protests at first but gives in to her persuasiveness. The Man tells The Wife they are going for a trip to The City by rowboat. Thinking her husband is showing affection, she is overjoyed.

Far out into the water, The Man comes close to drowning his wife but cannot go through with it. He realizes deep down that he loves her. When they reach The City, The Wife attempts to run away, terrified of her husband’s plot to kill her. Their journey into The City brings about the rediscovery of their identities and the rediscovery of their love for each other. The two must battle the commotion of The City, nature and more temptation in order to make their love last.

There is a lot going on in this film. On the surface it may seem generic and clichéd but you have to look deeper to appreciate old films like Sunrise. Director F. W. Murnau’s European expressionist style drips from every frame. The use of shadows, camera angles and forced perspective creates a vivid fantasy-like world that our characters inhabit.

Unlike other silent films, Murnau lets the story tell itself, keeping the use of title cards to a bare minimum. This forces the actors to step up their game a notch. Their faces tell the tale fantastically. Janet Gaynor won Best Actress at the first Academy Awards for her role as The Wife and it’s clear why. Silent films are often panned by modern audiences because of the need to over-emote and exaggerate expressions but there is very little of that here. Gaynor’s expressions of sadness, heartbreak and joy feel genuine. George O’Brien should have been considered for Best Actor, because his performance is marvelous. His cold stare as he prepares to drown his wife pierces and terrifies in a way few films have managed to replicate since. Simply put, Murnau delivers silent film acting at its finest.

The dearth of title cards does another unique thing for the film. It allows and invites the audience to process, understand and analyze the film on their own terms. If you want to see just the surface, you will see a redemptive love story. If you want to go deeper, you will discover at least a half-dozen themes: virtue vs. lust, small town values vs. big city vices, isolation, man vs. self, man vs. temptation, and the list goes on. Is it any wonder that this film won the first and only Academy Award for Best Picture of Unique and Artistic Production? The award was merged the Best Picture- Production award the following year to create one definitive Best Picture award, but seeing how the awards were split makes perfect sense when comparing Sunrise to its inaugural Oscar counterpart Wings.

Murnau also delivers the goods with his work behind the camera. He and his cinematographers use some innovative techniques for 1927, including a tracking pan that follows the actors through a swampy set. Putting the camera in motion like this revolutionized filmmaking when Murnau first utilized it in Germany three years before coming to America to make this film. I haven’t seen very many films from the 1920s and earlier yet but even I was able to recognize how radical this technique was for the early days of film. Murnau also employs flawless superimpositions in scenes where The Man is being tempted by thoughts of The Woman From The City. Again, this is mind-blowing stuff for the 1920s.

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans lays it all out and lets you pick up from it whatever you want. It’s a multidimensional film accessible to everyone. That alone is a triumph in storytelling and style. It’s a shame that this film had to come around at the dawn of the ‘talkies’ because Sunrise could have been the prototype for a new era of silent films. The advent of sound took Hollywood a step forward and two steps back artistically but it would rebound in due time. It’s a tragedy that this film is not talked about outside of film scholars and historical circles.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5

Inception (2010)

Ladies and gentlemen, class is in session! For the next two and a half hours, Christopher Nolan will be your teacher. Turn on your thinking caps and watch closely. For those of you in Hollywood, please take notes- creative and original thoughts are not dead in the industry after all! Inception is not just a triumph in modern filmmaking but also a masterpiece for storytelling and pushing the envelope.

Dominick Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are ‘extractors.’ They use special technology to enter the minds of others through dreams in order to steal secrets. This corporate espionage is profitable but dangerous work. After failing an assignment, one of their targets (Ken Watanabe) turns the tables on them with a job offer. Not only does he offer a hefty sum of money, he also tells Cobb he can use his connections to clear his name of all charges in relation to his wife’s death, allowing the extractor to finally return to the US and be with his children.

There’s just one catch- instead of stealing a secret, Cobb must plant an idea in the mind of corporate rival Robert Fisher, Jr. (Cillian Murphy). This is an infinitely more delicate and dangerous assignment but Cobb will do anything to return to his children. Assembling a specialized team (including the acting talents of Ellen Page, Tom Hardy and Dileep Rao), Cobb constructs an intricate plot three dream layers deep. Time is limited and the team is being hunted by agents of Fisher’s subconscious defenses, leaving no room for error whatsoever.

To call this film intricate is an understatement. Wrapping your mind around the rules of dream-sharing and extraction comes easy enough but director Christopher Nolan invites you to go even deeper. The multi-layer plan is harrowing and you have to stay sharp in order to keep track of which level you’re watching, as action on all dream levels is intercut. If you’re not prepared to think as much as you observe while taking this gem in, it’s very easy to get lost. Perhaps this is why I am especially fond of this film.

Trying to make a popular thinking man’s film is a tall task. Most of what Hollywood produces anymore is sophomoric at best in an attempt to hit as wide an audience as possible. It’s almost a case of the chicken and the egg. Which came first: Hollywood’s shameless cranking out of easy-to-digest films for broad audience appeal or a broad demand from audiences for easy-to-digest cinema? Either way, Hollywood has been coasting for far too long and the few visionaries willing to make films with deep thought attached are slowly waking people up to this truth.

Christopher Nolan has been nudging his viewers towards more than just simply watching movies. Most of his films to date involve some interesting philosophical or intellectual discussion within the film, causing you to think with the characters and for yourself. But does Nolan stop there? No. The questions he poses in his films and the issues and scenarios he raises will keep you thinking long after the movie is over. Here is a director capable of getting his audience to enter into discussion after the credits roll and then segue that discussion from the film to the concepts within the film. How many other directors are able to get you talking about heady issues like dreams, perspective and the subconscious?

The technology behind dream sharing is utter science-fiction but it’s presented in such a matter-of-fact way that it’s never an issue. It’s usually hard to sell a lone element of sci-fi in a film but it is handled brilliantly here. Unlike The Matrix, where a whole world of technology needed constructing and explanation to sell the idea, Inception slips this vital technology right under our noses. We just breathe it in and immediately believe it. Perhaps it’s because we know it’s all about dreams. Perhaps not. Whatever the reason, Nolan’s ability to sell us on his world is critical and the fact that virtually no one complained about it makes him a master magician.

This film rolled around for years in Nolan’s mind and his passion for the story really comes through. He wisely adds an element of subconscious mystery and emotional torment to Cobb that prevents the film from being little more than a heist film with a twist. Leonardo DiCaprio rises to the occasion and delivers one of the best performances of his career. The rest of the cast performs just as admirably and they really exceed expectations. DiCaprio is the biggest star in the film but he never overpowers the rest of the players. Ellen Page shows that she can play more than just quirky youthful roles and Joseph Gordon-Levitt proves that his best acting days are not in his past.

Another display of great filmmaking is how few special effects are used during the film. Despite the bizarre nature of dreams, Nolan keeps everything very realistic within the dream world. This keeps you immersed in the action and fully invested in the characters. They’re not jumping between buildings or traveling at superhuman speeds. Nolan’s rules for dream behavior require a realistic approach. Watch the fight scene in the rotating hallway knowing that there was no CGI involved and you will be awestruck.

Action, suspense, emotion, intelligence- it’s all here. I did initially dock the film a bit for what seemed like a few poor effects shots in the subconscious limbo world but a second viewing may see those points given back. Inception is a film worthy of a second viewing. Heck, it’s worth an unlimited number of viewings. This is an instant classic and already the leading candidate for best film of this new decade. Christopher Nolan singlehandedly gives moviegoers hope that Hollywood can still make movies that move us. Let’s just hope that Hollywood is sharing the same dream.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

I’m starting this review off with a disclaimer: this is going to be an incomplete review. The reason? Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is an incomplete film. Unlike the first six Potter flicks, Hallows Part 1 is an unfinished story. After seeing Part 2 in July 2011, I will be able to give you a true assessment of the last and most ambitious installment to one of the biggest franchises of all time. Until then, please accept these reflections of the first half of the tale…

In the wizarding world, adulthood comes at age 17. Harry has been on the fast-track to maturity his whole life, but the cutesy fun and enchantment of Hogwarts is behind him now. Lord Voldemort’s strength and influence are growing beyond measure. After a daring escape from his aunt and uncle’s house, Harry teams up with his pals Ron and Hermione on a secret mission to locate and destroy Voldemort’s remaining horcruxes, artifacts that contain pieces of his soul.

The road is long, dangerous, and pushes the teenagers to their limits. Relationships must be mended, obstacles overcome, enemies defeated. In many ways, this is the Harry Potter film I have been waiting for. No more silly school scenes with ghosts romping through the hallways; no more lessons from alliteratively-named professors involving absurd-sounding spells; and no more help for Harry. The young wizard and his friends are out of their element and totally clueless about what to do. Harry has done a good job relying on instinct and improvising over the years but reality hits him now like a cold brick in the face.

Hallows Part 1 is interesting because there are stretches of time that are slow and sprawling while other parts all but suffer from information overload. It’s an intriguing balance because the film never feels as long as it really is. This is good because the audience doesn’t get restless, but bad because, when the credits roll, we’re still capable of taking in more. It doesn’t help that the cutoff point is also unsatisfying.

Having read the book, I had a few ideas of how the film could be split with momentum to bridge the gap. No matter where the filmmakers decided to make the cut, Part 1 was always destined to feel incomplete but I think they got it wrong here. Harry’s progress is limited at best and we fade to black with a tragedy for Potter & company but a triumph for Voldemort. It’s a pessimistic and deflating way to say ‘come back next summer for the conclusion!’ Maybe I was foolishly hoping for a Lord of the Rings kind of ending because those films found a more organic jumping point than strict adherence to the books would have dictated.

Staying true to the book is a noble task, even though a myriad of minor details and set pieces are either rushed over or changed, but it may also hurt Hallows in the long run. There is no self-contained story arc within the first half of this tale. Discovering the truth behind the Deathly Hallows is the closest thing we get but that only develops in the second half of this film. Despite a minor victory or two along the way, nothing is resolved and we leave Harry just as clueless as when the film began.

There is also a problem of perception for the audience to work past. Fans of the book series, especially those who read the book shortly before taking in the film, will be dissatisfied by some of the little changes. Comparing a movie to its source book is inevitable but it’s also wrong to do. Film and the written word are two entirely different beasts. Even I have to admit that, all along, I have been basing my ratings for the Harry Potter movies partly as adaptations of the books.

This is unacceptable as a movie lover because books are almost always better because they allow you to create your own artistic vision for the story. When watching (and in my case, reviewing) a movie, you should only be concerned with whether or not the film functions properly and tells a good story; don’t let the details they leave out from the book affect your opinion of the movie. How good was the story the movie told? That’s all that matters.

As far as movies go, Hallows Part 1 does pretty well. Most of the visual effects look sharp and the use of more handheld cameras really pays off in capturing the gritty reality of Harry’s new life in hiding. The locations selected for Harry’s cross-country trek are beautiful and haunting in their isolation. Finally, the young stars of the series carry themselves differently this time. They’re clearly up for the challenge of making a more adult Harry Potter film.

More adult it certainly is! With a little more salty language and a surprising scene involving some supernatural sensuality, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is not for anyone under the age of 15 (at least that’s my opinion). It’s a pretty bold departure from the tone and style of previous installments but it’s the right move. After a little bit of stalling and a fair amount of set up between Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, we finally come to the meat and potatoes. We have to wait until next July for the rest of the main course, but at least it is finally here.

I don’t know if I will re-watch every Harry Potter film before seeing Deathly Hallows Part 2, but at some point I will definitely need to re-evaluate them all. This way I can be sure that my ratings for each film reflect their accomplishments as films and not as adaptations. I’m reserving too much judgment on Hallows just yet because the story isn’t finished. I did dock it a quarter-point though for not explaining the existence of the mirror fragment Harry gazes at throughout the film. I know where it’s from (and so will anyone who has read the books) but this was the first appearance of it in any of the films.

I will probably grade Part 2 as a stand-alone component as well and then write up a true review for both halves combined. One consistent review for one consistent storytelling and filmmaking vision only seems right. Until then, you better believe I will be eagerly awaiting the final chapter.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Iron Man 2 (2010)

I labored over what rating to give this film, I really did. I didn’t buy into the hype of its solid predecessor, probably to the ire of a few comic geeks and fanboys, but I still acknowledged its merits. Now shed of the restrictions that come with an origin story first installment, the Iron Man franchise is given a chance to expand its territory and flex a little summer movie muscle. Fortunately, Iron Man 2 doesn’t fall flat like so many sequels before it have.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has an awful lot on his plate. Since revealing himself as Iron Man, he has spent six months using his unbeatable suit to bring us as close to world peace as possible. What thanks does he get for this? Firstly, the US government is jealous and trying to force Stark to hand over his suit designs for military use. Second, a Russian man named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) creates his own arc reactor and deadly weapons to exact revenge on the Stark family name. Oh, and there’s also the nasty little fact that palladium core of Stark’s mini-arc reactor is poisoning him, with death just around the corner.

There are other bumps in the road as well. A shifty defense contractor is willing to hire Vanko as a consultant in developing new mechanized drones to one-up Iron Man. Stark also continues his rocky relationship with his personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Finally, he’s being hounded by a mysterious organization called S.H.I.E.L.D. as well. With all of this going on, what the heck is a superhero to do?

Here’s my beef with Iron Man 2- the main conflict between Stark and Vanko (and later a team of artillery-laden drones) is more or less a retread. The fact that Iron Man has brought about world peace illustrates the fact that the only thing that can possibly pose a threat to him is another super-suit. In Iron Man, second-in-command of Stark Industries Obadiah Stane built a similar arc-reactor-fueled suit in an attempt to take out Stark/Iron Man. This time around it’s Vanko with a suit-like weapon and an eventual full suit of his own.

The only difference here is motivation. Stane sought to eliminate Stark because his reckless behavior and crisis of conscience were bad for business. Vanko just wants revenge because his father was cast away with no credit for designing the original arc reactor with Tony Stark’s dad back in the day. Revenge is a perfectly acceptable motive (and honestly, it’s way cooler than greed) but you can’t deny that the means of exacting that revenge are a smidge redundant. It works for this sequel but Iron Man is going to need to come up against a different kind of villain in the future if the series is going to stay fresh.

Vanko isn’t the only storyline in the film, which is a helpful distraction. The pursuit of Stark by S.H.I.E.L.D. is interesting because it throws very different personalities together that create sparks and some witty banter. His struggle to find a new power source for the arc reactor in his chest is interesting and it fits the mold of superhero sequels in that it makes Stark reassess himself and his priorities. Fortunately this (and a little daddy issue resolution) is as serious as Iron Man 2 gets.

Batman Begins ushered in a new era of ‘serious’ comic book films. Iron Man is a breath of fresh air because, while still playing things rather serious and realistic, the filmmakers pump in a lot of sarcasm and fun into the mix. Instead of sulking over his new-found responsibilities, Tony Stark embraces his role as Iron Man. He plays it up for the camera and genuinely loves what he does. He’s a bit narcissistic but that’s part of the character’s allure.

Another reason Iron Man is so different is that he doesn’t have a secret identity. There’s no duality here like with Batman, Superman or Spider-Man. Tony Stark has one consistent personality in and out of the suit. He’s not trying to blend in. He’s already told the world he is Iron Man and is milking it for all it’s worth. None of the other major superheroes walk around exposed like this and it makes for a completely different story experience.

Chances are, Iron Man 2 is everything you were hoping for in a sequel- it’s bigger, louder and every bit as fun, if not more so. It’s not as deep as the first installment, but did it have to be? We know what Stark stands for- peace, justice and a party every other night. The filmmakers aren’t bogged down with crafting an origin for half of the film so they fill it with what the summer movie crowd likes- explosions, special effects and a little bit of silliness. I mean, seriously- Daft Punk’s “Robot Rock” playing during a fight scene? Chuckle City my friend.

In many ways, Iron Man is the ideal summertime popcorn superhero. Deep thinkers can hold off for the next Batman movie and fanboys can always latch onto the next B-list or lower superhero flick that gets made. Iron Man made it cool for superheroes to be a little corny again. Iron Man 2 feels like the kind of movie the filmmakers wanted to produce the first go around but couldn’t because they literally had to do an origin story. The plot is undoubtedly a tad repetitive but I think I’d rather watch this sequel again over the first one any day. Besides- I can’t think of another time when I have ever seen my mother-in-law bobbing her head to AC/DC songs. That alone has got to count for something.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Crass, crude, offensive, politically incorrect- pick any negative adjective you like and it could probably be applied to Ben Stiller’s action-comedy Tropic Thunder. Despite any complaints people may have about the content of this film, Stiller manages to balance the potentially offensive with the undeniably amusing.

A Vietnam War veteran’s book is being turned into a major Hollywood film. The dysfunctional cast includes Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller)- a former action star trying to resurrect his dying career; Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr.)- an Australian method actor looking to snag his sixth Oscar by undergoing a pigment alteration treatment in order to play a tragic black soldier; Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson)- a popular rapper looking to segue into screen stardom; Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black)- a drug-abusing comedian looking to break his type casting; and Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel)- a young actor getting his first big film role. Personalities clash, the first-time director is in over his head, and the production is weeks behind schedule and in danger of going over budget.

Profane studio executive Les Grossman (Tom Cruise) orders the director to pull it together or his career will be finished before it even starts. Taking the grizzly Nam vet’s advice, the director rigs hidden cameras in a remote Southeast Asian jungle rigged with explosives for special effects. They then drop the actors in the middle of the jungle with a map that will lead them to a helicopter and a list of scenes to act out along the way. Armed with prop rifles that only shoot blanks, the squabbling actors find themselves in real war-like conditions when they discover they’ve been dropped into the middle of the Golden Triangle- a hotbed of heroin production and dangerous drug lords.

The film starts out with fake previews and commercials for the various cast members. Alpa Chino has an ad for his brand of energy drink, Speedman gets a preview for his latest installment to an action franchise, Portnoy has a preview for a flatulence-happy family akin to The Klumps, and Lazarus gets a plug for his latest Oscar-bait film about a pair of 18th Century gay monks. While seemingly random at first, they set the tone for the kinds of characters were going to be watching for the next 100 minutes. In hindsight, I must admit that the amount of absurdity packed into these shorts is more consistently funny than the rest of the film.

Don’t get me wrong- the rest of the film is funny but it’s not continuously funny. All of the actors play their parts well and it’s beyond fun watching the unabashed skewering of the major types of actor egos and attitudes. Stiller and company go for broke and hold absolutely nothing back in their relentless actor-bashing. This leads to several politically incorrect discussions that ruffled special interest feathers, while also making some very interesting observations about the industry.

Case in point- Lazarus admonishes Speedman for going “full retard” with a serious role he took to gain credibility as a dramatic actor. He dispenses a list of actors who went ‘part-retard’ and won awards but those who go ‘full retard’ never do. Offensive? Possibly, but the conversation is about belittling actors, not belittling those with disabilities. Plus, it’s an R-rated comedy for crying out loud!

The other controversial element is Robert Downey, Jr. playing in blackface. Technically though, Downey is playing an actor who is playing in blackface. That doesn’t make it any less shocking but it opens the door for some hilarious back and forth between Lazarus and Chino- the real black actor. You can’t help but admire Downey’s devotion to such an absurd concept. He shows no sign of hesitation and delivers every line with the utmost seriousness. The part of Lazarus could have sunk this film had it been put in hands less capable than Downey’s. He and Tom Cruise really steal the show.

Tropic Thunder is laced with references to war movies and action flicks but this isn’t Hot Shots redux. Instead of merely referencing scenes from popular genre films, Stiller takes time to build a satire of those moments. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a few throw-away jokes and deliberately-placed clichés though. Sadly, it’s this same lampooning of war movies where the film gets stale. Predictably, the actors have to band together and learn to function as a unit, just like real soldiers would. It’s a necessary component of the story because it helps the actors break down some of their barriers and pretensions but it also slows down the humor.

While Tropic Thunder is a pretty good film, it’s built the wrong way. As the film progresses, the characters get more serious and bond, which causes the film to decrease in humor. You want a film to be consistently funny the whole way through, if not get funnier towards the end. While it may achieve the right kind of action movie climax, it fails to reach a comedy climax. There are plenty of moments that will leave you in stitches but most of them come before the half-way point. It’s worth seeing, if you can stomach a mountain of obscenities and political incorrectness, but it doesn’t quite live up to the hype.

RATING: 3 out of 5