Don't Look Up

Don't Look Up (2021)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Rob Morgan, Jonah Hill, Mark Rylance, Tyler Perry, Timothée Chalamet, Ron Perlman, Ariana Grande, Melanie Lynsky, Cate Blanchett, and Meryl Streep

Directed by Adam McKay

Written by Adam McKay

Click here for my Letterboxd rating

The RyMickey Rating:  C+

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood (2019)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Timothy Olyphant, Julia Butters, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry, and Al Pacino

Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Written by Quentin Tarantino

Click here for my Letterboxd review

The RyMickey Rating:  D

Movie Review - The Revenant

The Revenant (2015)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson, Will Poulter, and Forrest Goodluck

Directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu

This is a frustrating review to write.  There are so many scenes in The Revenant that I found myself loving.  So many beautifully crafted shots both visually appealing and cinematically difficult.  Such good performances that couldn't help but make me feel as if I was placed squarely in the 1820s America fur trade.  So why is director/co-screenwriter Alejandro González Iñárritu's film such a chore to sit through?  Why did I find myself checking my watch twenty minutes in...and then forty minutes in...and then an hour in...and then I had to stop myself from checking every ten minutes.  Something doesn't quite gel and while I understand the director's methodical approach in terms of helping to understand our main character's horrific plight, the film can't help but feel tedious and almost a tiny bit episodic as we simply move from one torture porn-esque scene to the next.

Inspired by a true story, The Revenant is the tale of frontiersman Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) who is left for dead by his fellow trappers after being mauled by a bear.  While the party's Captain, Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson), wants the incapacitated Hugh (who has been invaluable to the trappers) to be watched over until he passes, most men in the party (which has already been depleted due to a vicious ambush by the Arikara Indians) feel hauling Glass to safety is harming them all.  With the promise of money from the Captain, rough and hard-nosed John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) agrees to wait with Hugh until he dies.  The young Bridger (Will Poulter) and Hugh's half-Indian son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck) stay around with John, but they soon discover that John may be motivated more by the promise of money than keeping Hugh alive and what John does next sets a still-debilitated Hugh to seek revenge on Tom who has truly done him terribly wrong.

For the film's first forty and last twenty minutes, there's a palpable sense of excitement and tension with some of the most brutally realistic and intense fight and battle sequences since Saving Private Ryan.  Grabbing me right away, I found myself questioning the critiques I'd heard that The Revenant is a slow burner.  And then Glass is left for dead and the film just became less and less interesting story wise as Iñárritu seemingly mimics the hazy, dreamlike sequences of Terrence Malick and leaves actual plot behind.  Perhaps I'm being a little too harsh there as we're certainly given "a story" -- it's just that the episodic torturous events that Glass finds himself getting into on his trek to seek revenge on Fitzgerald begin to feel repetitive particularly seeing as how they're interspersed by endless images of babbling brooks or leafless trees or memories of his Pawnee Indian lover.

Leonardo DiCaprio is very good here and his inevitable Oscar win is at least being awarded for a quality role.  While not his most layered performance or his best (that certainly goes to the tour de force turn in The Wolf of Wall Street which I still say is one of the finest film roles I've seen in ages), he conveys everything necessary with his physicality (or lack thereof at times) which is extremely important seeing as how Hugh Glass barely talks for nearly two-thirds of the film.  Tom Hardy continues the trend of creating a difficult-to-comprehend voice for his grizzled character, but Hardy is also strong here in what may be the best role I've seen him undertake thus far.  His motivations, though certainly lacking in morals, are surprisingly understandable given the circumstances of the time and while he's absolutely in the wrong, Hardy makes his character perfectly believable.

Unfortunately, despite many good things -- the film will likely pop up in certain RyMickey Award categories -- The Revenant is simply too long and lacks excitement and momentum.  Much like last year's lauded Birdman (which I overrated with a C+), The Revenant has been incorrectly lauded by many of the Hollywood Elite.  It's got good parts, but it doesn't quite add up to a good whole which is a shame because the positives here are so darn excellent.

The RyMickey Rating:  C+

Movie Review - The Wolf of Wall Street

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, Kyle Chandler, Rob Reiner, Jean Dujardin, Joanna Lumley, Cristin Milioti, and P.J. Byrne 

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Much has already been said about the language, vulgarity, and loooong running time of The Wolf of Wall Street and I'll readily admit that it's full of f-bombs, various sexual proclivities, and rampant drug use throughout its 179-minute length.  However, I enjoyed the heck out of this one, finding myself constantly smiling at the sheer absurdity of the whole affair and almost being upset that my humdrum life couldn't hold a candle to the chaotic mayhem of Jordan Belfort's.  Granted, Belfort is a womanizing, scheming crook who contains nary a moralistic bone in his body and he's a horrific sleaze of a guy so my notion of trying to vicariously live like him faded really quickly, but thanks to a glorious performance by Leonardo DiCaprio and some vivacious direction from Martin Scorsese, this movie paints a vivid picture of the true story of the infamous stockbroker who duped thousands of people into losing boatloads of money.

While the overarching theme of the film is about the stock market and that aforementioned duping of the public by Belfort, Scorsese and screenwriter Terrence Winter wisely push that aside instead focusing on the wildly outrageous shenanigans of the rich Belfort (played by DiCaprio) and his cohorts as they spend their (well-earned or illegally earned?) dough on quaaludes, cocaine, prostitutes, yachts, extravagant homes, jewelry, flying dwarfs...I could go on and on.  Seeing the world of excess is admittedly at first a little exciting, but we all know that it's too good to be true.  This fantastical world is ripe for a breakdown and that certainly is the case here with Belfort's fall just as engrossing as his rise up the corporate ladder.

Front and center in nearly every scene of the movie is Leonardo DiCaprio, a guy who I've certainly come to appreciate in recent years for his acting prowess.  However, I've never seen him take on a role with such gusto and joie de vivre as he does here with Jordan Belfort.  With the perfect amount of sly charm, self absorption, self-confidence, financial smarts, and sex appeal, DiCaprio gives a performance that is loose, funny, and captivating.

While DiCaprio's Belfort certainly takes center stage, he isn't alone in shining onscreen.  Jonah Hill is quite good as a Long Island nobody whom Belfort grooms into his right hand man.  The jaw-droppingly gorgeous Margot Robbie plays Belfort's second wife and she's a stunning newcomer I can't wait to see more of in the future.  Additionally, Matthew McConaughey makes the most out of a mere ten minute scene as Belfort's first teacher in the stock trade.  He steals the show right off the bat (which DiCaprio then steals back from him) and sets the movie on a great path right from the outset.

All this praise I'm heaping on the film makes it seem as if this one's ripe for an "A" rating.  Well, that's not going to happen and the reason harkens back to that aforementioned running time.  This thing moves along at a fast clip for its first hour and its last hour takes us on a bit of a different journey with Belfort's world beginning to crumble, but that middle hour leaves a bit to be desired.  We've already borne witness to the hedonistic tendencies of Belfort and his crew and this middle act teeters on actually becoming a bit boring -- there's only so much coke snorting you can take.  Perhaps Scorsese was mirroring the excessive nature of Belfort with the excessive running time, but a trimming of maybe thirty minutes would've put this one right in the running for a top three spot of the year for me.  As it stands now, it's a very good film that could've been near perfect, buoyed by the best performance I've seen in 2013 in Mr. DiCaprio.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - The Great Gatsby

The Great Gatsby (2013)

***viewed in 3D***
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgarton, Elizabeth Debicki, Jason Clarke, and Isla Fisher

Directed by Baz Luhrmann

The Great Gatsby is distinctly a Baz Luhrmann film and your initial like or dislike will largely hinge on your feelings towards the eclectic auteur.  I was a big fan of Romeo + Juliet upon its release in my junior year of high school, but a revisit in 2011 didn't sit so well with me.  Similarly, I was a huge admirer of Moulin Rouge upon its release simply for its unique take on the movie musical and I rewatched it last year certain that it would land in my Personal Canon, but that didn't come to fruition this time around.  (The less said about Australia the better.)  It's not that Lurhmann suddenly became an incompetent director in my eyes, it's simply that he is a bit of a one trick pony (similar to Quentin Tarantino in that respect).  He does what he does well, but when you already know what you're going to get with him, there aren't as many surprises around the corner.

This isn't to say that is take on The Great Gatsby doesn't provide a solid experience, but the quick cutting, bombastic music, and focus on "love" (all Luhrmann staples) overshadow the other aspects of F. Scott Fitzgerald's work.  And I say that as someone who finds Fitzgerald's so-called masterpiece a fine read, but nowhere near the perfection that others espouse it to be.  [I finished a re-read of the novel mere hours before I went to see the movie.]  To Luhrmann, Gatsby is nothing but a tragic love story between the title character (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) and his long lost love Daisy (Carey Mulligan), the Midwest gal he's been pining over for the decade since he headed off to war and had to leave her.  Any semblance of Fitzgerald's take on the decline of American morals is brushed aside solely to focus on a love story.  Granted, I will admit that upon reading Gatsby again, I was quite surprised how much the Gatsby/Daisy love story was made a focus in the novel, but Luhrmann trains his camera (and script) right in on it, failing to leave the confines of the lovers' embrace for an exceedingly long time in the film's middle act.

Much like the book, the film is told through the wide eyes of Nick Carraway, played here by Tobey Maguire in the same dorky, oddly reflective way Tobey Maguire plays every single role he's ever undertaken.  No one was more surprised than me to discover that Maguire is a perfect fit for the role.  I realize that may not be a universally accepted opinion -- in fact, I've heard much derision sent Maguire's way -- but having recently read the novel, Maguire totally embodied my vision of Carraway.  That isn't to say that the actor did anything overly ambitious or out of his comfort zone, but Carraway is a part the oftentimes dumbfounded-looking former Spiderman was made to play.

Joel Edgarton and Elizabeth Debicki also aptly personified my visions of, respectively, the womanizing Tom Buchanan and the cynical Jordan Baker.  In her first major film role, I found myself unable to take my eyes off of Ms. Debicki who captivated me despite her character's bitter edge.  Mr. Edgarton continues to be an actor to watch as of late.  I could see how some might find his portrayal of Tom as a bit of a caricature, but he perfectly exemplified the hypocritical arrogance and machismo that comes across in Fitzgerald's work.

If anything, the problem with The Great Gatsby is with Gatsby himself and his paramour Daisy.  DiCaprio plays Gatsby much more fey and weak than I expected.  Yes, I realize once he lays eyes on Daisy, he essentially becomes a child again, but even in moments where he is supposed to exude strength and charisma, I found him a bit empty.  In the novel, Gatsby was a character whom I found passionate about a great many things, but none of this vigor comes to the surface in the film.  There's part of me that wonders if Luhrmann pushed DiCaprio in this direction in order to make the title character more sympathetic and appealing to women -- but that probably just comes off sounding sexist.

Gatsby's counterpart, Daisy, has always been an enigma to me.  She spouts lines that don't make sense to me in the novel and don't make sense to me in the movie either.  I don't understand who this woman is and why Gatsby fell head over heels for her.  Carey Mulligan didn't help my confusion.  Her character's arc is one that doesn't feel fulfilling for me and the film does nothing to change that.

I say all this and I realize the review comes across a bit more bitter than I intended it to be.  For the most part, I enjoyed The Great Gatsby while I was watching it.  However, like Baz Luhrmann's previous films, it hasn't lingered as well in my mind as time passes.  There's something alluring and even invigorating when watching Gatsby (at least in the first and final acts...the less said about the love story-fueled lengthy middle act the better), but when you peel back the visual and aural cacophony, there sometimes isn't enough there.  Then again, there aren't many directors that do visual and aural cacophony with the punch and pizzazz Luhrmann brings to the table.  And for that, The Great Gatsby is worth a view.

The RyMickey Rating:  C+

Movie Review - Django Unchained

Django Unchained (2012)

Starring Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, and Samuel L. Jackson

Directed by Quentin Tarantino

There aren't any surprises in Django Unchained.  This is just like every other Quentin Tarantino movie you've seen.  The dialog is clever.  The acting is all above average.  The violence is outrageously over-the-top.  The direction is off-the-wall at times, but totally enjoyable.  In other words, Tarantino doesn't really bring anything new to the table here, but what he does provide is a flick that you know is inherently his own.  I will admit that I have to be in the mood to watch one of this auteur's films simply because they walk the fine line between serious film and B-movie exploitation, but admittedly that tricky balance is what makes Tarantino the filmmaker he is.  While Django Unchained is much too long for what is an incredibly simplistic story (perhaps his most basic to date), the thing still works...as long as Tarantino is your cup of tea.

Despite stretching to nearly three hours, the story of Django Unchained is relatively simple and lacks the epic scope of most movies this length.  German bounty hunter King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) has come to mid-1800s America for the prospect of making some easy money capturing bad guys and the biggest baddest guys of them all are the trio of the Brittle brothers.  The only problem is that King doesn't know what the Brittle brothers look like.  However, he soon discovers that the brothers recently sold away a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) and King decides to set out to find him in order to have Django assist in capturing his former captors.  [It should be noted that all that story above occurs before the movie and is simply implied.  I only include it to show you how measly the rest of the story really is.]  King meets up with and frees Django, discovering that the former slave has a flair for shooting guns and utilizes him to assist him in making a boatload of money.  In an effort to show his appreciation, King agrees to help Django track down and attempt to free his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

And that's it in a nutshell.  Two sentences stretched out over three hours pretty much sum up what we see onscreen.  Somehow, though, Django Unchained works because of clever sequences filled with witty repartee and wordplay.  Still, it's quite obvious that the film didn't need three hours as there were certain scenes that, while enjoyabe, could have just been completely snipped out without any damage to the overall product.  At the heart of the story is Django's desire to be with Broomhilda, but we never even make it to the Candie Land plantation until over halfway through the film.  With the emotional crux of the film riding on Django's reunion with his wife, it's just too long of a tease to get to that point.

While the film is called Django Unchained and I will admit that this is one of the few roles in which I could actually stand Jamie Foxx as a performer, the film belongs to Christoph Waltz who once again makes the most out of a nice role written for him by Quentin Tarantino (Waltz placed second on my 2009 Best Actor List for his Oscar-winning work in Inglourious Basterds).  Whereas Waltz's Hans Landa had meatier villainous tendencies behind him, his King Schultz is conceived a bit one-note, but Waltz makes the absolute most out of what he is given, hitting just the right amount of humor and a surprising amount of heart.

Mr. Dicaprio takes on a different role than we're used to seeing from him as the rather disgusting Calvin Candie who has a penchant for watching his slaves fight to the death in brutal one-on-one boxing matches.  Considering this is the first image we see of Calvin, his deviant nature is apparent right from the beginning.  DiCaprio, however, imbues Calvin with an odious Southern charm -- his sly smiles attempt to hide his repugnant nature.  It's a nice change of pace for the actor.  The film also contains some nice work from Kerry Washington and a surprisingly strong turn from Samuel L. Jackson whose role is actually surprisingly deep.  As Mr. Candie's head house slave Stephen, Jackson takes on a complicated character who proves to be just as damaging to his fellow African Americans as their Caucasian owner.

Ultimately, I respect Quentin Tarantino for who he is as a director and writer.  However, with the exception of Kill Bill (which I'm due to rewatch to determine whether it's as good as I hope I remember it being), I'm not sure Tarantino has it in him to create anything more than fun romps.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with a cinematic jaunt, but a "jaunt" implies something fleeting and Tarantino does need to learn how to trim his ideas into something a bit more cohesive.  Still, Django Unchained is a good film filled with everything Tarantino does best...though it may certainly not appeal to all.

The RyMickey Rating:  B

Movie Review - J. Edgar

J. Edgar (2011)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Josh Lucas, and Judi Dench

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Oh, Clint Eastwood.  I'm gonna call you "Old Reliable" now seeing as how I can always count on your movies to be a total and utter bore.  J. Edgar lived up to that lofty (or lowly) expectation.  While it was perhaps slightly more interesting than Hereafter and Invictus thanks to its subject matter alone, Eastwood's flick just feels dark and heavy at every single turn from the acting to the brooding set design to the uninspired stuffy direction.  Somehow, though, despite the hefty feel of everything in the flick, there's an utter emptiness in terms of dramatic tension.

The saving grace of the film is that Eastwood and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black jump back and forth through time to various stages of the FBI creator J. Edgar Hoover's career and there's at least a bit of fun trying to pinpoint where in the timeline we are based off of the make-up caked onto Leonardo DiCaprio.  (It should be noted that a couple reviews I read panned the make-up in this flick, but I thought it was fine and sometimes quite good.)  However, the remainder of the flick's story much of which is composed of a ridiculously written romance between Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his secret paramour Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) plays out like a silly soap opera complete with a hotel room slapfest (that ends in a smooch on the lips) with the requisite throwing of a glass against a wall followed by shouted sayings like "How dare you! But don't leave me!  I love you!"  

Hoover was a helluva guy.  Overly ambitious it seems, but strongly believing that everything he did (whether it be wiretapping Martin Luther King, Jr.'s hotel room sexcapades or claiming to have scoop on Communist ties to Eleanor Roosevelt) was done in order to strengthen his position and the FBI's position in the government.  Sure, on one hand he was attempting to overthrow radicals in the country, but on the other hand he was becoming that dictatorial presence that he so despised.  Add the cross-dressing (which is only lightly touched upon and done so in a rather horrifying Norman Bates-ish Psycho manner) and the gay aspect of the guy and there's gotta be a good story there.  It's just not present in the movie.

Leonardo DiCaprio was fine (although oddly uncharismatic) and did a pretty darn good job at creating six decades of a character through changes in movement and speech.  Naomi Watts was adequate in what amounted to a very plain role as Hoover's longtime loyal secretary Helen Gandy.  Her character was in the film quite a bit, but wasn't given a whole lot else to do beyond saying, "Yes, sir," which just ends up wasting many minutes of the 140-minute runtime.  Still, DiCaprio and Watts were the two bright spots here.  Armie Hammer (whose role in The Social Network landed him in spot #5 on last year's Breakthrough Star RyMickey Awards) was overacting quite a bit, playing his role of Hoover's gay confidante Clyde Tolson with never a smidgeon of believability.  The screenplay does him no favors as it makes Clyde love fashion and dress impeccably (not that those are necessarily inherent characteristics of a gay man, but the way the movie plays them up it most certainly is intended to be that way).  And let's not even get started on Judi Dench who seemed to be sleepwalking through this thing as Hoover's overbearing mother -- another role in which the screenplay does no favors to the actor playing the part.

The personal life of J. Edgar Hoover admittedly isn't all that well-documented so who really knows if he was gay or a cross-dresser.  The problem is that J. Edgar skirts around these issues incredibly awkwardly and while it takes stands (to a degree) as to whether these rumors were true, it never attacks them head-on and it creates a lack of drama because of that.  

The RyMickey Rating:  D+

Movie Review - Romeo + Juliet

Romeo + Juliet (1996)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Claire Danes, John Leguizamo, Harold Perrineau, Pete Postlethwaite, Paul Sorvino, Brian Dennehy, and Paul Rudd

Directed by Baz Luhrmann
***This film is currently streaming on Netflix***

Despite your feelings towards the film, no one can deny that director Baz Luhrmann has crafted a unique, modern take on William Shakespeare's classic tale of the two lovers Romeo and Juliet.  As their families fight each other, the two young amours become enamored of one another and refuse to deny their love up until their dying days (oops...did I spoil the tale for someone?).

I remember going to the movie theater to see this when I was sixteen and thinking that it was pretty darn cool.  At this point in time, Luhrmann wasn't known at all and his crazed, schizophrenic visual style was oddly compelling and unlike anything I had ever seen before.  Placing the Bard's "old school" dialog in a completely contemporary setting was riveting to me.

Cut to fifteen years later and I'm not so sure that I'm as much of a fan.  Don't get me wrong, Luhrmann has certainly crafted a distinct take on the material, but there are (several) moments where there is just too much going on visually.  Because of the bombardment of images, the words sometimes get lost in translation and the story becomes a secondary afterthought to the film's appearance.  A decade-and-a-half after the film's release, rather than being riveted I found myself laughing at an early scene involving a showdown between members of the Montague and Capulet families simply because of the way Luhrmann utilizes his camera.  The "wild west showdown" atmosphere he creates just didn't set well with me.

The aforementioned scene is one of several that just had me clamoring for a more straightforward (or at least less crazed) take on the material.  Maybe I'm just becoming a fuddy duddy in my old age, but the film as a whole was a bit of a disappointment.

Luhrmann does manage to get a decent performance out of Leonardo DiCaprio, but Claire Danes' Juliet felt a bit wooden to me at times (although, if I'm being honest, I'm not sure the character of Juliet is all that interesting of a person to begin with).  Most of the other supporting roles didn't really strike my fancy either this time around.

All that said, I can't deny that this is a different spin on the classic tale, but it's one that I don't need to revisit any time soon.  As I was watching it (and not loving it), I wondered to myself what my take on Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge would be so many years later.  Seeing as how that film has the same visual style of Romeo + Juliet, I can't help but think it will have faded from my initial praises as well.  Might be time to take another look at that one...

The RyMickey Rating:  C

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 - Shutter Island

Shutter Island (2010)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Kingsley, Mark Ruffalo, Emily Mortimer, Michelle Williams, and Patricia Clarkson

Directed by Martin Scorsese

It's the mid 1950s and patient Rachel Solando has disappeared from a psychiatric hospital located on Shutter Island. Two U.S. Marshals are called in to investigate the case. Little do the two marshals know that the island is home to some interesting and perhaps unethical treatments and they may be the hospital's next "experiments."

That summary is pulled directly from my book review of Shutter Island that I posted last year.  The novel was an enjoyable read, but didn't really work as a whole for me.  There were dream sequences that seemed oddly written and characters seemed to simply appear in order to give a clue to the main character, U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (here played by Mr. DiCaprio).

Fortunately, my qualms with the book worked extremely well onscreen thanks, in large part, to some beautiful direction by Martin Scorsese.  Feeling quite old school, Scorsese has crafted big budget "pulp" film.  While those cheaply made film noirs of the 40s and 50s certainly appeared to be made on a miniscule budget (see this as an example), no expense was spared here.  Thanks to some fantastic scenic design by Dante Ferretti, Scorsese proves to be a master behind the camera, crafting some beautiful and ingenious shots that lifted this film way above the average cinematic experience.

While Act Two of the film drags a bit, Act Three proves to be quite engaging...much moreso than the book.  I remember the book feeling like it ended much too quickly, but in the film, I was actually astounded by how Scorsese and screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis allowed the film to play out at a relatively slow pace.  They weren't afraid to explain things, unlike the book which seemed to have a need to bring the tale to an end as quickly as possible.

However, the film isn't perfect.  Leo has an accent that fades in and out which irked me a little bit.  It also seems that Scorsese wanted his actors to "overact" similar to those film noirs of yore, but it seemed a little jarring at times.  My biggest issue -- which would certainly nary be a quibble to most -- is that there were some very poorly edited scenes.  Thelma Schoonmaker is Scorsese's go-to editor, but here there were multiple scenes with inconsistencies.  A raised hand in this shot turns into a lowered hand in the next would be an example.  True, none of these errors affected the story, but they were glaring to me...enough that I'm posting about it here.

Still, overall, this is quite a good film.  A nice homage to cinema of the past.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - Revolutionary Road (2008)

starring Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kathy Bates, Michael Shannon, and Kathryn Hahn
directed by Sam Mendes
screenplay by Justin Haythe

Revolutionary Road is not a happy movie. You're not going to walk out of the theater skipping and whistling. It's intense, it's emotional, it's shocking at times, and it's one of the best movies of 2008.

Set in the mid-50s, DiCaprio and Winslet are married couple Frank and April Wheeler. From the outset, it's obvious that things aren't perfect in their relationship. With Frank languishing in a job he hates and April stuck in the home with their two children, neither is satisfied in their day-to-day life. With the hope of getting them out of their respective ruts, April devises a plan to make a big move with the whole family -- creating a new life and traveling away from their life on Revolutionary Road.

It wouldn't be a movie (or at least as nearly as an intriguing one) if everything went perfectly. And things definitely do not go perfectly.

Elevating the story to a whole new level is the excellent work by DiCaprio and Winslet. Both really deliver pitch-perfect performances. With the help of director (and Winslet's hubby) Mendes, I truly felt transported into the 1950s setting. Corny as that sounds, between the dialogue, the set design, and the costuming, it didn't feel like a movie made in this decade.


Jumping back to Winslet and DiCaprio for a minute, both were just stellar. Despite the fact that his recent films (The Departed, The Aviator) actually showcased his talent, I wasn't expecting much from DiCaprio. But his tone was perfect in this film...not many people can say "swell" and make it sound believable, but DiCaprio eases right into the 1950s setting. As good as DiCaprio is, Winslet is better. Talk about talent, Winslet never seems to disappoint. She was stunningly gorgeous, and can say so much with just her facial expressions.

There is a particular scene towards the end of the movie shared by only Winslet and DiCaprio as they sit at a kitchen table and it was just heartachingly beautiful...and the scenes that follow that one just make it resonate even more.

I also don't want to forget the great supporting turn by Kathryn Hahn as the Wheeler's next door neighbor. While initially providing some much needed comic relief, she makes the most out of what could've been a throwaway role. Kathy Bates and Michael Shannon are also serviceable in their roles, although if I had anything to pick at, Bates seemed a tad over the top, making her role of the elderly, slightly nosy, neighbor a little cliché.

It's a shame this seems to be only getting buzz for Kate Winslet's role (she received a well-deserved Golden Globe for this role), as I truly think it's one of the best films of '08.

The RyMickey Rating: A-