Movie Review - Snowden

Snowden (2016)

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Shailene Woodley, Rhys Ifans, Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto, Tom Wilkinson, Scott Eastwood, Timothy Olyphant, Lakeith Stanfield, Joely Richardson, and Nicolas Cage

Directed by Oliver Stone

I think it's admittedly a little difficult to come to the Oliver Stone-directed Snowden without having some outside feelings towards the title character.  Was Edward Snowden an American traitor or a hero?  This film undoubtedly takes the latter stance with Snowden being treated in an almost saint-like manner at times.  The lack of a balanced look at the polarizing figure is slightly disappointing, but looking beyond that, Snowden is a surprisingly engaging and well-made film that kept my attention throughout and provides a good glimpse (albeit a surface one) at one of America's biggest political events of the new century.

Told within a framing device of his interview with documentarian Laura Poitrus (Melissa Leo) whose film Citizenfour brought his story to even more masses, the film opens in 2013 with Edward Snowden (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) taking a huge leap and deciding to release private information he possesses that states that the United States government is spying on all Americans via their cell phones and computers.  The release of this information will undoubtedly cause him to be called a traitor, but after nearly ten years working in various government agencies including the NSA and CIA, Snowden feels that his findings should be made public.  The film then flashes back to the decade-younger Snowden as he gets his first job in Washington, D.C., and he meets his significant other Lindsay (Shailene Woodley).  Praised everywhere for his expertise in computers and coding, Snowden goes from job to job within the government, learning bits and pieces about how post-9/11 it was decided that -- for the safety and well-being of the country -- certain privacy laws would be lessened at certain times.

Frankly, no one is more surprised than me that this nearly two-and-a-half hour movie based on politics kept my attention, but kudos to Oliver Stone (who also co-wrote the film) for keeping the film moving at a solid pace and to Joseph Gordon-Levitt for his solid portrayal of the title character.  While Snowden himself is treated with kid gloves and saint-like (there's a particular moment towards the film's conclusion where a resolute and determined Snowden walks out of a dark bunker with a halo of glorious light surrounding him as soaring music swells in the background), I give props to Stone for depicting both the Bush and Obama administration with equal amounts of distrust.  Somehow, though, even though I liked the film, I can't find myself overly praising a whole lot about it and that's due in large part to the depiction of Snowden as too much of a do-gooder.  It doesn't help that during the film's conclusion, Stone has the real Edward Snowden literally "take the place" of Gordon-Levitt, putting the real figure into the spotlight in a way that detracts from the film in a distracting manner.  The politically-driven Stone had every right to create the film he wanted to create, but the lack of a critical eye towards the title character hurts the film a bit in the end and makes it difficult to praise its more-than-adequate cinematic craftwork.

The RyMickey Rating:  B-

Movie Review - The Walk

The Walk (2015)

***viewed in 3D***

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Charlotte Le Bon, Clémont Sibomy, James Badge Dale, César Domboy, and Ben Kingsley

Directed by Robert Zemeckis

There's a charm and innocence that accompanies The Walk that one doesn't often see in live-action PG-rated films.  Let's be honest -- what was the last live-action PG-rated flick aimed squarely at adults that was even released?  A movie of this ilk is rare these days.  That said, considering the film's length -- it clocks in at more than two hours -- there's a lack of tension present as we learn about the true story of high wire walker Philippe Petit's 1974 attempt at traversing the two World Trade Center towers in New York City.  While The Walk still works -- thanks in part to a very nice performance from Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Petit -- you may be better off watching the 2008 Academy Award-winning documentary Man on Wire which details the same event with a slightly better result.

Now typically, this is where I'd toss in a summary paragraph about The Walk's plot...but I've essentially already done that with the one sentence description of the film above.  Petit is a Frenchman who has devoted his life to street performing and tight rope walking and upon opening a magazine in 1973 while at a dentist's office, he reads about the construction of the World Trade Center towers in NYC and sets a goal of crossing the two on a thin metal rope.  The rest of the film deals with Petit finding a team to help him and researching the necessary mechanics to make such a crazy plan work.

I must say that I was never bored during director and co-screenwriter Robert Zemeckis' film as he keeps a light and airy feel to the proceedings (including Gordon-Levitt's Petit talking directly to the audience throughout the piece), and despite a bit of repetition in the plot, the pace chugs along rather nicely.  However, it's that lack of tension that really does the film harm.  We all know that Petit manages to rig up the tight rope and we all know that he makes the crossing (in part because of the character's direct talking to the audience), yet in a better film, there'd still be a sense of nervousness and tension surrounding both the covert plan and the walk itself.  That doesn't happen here.

There's been some negative talk of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's accent in the flick, but I had no qualms with it whatsoever.  In fact, I found Gordon-Levitt's portrayal of Petit quite engaging as he undeniably showcases the high wire performer's drive and passion for conjuring up such a ludicrously dangerous scheme.  In fact, it's Gordon-Levitt who who adds the excitement and pizzazz to the film.

To be frank, for a film that was so highly praised for its 3D usage, I found nothing alluring or thrilling about the 3D -- sure, depth was added, but I think I'm over the 3D craze.  (Although, I must admit there was one scene where a projectile came towards the screen that caused me to jump -- which is the way I feel all these 3D movies should play out -- what's the point otherwise?)  Overall, The Walk is decent and its story is compelling -- it's just a shame that the film doesn't create the tense moments needed to really and truly succeed.

The RyMickey Rating:  C+

Movie Review - Don Jon

Don Jon (2013)

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Scarlett Johansson, Julianne Moore, Glenne Headley, Brie Larson, and Tony Danza

Directed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt

***This film is currently streaming on Netflix***

It's tough to feel bad for a guy who's screwing Scarlett Johannson I've come to discover after watching Joseph Gordon-Levitt's feature film directorial and screenwriting debut Don Jon.  Gordon-Levitt is Jon, a tough-around-the-edges New Jersey pretty boy who charms the undergarments right off women mere hours after meeting them.  Each weekend Jon and his two buddies head to the local club and each weekend Jon goes home without a different hottie.  One evening, however, he meets Barbara (Johannson) and is instantly taken by her despite the fact that she won't immediately sleep with him.  Barbara ends up changing Jon's lothario ways...or so she thinks.  Despite Jon exclusively sleeping with her, Jon is unhealthily addicted to online pornography so much so that it has warped his mind into being unable to have a normal relationship.

Don Jon is played for laughs and perhaps that's where the problem with the film comes into play.  There are never really any moments that are purposely driven to make you laugh out loud, yet the film never takes Jon's addiction serious enough to make you feel pity for the guy.  In fact, rather than feel sympathy for his addiction, we start to pity his relationship with Barbara who becomes more controlling as their courtship continues.  Ultimately, this proves to be a bit unsatisfying for the viewer as we flailingly strive to connect with Jon in a way that makes us root for his success.

Gordon-Levitt deepens his voice and picks up a thick Jersey accent to play the title character and he certainly embodies the persona.  Unfortunately, even towards the end when conversations with an older woman (played by Julianne Moore) try to get him to come to grips with his addiction, we can't sympathize with the guy.  Maybe it's because he's got ladies like Barbara fawning over him who, in Jon's own words, is a ten.  [That would be on a scale of one to ten with ten being the best, for those mathematically challenged.]  Johannson also does a nice job with the Jersey attitude (although her portrayal seems a tinge more like a caricature than Gordon-Levitt's) and she certainly plays the part of a sexy tease quite well.  Despite some cute moments of dialogue between the two, though, Gordon-Levitt's screenplay never really had me squarely in their camp hoping for their success.  Maybe it's an unconscious jealousy on my part -- "seriously, he's screwing Scarlett Johannson and still has to look at porn to get his jollies?" -- but something just didn't coalesce for me.

While I'd be interested to see what else "Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the Non-Actor" has down the pike, Don Jon is a bit too generic in both its script and its direction to really showcase any fantastic talent the fine young actor has behind the camera.

The RyMickey Rating:  C

Movie Review - The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Starring Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, Matthew Modine, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine

Directed by Christopher Nolan

I've been avoiding reviewing The Dark Knight Rises for nearly a month now and the only reason I can think of is that after concluding this film there was just a sense of apathy that has only increased as time as passed.  It's not that this final chapter in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy is bad -- it's slightly better than the Batman Begins origin story, but not nearly as good as The Dark Knight -- but it's really just feels most genericly superhero-ey of the three flicks.

We've got our good guy Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale whose teeth-gritting toughness as his alter ego has worn out its welcome by this point) who has put Batman to rest after the masked vigilante took the blame for killing Harvey Dent in the prior film.  However, evil rears its ugly head again, this time in the form of Bane (Tom Hardy) who vows to fight the capitalistic rich pigs of Gotham by taking all of them down and suppressing the poor himself.  Throw in a petty thief named Selena Kyle (Anne Hathaway) who will later turn into the slinky Catwoman (although I'm not sure that name is ever uttered in the movie), a new love interest for Bruce in the form of Wayne Enterprises board member Miranda (Marion Cotillard), and a young cop named Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who tries to be the voice of reason to motivate Batman to come back to Gotham after Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) almost resigns himself to the fact that the masked man won't return and the cast for this one is pretty much complete.

The problem is that despite the film's nearly three-hour runtime, the cast isn't given a whole lot to do. Bane as a villain is a disappointment especially coming after the one-two punch of Heath Ledger's Joker and Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent in the last film.  The motivation of taking down the upper class is fine (despite it sort of feeling like a retread of Ra's Al Ghul's evil plans in the first film), but the screenwriting duo of the Nolan brothers fail to make the story resonate even in these heightened economic times.

Gordon-Levitt and Hathaway were certainly welcome additions and it was nice that ample time was spent on their storylines since (as I mentioned above) Bale's incredibly one-note performance while in his Batsuit had worn out its welcome.  Unfortunately, Tom Hardy fails to really make an impression as Bane.  After the whimsically evil performance of Ledger's Joker, having Hardy behind a mask for the whole film and failing to see a single facial expression from our central villain is a bit of a letdown that isn't his fault in the slightest.

In the end, Nolan's Batman trilogy is solid, but it's not nearly as fantastic as fanboys and critics would have you believe.

The RyMickey Rating:  B-

Movie Review - Lincoln

Lincoln (2012)

Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Gloria Rueben, Hal Holbrook, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley, Bruce McGill, Tim Blake Nelson, Lee Pace, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Gulliver McGrath

Directed by Steven Spielberg

I was not expecting to like Lincoln in the slightest.  First, it's a biopic -- that alone is enough of a reason to make me run.  Second, Mr. Spielberg's last three films ranged from lukewarm mediocrity (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Adventures of Tintin) to mushy sentimental disappointment (War Horse) which didn't exactly inspire confidence in the director.  Third, I was not looking forward to spending 155 minutes with an historical period piece.  Obviously, this opening paragraph has been a set-up simply to state that Lincoln exceeded all my expectations thanks to a fantastic performance in the title role by Daniel Day-Lewis, a script by Tony Kushner which deals with only a distinct period of time in the sixteenth president's life, and direction by Spielberg that feels like he's gotten his groove back behind the camera.

Set only within the months leading up to the ratification of the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery, Lincoln details the troubles that the title character faced as a president, a party leader, and a man in attempting to create such a drastic change in our country's public policies.  Through the eyes of Lincoln, we see the struggle he faces -- with the Confederacy ready to surrender, does he accept their terms and undoubtedly diminish the "need" for the amendment and his Republican party's willingness to agree with ratifying it, or does he keep the Confederate's waving of a white flag a secret from everyone.  The difficulties didn't just affect Lincoln either, causing societal conundrums for others as well including Senator Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), a Republican proponent of full equal rights for blacks.  Stevens obviously strongly supports Lincoln's amendment, but Lincoln asks that the senator soften his enthusiasm towards full equality as Lincoln fears that would be too radical a step and cause even his fellow Republicans to be turned off.

Lincoln as a film might have been a boring historical piece had we not been given an insight in the man's home life as well.  The biggest struggle facing the Lincoln family is that son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) wants to join the Army and do his part to help his country and its revolution.  Like many parents, I imagine, the Lincolns don't want to possibly lose their son in war, especially after having just recently lost son Willie likely to typhoid fever.  Mary Lincoln (Sally Field) takes a very strong stance, angry at the notion that her husband would even consider allowing Robert to pick up a gun and head off to the battlefield.  This tension amongst the family adds another layer to the portrayal of Abraham Lincoln showing him not just as a politician, but as a husband and father and the conflicts that come with those familial roles.

Much praise has been heaped upon Daniel Day-Lewis already for this role and more is certainly headed his way.  It's all deserved.  As much as I hate the fact that yet another historical "impersonation" is going to win an Oscar, there's something transcendent about his portrayal here.  There was never a single moment in the movie where I felt like I was watching an actor.  I was able to completely lose myself in his role thanks to the strongly resolute, yet quirky down-home quality he brings to the character.  As Spielberg rather brilliantly has the camera stay stationary during many of Lincoln's lengthy anecdotal speeches, Day-Lewis is allowed several long takes to completely lose himself in the character.  These longer takes also allow us in the audience to feel as if we are one of the cabinet members, as an example, listening in.  Just like Lincoln's contemporaries onscreen, we find ourselves quieting down and honing in on his every word.  Together the director and actor have created something special.

They are of course aided by a wonderful script by Tony Kushner that settles on a few short months in Lincoln's life.  Kushner injects quite a bit of both humor and pathos in both the political and personal landscapes. While Day Lewis's Lincoln certainly provides a surprising amount of laughter and dramatic moments in both landscapes, Tommy Lee Jones's Senator Stevens is more than willing throw political jabs at his fellow Democratic opponents especially Senator Fernando Wood (Lee Pace) who is helping lead the charge on the Senate floor against the amendment.  Jones also gets some nice moments of quiet that showcase the actor's strengths.  On the familial front, Sally Field is given two absolutely fantastic scenes -- one in which she "talks smack" to her husband's political friends and another in which she beaks down at the prospect of her son Robert heading into the Army.  Field is fantastic here and in just a few moments she's able to create a well-rounded character with whom we in the audience immediately connect.

The film falters a bit at the end with a rather disappointing final coda tacked on, jumping ahead a few months to the President's final moments including a "gotcha" scene that was actually probably the worst moment I've seen in a good movie this year.  [Knowing what I know about Lincoln's final moments, the "gotcha" moment didn't even work for me which made things even worse.]  There would have been a brilliant place to conclude the film just after Lincoln received word of the amendment's passing as he walks down a set of stairs with lovely light shining into the White House's windows.  Instead, Kushner and Spielberg take it one step too far.  Still, Lincoln is a fantastic look at this important time in our country's history and kudos need to be given to the director, screenwriter, and the entire cast for creating something that even this biopic hater found fascinating.

The RyMickey Rating:  A-

Movie Review - Premium Rush

Premium Rush (2012)

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michael Shannon, Dania Ramirez, and Jamie Chung

Directed by David Koepp

Premium Rush is essentially an eighty-minute long chase sequence, and for a movie that's all about a race to the finish to be lacking in any drive or excitement that has to be considered a disappointment.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Wilee, a bicycle courier in New York City.  It's a somewhat dangerous profession navigating the busy streets of NYC, but Wilee thrives on the rush it gives him.  One afternoon, Wilee is dispatched to a local university to pick up an envelope from, as it turns out, his girlfriend's roommate Nima (Jamie Chung) and deliver it to a location in Chinatown.  Almost as soon as he gets the envelope, Wilee is confronted by a man who states he's Nima's boss demanding that Wilee return the delivery.  When Wilee refuses, the man (played by Michael Shannon) sets out to track Wilee down and do whatever is necessary in order to obtain the contents of that envelope.

Premium Rush knows it's pure fluff and pure fluff is fine sometimes, but something doesn't quite click here.  Michael Shannon is over-the-top (and not in a good way) as the neurotic man who demands the envelope be handed over to him.  As his character's secrets are revealed and Shannon chews more and more of the scenery around him, my eyes began to roll a bit in frustration.  Gordon-Levitt shows that he can ride a bike...but he isn't given much else to do except pedal and constantly look behind him to see if he's being tailed.

The film has some fun with jumping around in time and it certainly is a gimmick that makes a throwaway film like this a bit more enjoyable.  Unfortunately, as the pieces of the puzzle begin to come together, I didn't care much about the final product.

The RyMickey Rating:  C-

Movie Review - Looper

Looper (2012)

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Piper Perabo, Paul Dano, Pierce Gagnon, and Jeff Daniels

Directed by Rian Johnson

Why did I wait so long to see Looper?  Everyone raved about it.  It's directed and written by a guy whose last film I greatly admired specifically for its direction and story.  It stars the guy who was in my favorite scene in one of my favorite movies of 2011.  And yet, I waited.  And the buzz built.  And the movie could never live up to the hype.

But it did...and now I wished I had seen it sooner as it may have gotten me excited and interested about seeing movies again in theaters.  One great movie can do that you -- pique your interest enough to make you realize that not all movies are schlock.  Don't get me wrong.  Looper isn't without its faults (it's first act drags on a bit too long, but it has a second and third act that more than make up for it), but it's an original piece of cinema that is directed with a keen eye and acted with precision from the youngest member of the cast to the oldest.

By 2074, time travel has been invented, but the concept is controlled by someone who has never been seen and is known only as The Rainmaker -- the head of a crime syndicate.  When The Rainmaker wants to get rid of someone, he sends them back thirty years and has them killed by "a looper."  Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a looper in 2044 and he gets paid well for his job, but like all loopers, The Rainmaker will eventually decide to "close his loop" and eliminate Joe's job, allowing him to live a good life for 30 years before he's forced to "close the loop" by killing his future "older Joe" self.  [This sounds confusing, but it really isn't in the slightest when you see it acted out.]  However, when Old Joe (Bruce Willis) is sent back in time to be killed, he refuses to let it happen which puts Young Joe in a bit of a predicament for if he doesn't kill Old Joe, the future will irreversibly change perhaps to great effect.

That summary involves only Act I and the remainder of the film really should be left to simply let unfold before you.  It's not that it contains surprises, but it's a film that only knowing the science fiction basics really allows the rest of the "human" story to flesh out naturally.  Rian Johnson has two tales layered together here -- one would fit perfectly into a Star Trek or Twilight Zone episode involving time travel while the other pushes all of sci-fi to the side and allows a romance to blossom between Joe and a tough farmhand named Sara (Emily Blunt, oddly unrecognizable at first and talking without a hint of her British accent) who comes with some baggage in tow with her young son Cid (the fantastic Pierce Gagnon).  Neither side of the story is given the short shrift and because of that and Johnson's intricate way of melding the two, one finds oneself rapt the whole time with the proceedings.

Although set in the future and certainly peppered with inventions to which we are not yet privy, Looper almost feels retro (much like the tone set in Johnson's former work The Brothers Bloom).  Gordon-Levitt plays Joe as a 1950s James Dean-type guy and, in fact, he's even called out on his old-fashioned stylings by his boss (Jeff Daniels), the head of The Rainmaker's loopers in 2044.  I will admit that it took me a little bit to warm up to Gordon-Levitt's Joe -- I felt he was "playing a character" more than "embodying one" -- but I later grew to appreciate his approach.  As mentioned above, Emily Blunt is quite good here, un-prettying herself and getting a bit grittier than we usually see her.  I love the fact that she can usually elevate comedic fluff to something better, but in Looper she shows that she's also quite a talented dramatic actress.  And her young son, played by five year-old Pierce Gagnon is wonderful.  His role is an interesting one and he manages to be both child-like and adult with such ease that he helps elevate the film's second half to something quite special.

I wasn't a fan at all of Rian Johnson's first film Brick (but then again I'm kind of snob when it comes to good film noir), but I found The Brothers Bloom a pretty fun piece of work.  With Looper, he proves that he wasn't a one-trick pony.  Hopefully, he can continue this upward momentum and we don't have to wait another four years before his next work comes around.

The RyMickey Rating:  A-

Movie Review - 50/50

50/50 (2011)

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Angelica Huston

Directed by Jonathan Levine

I have a confession to make right off the bat here.  I've had my eyes well up in movies before (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close was the most recent film to do that to me).  Something just hits me and connects with me on that visceral level, telling my brain that it's okay to feel a little emotional and causing my eyes to perhaps become small pools of saline.  It doesn't happen often, but ever so rarely a movie gets to you in that way.  But to actually have one of those pools escape the lids of my eye and cause a tear to fall down my face doesn't usually happen to this guy, your intrepid (stoic) movie reviewer.  In fact, I can't really remember the last time that occurred.

That all changed when I watched 50/50 which I fortunately viewed alone because when that one legitimate tear began to trickle down my cheek and I had to brush it away, I felt kinda weird.  What was wrong with me?  Why in the hell have I allowed this movie [co-starring Seth Rogen of all people, an actor I thought I despised] to get to me in this way?  It comes down to a solid script, a wonderful lead performance from Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the simple fact that the movie generationally "spoke to me" in some way.

I don't mean that "generational" comment above to mean anything other than that 50/50 is a film about people my age going through something that is rather unfathomable to be experiencing.  When regular 27-year old Adam (Gordon-Levitt) discovers he has a rare form of spinal cancer, it's obviously a life-changing event that not only affects him, but also his best friend Kyle (Rogen), his girlfriend Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard), and his mother (Angelica Huston), and it takes a young aspiring therapist named Katherine (Anna Kendrick) for Adam to realize that cancer doesn't have to be his battle to fight alone.  That's the story -- plain and simple.

What makes that rather straightforward story unique is a humorous script courtesy of Will Reiser who based the film off his own experiences battling cancer.  I never thought I'd say this, but Seth Rogen proved to set just the right tone here with his take as the supportive friend trying to inject a little bit of light-heartedness into Adam's obviously life-threatening situation.  There's also some great work from Anna Kendrick whom I worried a bit wasn't going to find success after Up in the Air.  Admittedly, her role as Katherine isn't given a ton of depth, but her character felt "normal" and "plain," and while some could look at that as a detriment, I thought it was a charming plus.  Katherine finds it difficult to maintain a balance between showing emotion and remaining completely objective with her patients and seeing her try and navigate these tricky waters is interesting.  Angelica Huston has a rather stock role as the overprotective and nagging mother, but what I thought would end up being quite typical ends up carrying a surprising amount of heart as the film heads into its final act.

Ultimately, however, the film works because director Jonathan Levine has allowed us to connect with Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Adam in such a way that we in the audience genuinely give a damn about what happens to this normal young guy.  (SPOILER AHEAD detailing my single tear fallen)  There's a scene towards the end of the film in which Adam, moments before he goes into surgery to have his tumor removed, speaks to his Alzheimer's-afflicted father with such simplicity, but with such darn heart, that I couldn't help but begin to be moved.  Then, as the doctor begins to administer anesthesia and the realization that the possibility of death is imminent, Adam calls out panic-stricken, "Mom," reaching out to her to comfort him...and that was it.  That was when the tear fell.  Here was this guy who was so reserved, trying to not burden others with his life-changing diagnosis, and, finally, the shield comes down and the emotions are allowed to finally express themselves.  Something about that moment and Gordon-Levitt successfully portraying a likable guy in a situation no one would want to face got to me, revealing a shocking amount of heart and a lovely way of crafting a nuanced performance from an understated role.

Tbe RyMickey Rating:  A-

Movie Review - Inception

Inception (2010)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ken Watanabe, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, and Marion Cotillard

Directed by Christopher Nolan

There are major spoilers ahead here...This isn't so much a review as a discussion of my thoughts a day after watching the film...If you haven't seen the film yet and don't want some key plot points to be ruined, don't read any further.

In the end, some magnificent "parts" of Christopher Nolan's newest film, Inception, don't quite add up to a fantastic "whole."  Now, fair warning -- I'm going to be overly critical here.  A creative film like this wants me to question it...so I'm going to do so.  But, as you'll notice by my rating at the end, I enjoyed myself thoroughly while watching it.  I simply wish it was something I could have loved.

This movie is about Leonardo Dicaprio's character Cobb.  It's about his need to be forgiven for what he considers to be the "crime" of causing his wife's (Marion Cotillard) death.  Being absolved of this sin will allow him to not only return to his children, but also to return to a more peaceful existence with himself.  If this is the main point (which, to me, there can be no argument that it isn't), why does it fall to the wayside for so much of this film's 150 minutes?

The final hour-long act of the film -- the dream within a dream within a dream within a dream where the key players are attempting to complete the inception in Fischer's (Cillian Murphy) mind -- hardly focuses on Cobb's emotional part of the story at all.  Not until we reach the "limbo" stage does Cobb really come into play.  Granted, this whole segment of the film was really amazing -- I truly enjoyed all of the levels within the dreams and that hotel scene is just a gigantic WOW -- but it's really just a huge McGuffin (sort of).  I can't help but think something could have been trimmed here or there (or something even added, if necessary) to bring the focus back to Cobb.  Yes, there were the occasional images of his children, but a larger emphasis on Cobb would have been much more powerful in terms of character development.

Speaking of character development, where was it?  Beyond Cobb, there's nothing.  I guess that could be because "this is all a dream" (an idea which I'll touch upon in a bit) and in dreams, character development is nonexistent, but that seems like a cop-out.  So, if the film's not a dream, that makes it real -- well, "real" in terms of the fact that we're watching a film.  And if this is a film, I'd like to know something about these people I'm watching.  Unfortunately, I know nothing beyond the fact that the girl from Juno is the Architect, the guy from (500) Days of Summer is Cobb's right-hand man, and the guy from Bronson (yes, I know you've never heard of it, but you should watch it anyway) is like some fancy X-Man that can change his form.  Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Tom Hardy are all very good, but they're not really given anything to do beyond what their job requires.  It's like a much more intelligent Oceans 11 film in that sense.

So is the whole thing a dream?  Is the reason that I don't know anything beyond the outer surface of these characters because I'm watching Cobb's dream?  I can't buy that (even if in the director commentary Christopher Nolan tells me that is the case).  For starters, if this is all a dream, how the heck is the story so linear?  Yes, I may have some dreams that follow a general storyline, but for the most part, the restraints are gone when one dreams and logic bears no importance.  Yes, I may be dreaming about work and it may seem perfectly straightforward, but I could change my thoughts within seconds and be some place completely different.  That never really happens here.  Yes, I'm sure there are things that point to this being a dream, but if that's the case, I'd be utterly disappointed simply because things are much to logical here for that to be the case.

Plus, it seems obvious to me that at the end of the film Cobb's spinning top is beginning to wobble.  When a top begins to slow down, the change in aural tone that it begins to make is blatant -- and it does that during the final scene (plus, it starts to wobble).  Yes, one could certainly make the statement that the top was never Cobb's token, but instead was Mal's, so it was never his "way back"to reality.  While that's certainly true, I always felt that the top was his connection to her and since she was so connected to the top, he, in turn, can be taken out of the dreamscape by the top as well.

Okay...enough rambling.  Let's get to a tiny bit of general thoughts here.  Inception was a treat to watch, without a doubt.  The more I sit and think about it, the more I appreciate it.  It's not a perfect film, but it's a more than admirable effort (I still say that its biggest fault is that first point I make above in that the emotional connection for Cobb's character is pushed to the sidelines for too long in the final act).  Nolan (a director and writer who I appreciate, but don't find myself fawning over) once again proves that he's a smart guy with an eye for some special set pieces.  The rotating hotel scene which was shown in the previews really blew me away.  Even though I knew it was coming, I was amazed while watching it.

Additionally, kudos to Nolan for making what could have been a convoluted mess of a film perfectly coherent.  Before going into this, I heard so much about how you "really have to pay attention," but I found the film to be easily comprehensible.  Little asides that in some movies may have made the viewer feel stupid (or made the viewer feel that the filmmaker thought they were stupid) proved to be quite natural and justified in their existence.  (This was actually a very impressive aspect of the film...and the whole point of Ellen Page's character.  Her Architect was "us," the audience, and since she was an intelligent character, whenever she asked for an explanation or elucidated on a certain topic, it was never done in a manner that talked down to the viewer.)

Still, the problem with the lack of character development is that Nolan doesn't allow any of his actors to shine.  None of the actors are problematic or detrimental to the film in any way, but they're not allowed to really add anything to the final product either.  Leo and Ellen and Marion and Joseph and Tom are all fine, but never given much to work with.

Yes, yes, this "review" was perhaps overly negative, but I enjoyed Inception and the more I think about it and the more I discuss it with others, the more I appreciate the film.  Do I wish it was a little better?  Absolutely.  A little trimming of the Fischer dream storyline could've done wonders to the film as a whole.  A bit more character development for anyone beyond Cobb would've been wonderful.

Still, Inception is no nightmare...it's just not the fantastical dream of a film that others say it is.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - Uncertainty (2009)

Uncertainty (2009)

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Lynn Collins

Directed by Scott McGehee and David Siegel

**Currently streaming on Netflix**

Gimmicky movies don't usually win me over.  Memento?  One of the most overrated films of the last decade.  Just because you twist time around doesn't automatically make your film a success.  (Same could be said for tv...Lost...bring it all together, I beg of you in these final four episodes.)

Uncertainty has a gimmick, too, and while the tactic itself works, there's not nearly enough story to warrant the film's nearly two hour length.

 As the film opens, young couple Kate and Bobby (Lynn Collins and Joseph Gordon-Levitt) stand on the Brooklyn Bridge talking about making a decision.  We don't know what the decision concerns, but we know that they can't seem to come to a conclusion.  Bobby pulls out a coin, flips it, and the audience is taken to two different realities.

On the heads side, Kate and Bobby attend a July 4th barbecue at Kate's parents' house.  It's a simple drama about a Latino family and Kate's struggle to please her mother.

On the tails side, Kate and Bobby find a cell phone in a taxi cab.  Little do they know that the cell belongs to some type of mobster who will stop at nothing to get it back.

The film is fairly evenly split between both tales and the co-directors and co-writers do a very good job of switching back and forth between the two stories.  We're never away from one or the other for more than five minutes, but it never feels too short or too long.  Unfortunately, neither of these stories can maintain any sense of interest over the span of their respective 50 minutes.  The family side is pleasant, but there's not any conflict there to make it really be interesting.   The mobster side is certainly the more exciting of the two, but it left me wanting more -- there was a whole lot of running, but not much else.

Still, Gordon-Levitt was quite good, and he's certainly proving himself to be a respectable actor of my generation.  Lynn Collins doesn't fare as well, but I'm not sure if that's her fault or the silly lines she has to spout at times (although I just read that the cast improvised a lot, so maybe it lies more with her).  I will say that I honestly did believe that the two of these actors were a couple, so that's definitely in their favor.

For an indie flick with (one would assume) a low-budget, the film looks really good.  Kudos to the cinematographer Rain Li for making the flick look incredibly rich.  I was impressed across the board when it came to things like the score, costuming, and that little-recognized under-the-radar stuff.

But, in the end, if the story can't maintain itself, the film doesn't work.  Uncertainty is an interesting experiment, but disappointing in execution.

The RyMickey Rating: C-

Movie Review - Brick (2005)

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Emilie de Ravin, and Lukas Haas
Directed by Rian Johnson

I love a good film noir (see Double Indemnity). I'm also a big fan of screenwriter-director Rian Johnson's latest endeavor The Brothers Bloom. Mixing those two up -- film noir and Rian Johnson -- just didn't work for me in the slightest. This flick which transplants the film noir (complete with the corny dialogue and femme fatales) into a modern-day high school setting just feels utterly pretentious and laughable.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Brendan, a young guy whose ex-girlfriend turns up dead. He attempts to find her killer, but, if I'm being completely honest, I really didn't give a damn.

Gordon-Levitt is the only one here who comes out looking alright. If it weren't for him, I would've stopped this flick about 20 minutes in. Everything about this movie -- the direction, the writing, the acting -- felt heavy-handed and exaggerated.

Not a fan of this one, for sure.

The RyMickey Rating: D-

Movie Review - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

Starring Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans, Dennis Quaid, Sienna Miller, Christopher Eccleston, Jonathan Pryce, Rachel Nichols, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Written by Stuart Beattie and David Elliot
Directed by Stephen Sommers

So we're into August and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is going to be the last "big" action movie (I guess there's Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, but I don't know if that'll fall into the same "category"). We've seen one great action flick in these past four months (The Hurt Locker), two good ones (Star Trek and Terminator: Salvation), one less than average one (X-Men Origins: Wolverine), and one of the worst movies I've seen this entire year (Transformers 2). Where does G.I. Joe fall? It's filled with some really crappy CGI stuff, incredibly stupid dialogue, and two of the worst acting performances I've seen this year...but it's not even close to Transformers levels of heinousness.

Some evil mastermind has created these nanobots (or something like that) that eat away at everything they touch, effectively destroying both living and non-living things. He plans to release them in order to gain power...same old stuff any other evil mastermind plots to do. The G.I. Joe team of special agents is going to stop him. There's more story than that (an unrequited romance, a brother-sister relationship, two Ninja Warriors who hate each other), but none of that matters despite the fact that the filmmakers try to make us think it's important.

And the reason none of that matters is because the whole point of this movie is simply to move from one action sequence to the next. And there were several action-filled sequences in this movie that completely throw logic and reality to the wayside...which is fine, but after the second such scene, it gets old quickly. And when your action sequences are so blatantly CGI'ed, it bums me out.

As far as the acting goes, there's nothing really good to say. Red-haired Rachel Nichols (who I remember thinking was hot on Alias when she took over for a pregnant Jennifer Garner) and the blond and brunette Sienna Miller were both a treat for the eyes, but I wouldn't exactly call them good actresses (sorry, ladies, but I think you were aware of that when you signed onto this and got fitted for the skintight gear). Marlon Wayans is the Silly Black Guy. Christopher Eccelston is Diabolical Evil Mastermind (complete with Token Foreign Accent -- this time, Celtic!). Joseph Gordon-Levitt is okay in a role that is quite different for him, but he was certainly directed to be over-the-top and oddly shaky and twittery.

And then there's two of the worst acting performances I've seen this year -- Dennis Quaid is horrifically awful as the head of the G.I. Joe "branch." I actually really like Quaid most of the time (he's my mom's favorite actor, so there's some family loyalty there, I guess), but his stereotypical gruff Army guy was just dumb. The less that can be said about the lead actor in this movie, Channing Tatum, the better. He is so emotionless and vacant onscreen...and he needs to open his frickin' mouth when he talks instead of just mumbling. Mumbling doesn't equal "Tough Guy." Oh, and there's a ridiculous cameo for some completely unknown reason by my favorite actor working today (please note the sarcasm) -- Brendan Fraser.

So I've pretty much bashed this thing completely, but it's definitely not the worst thing I've seen this year by a longshot. In terms of those action movies listed above, it falls below Wolverine, but way above Transformers. It's just mindless and silly and stupid (a la Crank: High Voltage but not nearly at that level of ridiculosity) and, while I wouldn't recommend it, if you've got a choice between this and Transformers, Funny People, The Collector, or Aliens in the Attic which are all currently in wide release, this is better than those...how's that for a ringing endorsement?

The RyMickey Rating: D+

Movie Review - (500) Days of Summer

Starring Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber

Directed by Marc Webb

In a summer of shitty blockbuster action movies, it's pleasant to get to watch a nice romance about people (close to) my age. Unfortunately, (500) Days of Summer is a movie where some really good parts don't add up to an entirely cohesive whole.

I could tell you a summary of the movie, but it's essentially boy meets girl, boy falls in love, girl crushes his heart (as women always do). There's really not much else to it, but the film is buoyed by two decent performances by its stars. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Angels in the Outfield, man! Remember that movie?) is Tom and he's got the forlorn act down pat. I believed him in this movie...I felt like he was a real guy. I felt like I would be just like him were I in his situation. His role worked for me. The same could be said for Zooey Deschanel's Summer. She felt like just as much of a "real" person to me. In a movie that's essentially an ode to misbegotten love (I'm not ruining anything there...they spill those beans in the first minute), Summer needed to be someone that the audience could pine over and Summer is just that. The relationship between Summer and Tom felt right, felt real, and felt meaningful.

The actors are certainly helped by the direction of Marc Webb who does some very creative things (with the help of the writers, for sure). Split screens and fantasy sequences don't always work out well in movies, but in (500) Days, they didn't seem forced or showy. In fact, there were two scenes in this movie that are favorites of anything I've seen this year. One involves a split screen where the left side reveals what Tom thinks is going to happen when he reunites with Summer, while the right side reveals what actually happens. Call me a sucker, but I thought it was ingenious. And there's a fantasy sequence where, after his first night with Summer, Tom dances through a park to Hall & Oates's "You Make My Dreams Come True" (one of my favorite songs) that is priceless (despite the fact that they spoiled it in the trailer...let's not even get into that though, because the trailer spoiled a lot here in this flick).

Add to that, this movie had a narrator...I'm a sucker for narration...I don't know why, but movies that start and end with narration always win me over a bit (see the recent revisited review of The Hudsucker Proxy).

But the fact that I can pick out scenes I loved without liking the movie as a whole is the inherent problem. And while there weren't any scenes I out-and-out hated, there were some problematic issues for me. For starters, I'm tired of movies where the younger sibling of a main character ends up being the voice of reason for their older sibling. It doesn't happen...or at least it never happened to me (no offense to my brothers). Secondly, Tom's job at the greeting card company rang totally untrue...not untrue that he would've worked there, but everything they talked about there relating to his work felt entirely fake. Every greeting card they showed felt like a joke to me...I kept asking myself how this crappy card company stayed in business. Thirdly, the quirky friend of the main character thing...I mean, it's okay, but it's kind of a tired cliché by now. The friends in this movie were fine but they added nothing to the story whatsoever.

I realize that the three issues above are kind of petty, but they're just three minor reasons why the movie didn't gel together the way it should have. I think that my fellow moviegoer hit the nail on the head when she asked the question, "Am I supposed to feel bad for Tom?" and my other fellow moviegoer said, "No, because Summer told him that she didn't want a relationship to begin with." So, the whole movie is pushing you to feel bad for the guy, but subliminally, you're thinking to yourself, "He set himself up for this failed relationship." Sure, it sucks, but he should've known better.

Give me time to think about it and I might explore my problems with the flick some more (I still need to digest the movie a bit...the pitfalls of trying to post a review immediately after I see the movie, I guess). Don't get me wrong, this isn't a bad movie by any means and I'm giving it a rating that falls just below the "recommended" category for me. I really do feel like the relationship between these two characters felt real and I very much liked the way it was shot, but I just feel like it could've been so much better for some reason.

The RyMickey Rating: C