On Movie Trilogies and the Caped Crusader...

The rule of three....or more...There has been a long-standing rule in Hollywood among studio bigwigs and producers, directors, etc. that if you can tell a story, why not tell the story over a longer period of time, with extra twists, new characters, and at least three chances for viewers to come sit in the audience and behold what you've put together.
And so was born the Trilogy. Oh sure, some films, especially when you "boldly go where no one has gone before", or drink martinis "shaken, not stirred" or are running away from a masked madman who wields an axe or chainsaw or whatever pointy thing nearby he can grasp, you go beyond trilogy. Let's focus on the rule of three at this point, not as an analysis of profit margins, but more as a critique of why some have historically worked, and others haven't, or have left a lot to be desired with at least one of the three installments. I will not disqualify based on any genre a trilogy may inhabit, so comedies, sci-fi all have the chance to be in the mix.
Sadly though, I can no longer include Indiana Jones, since they made a fourth film, nor Pirates of the Caribbean or The Bourne Trilogy since a fourth was also added to these. They would've ranked HIGH on my list of all time best.

Start with some honorable mentions:

The Man with No Name Trilogy: (Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly) It's Clint Eastwood, so there. The first is an unofficial remake of a Kurosawa film, and Good, Bad, Ugly has been called the best directed film of all time. Sergio Leone also did a boon for soundtracks. The music is iconic, and every Spaghetti Western will always lead you back to that soundtrack.

The Matrix Trilogy: I don't have a lot to say here. The first film stands alone. And should've stayed that way. Aside from the highway chase/fight, and a few one-liners from Agent Smith in the last two, there's no reason it couldn't have stayed a single film.

The Evil Dead Trilogy: Sam Raimi makes things fun. He really does. The first film is considered to be a shining gem in the world of campy horror, playing scary in all the right places and silly when needed. The third film, Army of Darkness is a fun way to conclude, and has some great makeup.

My second installment coming soon. It will start the countdown of all time best trilogies.

TOP TEN (or 12) Horror/Scary movies for this author

A brief break from Aliens franchise to get this list in. There's not much left on the two remaining Alien films anyway.

This list compiles these SPECIFIC selection criteria:

NO attention paid to CRITIC reception or general audience approval

Innovation (specifically, elements of surprise, storytelling, storyboarding, visual or tech effects)

Performance

Editing

Does it scare??? (qualification: was I thinking about any specific component, hours, days later? or did I jump because I was startled at any time?)

Does it stand the test of time? (twenty years later, can/will it still be appreciated for it's place within the previous selection criteria?)

I'm sure others have their own lists and may consider this list a pile of dog crap. I care not. According to MY above criteria, these round out my list. Honorable mentions are Texas Chainsaw, Friday the 13th 1 & 2, The Last House on the Left, The Believers, The Dawn of the Dead, A Clockwork Orange (not a traditional horror film, but certainly a scary proposition of the future)

10. 28 Days Later, Danny Boyle----I highly recommend it, and it's equally nerve-wracking sequel, 28 Weeks Later. Imagine zombies existed simply because we have been overexposed to the wretchedness and terrible things of humanity?! Then make it contagious (which in a sense, it is) then make it pursue you and eat you up (which it does), then make it challenge your sense of right and wrong (which it definitely does). Add the first zombies to really be very aware---and RUNNING---as well as the always watchable Cillian Murphy and you've got a winner.

9. The Shining, Stanley Kubrick----All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy....some of the cutaway shots to what Danny or Jack Nicholson's character see are pretty intense. Add telltale Kubrick camera pans, pacing, and Nicholson's masterful descent into madness and it's my number 9, easily.

8. THREE WAY TIE---Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock; The Exorcist, William Friedkin; Poltergeist, Tobe Hooper----cannot distinguish one over the other . They tie at number eight, respectively because Psycho wasn't scary, more creepy---thanks to Anthony Perkins, but soooo ahead of it's time in so many ways; Exorcist (nominated all over the place for Oscars that year including best picture) is just plain difficult to watch, especially as a believer in God and Jesus---but again ahead of the time; the camera work and tricks are as real as 21st century technology could offer and Ellen Burstyn is fantastic, and Poltergeist takes a similar formula as The Exorcist and puts a sweet little girl in danger from the "other side". A jab at TV/entertainment/media must be recognized, and Hooper (who also did Chainsaw Massacre and Salem's Lot) uses every punctuation of Spielberg's writing credits. Hooper/Spielberg's elements with the thunderstorm and all the leads make this one that shouldn't be missed.

7. A Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven---The swallowing bed scene still gives me chills. Plus, there's Johnny Depp (though not for long), and Craven uses the idea of scary at a psychological level as well as physiological level. No one wants to go to sleep anymore--laying down in bed, asleep is when we are most vulnerable; Freddy comes out of nowhere, and you never know if you're awake, or about to be dead.

6. Scream, Wes Craven----a tongue in cheek jab at his own genre, Craven knocks this one out of the park. He details "the rules" of a horror film and lovingly creates a fabulous story around and bound to them. Drew Barrymore in the opening scene is fantastic. It's funny, freaky, and it's a true surprise to discover the killer.

5. Halloween, John Carpenter----The original, tackling the theme of A.) the scariest night of the year and B.) evil encapsulated in a single being, was given an enormous boost by performances of Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance (his character is named Loomis in homage to Psycho) Add the element of "where is he going to appear now?" and THE BEST and most recognized theme music (non-empirical data-driven statement) from the genre, make Michael Myers a force to be reckoned with.

4. Alien, Ridley Scott--see previous blog posts concerning this film. Scott is a master at the touchy-feely moments of Sigourney Weaver's character, and creating a dread and impending doom of her unearthly opponent.

3. The Thing, John Carpenter----hands down, my favorite on this list. being trapped in Antarctica with a symbiote? And Kurt Russell?!!! The only reason it isn't higher than number three is because some of the effects are outdated, and may have even been outdated back when I first saw it in '85.

2. Aliens, James Cameron---again, see previous blog post. Cameron scores big time, capitalizing on the excellent work laid before him by Ridley Scott's masterpiece, and ups the ante with more gore, more visual elements to make it a flawed, but high-ranking horror masterpiece.

AND MY NUMBER ONE GOES TO.....

1. The Sixth Sense, M. Knight Shyamalan----I will take crap for this selection, but please know I am prepared to defend this choice to the death. There is only ONE ghost story that may be considered superior, and that's Dickens' Christmas Carol. M. Knight Shamalan's debut was an overnight sensation for all of the reasons noted in my criteria. Innovation in story and design, impeccable acting, (Bruce Willis may actually be the "weakest" link, but only in the closing moments of the film) Haley Joel Osment and Toni Collette (both nominated for Oscars here) are a son and mommy you absolutely fall in love with.

It's the last movie I "jumped" when seeing---when Cole Seer is going to the bathroom and "something" passes by him, my whole body convulsed, and my oh my, the ending. No matter at what point you discern what is happening, this labor of love must be given credit for it's originality and precision regarding it's own, new, set of rules to establish such fine storytelling. I kid you not, that I get chills both from the creepiness and the emotional interactions every time I watch it (Donnie Wahlberg's 150 seconds on screen are BONE CHILLING, Haley and Toni, Haley and Bruce when Bruce says he can't help him, Haley telling Bruce what he sees, Haley talking to ghosts, Haley trapped in the servant's quarter door) and I've seen the film at least 20 times. Bravo, to you, M. Night.

Nominated also for Best Picture, Direction, Editing, and Screenplay this film is so good it allows forgiveness of all Shyamalan's other cinematic indiscretions that have followed, though I still enjoy Unbreakable, The Village, and Lady in the Water. He has made my favorite scary movie of all time, and in ten or twenty years when my kids see it, I'm confident it will still have the same effect. On them, and me.

YOU CAN NEVER HAVE JUST ONE, (OR) WHY ALIENS MAY BE THE BEST HORROR FILM OF ALL TIME

It's a lofty statement, it really is. To first even suggest that a horror film can be good by any standard other than makeup and effects is difficult to utter other than in jest. Only a few in my viewing life (perhaps 10 I can think of off the top of my head) have accomplished this-Alien being one of them.

But then to suggest a sequel is-BETTER than the film of origin?! I'm surprised the film sacrilege police haven't busted down my door.

But if anyone can do it, I suppose it's that darn James Cameron. After all, many believe his second effort in the Terminator franchise eclipsed the first. I guess you (you being me) have to weigh out all the pro's and con's.

James Cameron cannot (again all in my opinion, informed as it is, by several thousand movies) and I mean CANNOT write to save his life. One of the glaring shortcomings of every film I've ever seen by him is a stereotypical ancillary character that just distracts and detracts from the overall presentation. Cases in point: Titanic--Billy Zane's Cal was so melodramatic both in performance and script and the magnanimity of Victor Gerber's character, heck even of the two main protagonists is so sickeningly sweet, I nearly got a toothache. Then there's The Abyss-another solid, solid and stunning-effects driven film ahead of it's time, downgraded from an A+ to B+, A- because of the hillbilly character "Catfish", and others, though at least the two leads were able to act the pants off an otherwise silly exchange of dialogues. Don't even get me started on Avatar. It is so self-righteous, (and the extended version of the Abyss straddles that line also) that it's suffocating on it's own self-importance. Thankfully, again, the visual element leaves one breathless anyway. And if you really want to have some fun at Avatar and Cameron's expense, watch Aliens and Avatar back to back and keep a log of how much he ripped off his own story.

So, back we circle to Aliens. Bill Paxton's character of Hudson is so distracting that I nearly have to mute the film whenever he gets panicked. (SIDE NOTE: Bill Paxton's directorial debut is a thriller/supernatural horror gem of a film called Frailty. I would include it in the short list of "good" horror films) Thus, one might say of James Cameron, "Joel, if he's that bad of a writer, how can he get all this attention, critical acclaim, and have Aliens be considered one of the best horror flicks of all time?"

I'll tell you simply in my opinion. He can direct the crap out of a film, and is one of the best innovators/new idea makers and video technology advancers that I can recall. His fault is in his writing, not his vision or direction. It's like that magic bullet blender. Sure it looks like the thing can be launched into space, but there's no getting around the fact that you just paid five times the price for a smaller, slightly faster, blender. There's always a trade-off. The trade-off between Ridley Scott's first installment of Alien to Cameron's Aliens sequel? Cameron's dialogue is clunky, and expects everyone to believe that all Marines are dumb jarheads that just wanna blow stuff up, while all corporate managers are slimy and as evil as the aliens the Marines encounter.

But he took the elements of suspense that are now naturally present with multiple aliens and keeps the audience perched on the edge of their seats with precise advancement and initiation of screen time and off screen elements regarding the otherworldly antagonists. His treatment of effects-driven work gives it a stunning upgrade to the franchise. The attention to visual details and continuity as well as set design as impeccable. Everything looks more industrial, more slimy, more gritty, just....more.

Ridley Scott's pace in the 1979 film is deliberate also, but lulls too much because we're learning about each character and ultimately kind of liking each of them for what and who they are. He establishes Ripley's importance, and the integrity of her never waivers. She will always do what is best, what is right. Cameron's characters you don't have a lot invested in, except Ripley, who as I just noted, was already established. His supporting cast is more flippant and ultimately kind of silly. This is not, however, a total loss-because it gives Weaver a chance to shine once again. She was even nominated for an Oscar in the role-forever giving a new credence to the genre as a whole. Pay attention that early scenes with her are an anecdote for a woman's struggles in a man's world. See also Bishop (Lance Henriksen) the android: he is historically noted as one AI that follows Issac Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics. So here's that lack of character development/poor writing vs. great directing tradeoff again. Since you care so little about some of the Aliens characters, and in fact dislike them strongly, you actually look forward to their demise, creatively and lovingly crafted by a visionary who has capitalized on our fear of the unknown and ALSO our fascination with that fear. The problem being that the end is somewhat telegraphed in regarding the two most attention-holding characters, Ripley and Bishop. I won't mention much about Newt at this point; on any given particular viewing, I vacillate on her character's effectiveness. She's there to point out a kink in Ripley's armor; the rest is a near total suspension of disbelief.

Still, since you get what you pay for--(i.e. every horror movie I've ever seen there's always a character you love to hate, either because they're pesky, whiny, incompetent or evil) one will tolerate this lack of character depth, and appreciate that Cameron has played by the rules. The hero must be willing to give all. The hero possesses an innocence that is either challenged or tainted. The hero has a character flaw that nearly causes them to fail; they ultimately overcome it. The hero is one of the only survivors, and gets to go home. Straight out of The Odyssey and the Bible.

But don't expect Ripley to be resurrected in white robes. Her journey is far from over, sadly. This is the point where going out on a high note would have been wise, call it a day. When the scene faded to black, the first time I saw it, I was nearly panting. Scott's Alien equals the ride that drops you straight down ten stories in two seconds and bounces you up and down once or twice. Cameron's Aliens is like a roller coaster ride that you love every second of except for the weird soundtrack.

The last two films to conclude this thread soon.

Monster Movie Month-Alien Invasion Part 1

If you are not familiar with 21st century television, and pop culture in general, (and believe me, I'm not an expert by any means)--then you may have missed the memo that the month of October now sees a large portion of all 31 days dedicated to an obsessive phenomemon with ghouls, ghosts, monsters, tricks and treats. People plan their costumes months in advance for the 31st and adorn their yards as opulently as many do for Christmastime. And on TV? SyFy runs month-long monster mayhem (at least one horror movie a day for the entire month); AMC does two+ weeks of Frightfest, a similar format, but incrementally increasing the feature fright films as All Hallow's Eve approaches.

Since I'm not sure where to begin concerning a discussion or review of horror movies--it seems best to consider these two provisions and present what it is I've watched so far this season.

I will try to tackle the Alien franchise. TRY. The reason I emphasize this--is because it could go in a variety of directions; such as franchises in general, the rare occasion when a sequel surpasses the initial film in the series, the argument of "quitting while you are ahead" and if necessary "quitting while you are behind" (AKA Let sleeping dogs lie), debate of sci-fi thriller vs. horror film, traditional horror film formula (does it follow the rules? See Scream for a perfect, albeit tongue-in-cheek explanation), or blazing a new path, and certainly the career launching for directors and performers alike. Possibilities abound.

As noted in an earlier blog post, I will stick to what I saw/see and what I thought/think about it.

Therefore, plan on moments of brevity, levity, long-windedness, existentialism, and just about all the "space" in between.

Speaking of space--it has long been the "final frontier" of imagination. And long has mankind been obsessed with it. Galileo, Copernicus, all the way to modern day reference of the space race, Spock, Stephen Hawking and Arthur C. Clarke, Close Encounters, and of course, all of the things that happened A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...

In 1979, young director Ridley Scott was seeing the disappointing reception of his first feature film, The Duellists, and the critical and widespread acceptance of Star Wars--a big budget, Oscar-garnering space epic-and sniffed out the possibilities. The end result is his groundbreaking cinematic feature, Alien--a vehicle that jump-started Sigourney Weaver's career and must have made 90% of the world second-guess every stomach cramp anyone would ever have from that point on.

While in hypersleep, a crew of seven aboard the commerical space freighter Nostromo, is awakened by a signal from a nearby planet, which appears to be an SOS. The reality by Weaver's character Ellen Ripley that it was not an SOS, but a warning to stay away, comes just a little too late. By now, the crew is discovering strange pod-like installations, bizarre, biomechanic instruments, and of course, "the face-sucker", "the chest-buster" and "acid blood". Awesome.

If you haven't seen Alien yet, but are planning to, please consider that although some of the effects, make-up, and cinematic wizardry pale in comparison to what studios are now capable of, this film, catapulted what George Lucas had initialized in Star Wars and took it to a whole new, creepy, gory, otherworldly level. No one was making movies quite like this. Horror films, splatter flicks, yeah had their gag-inducing bloodshed scenes, but you got what you paid for. The combination of well-thought out dramatic plot and characterization, with sci-fi setting,

creepy thrills, and gross-out villains just wasn't being done. Anywhere. Not in 1979. And I have to, have to, give more than a nod to Scott for this achievement. He was developing his wheelhouse with this movie and he knocked it out of the park, in my opinion. Oscar was kind, too. It won for Best Visual Effects (H.R. Giger spearheading the design of the creepy creatures) and was nominated for all Art Direction, also taking a slew of other awards, such as the Saturn and Hugos.

If you watch it with fresh eyes--either on a return viewing or truly for the first time, consider these notes, if you would, because the movie laid a groundwork for storytelling across multiple films and developing a heroine like had not been attempted before. Bravo, says I.

It's a film I watch every year, the same as so many of us watch It's a Wonderful Life or A Christmas Story, A Christmas Carol, etc every December. I suppose that's sufficient for now.

Aliens (the sequel) post to follow soon.

Moving Pictures

I really don't know how to ever begin these things-mostly because I think it's absurdly narcissistic and presumptous to believe anyone wants me to just spout out bits of information so assimiliation by anyone else; though I suppose that facebook (which I am fairly active on) isn't really all that different-so I guess I should approach it similarly.

My status update is this: I have seen a lot of movies in my time--in excess of 20,000 at last atttempted tally), and in an effort to not consider those hours a total loss, I'd like to shift the purpose of this blog to one that discusses what I've seen in those hours, not just random stuff that happens to me that I find interesting that I'm hopeful someone else will (click) "like".

Let me clarify. Some of this will be a synopsis of film, some a review, some an analysis. None of it is emperical. All of it is anecdotal. None of it is done with the intent to sway any given reader to certain viewpoint. All of it is to inform other viewpoints from the viewpoint of my own. I will account for only what I have seen, and how I reacted to it, thought of it. This is not to impel others to see movies that I discuss here. I simply am a movie junkie. No two ways about it. I love the creativity of it, the escapism of it, reality of it, historical accuracies, discrepancies, the performances, the artisanship--and I've seen movies that have truly changed my life positively, and others that have changed me because of a deep resentment for having spent the time and money to see them.

It really won't bother me if no one reads this. It won't bother me if someone thinks I'm a lunatic for doing this or because of my opinion on a given film. I won't be distraught if everyone ignores the link to this, or comments negatively and it will not bother me if "everyone" is like, four people.

I am doing this because I can recall what I've seen, and what it meant to me. If another player on this stage can benefit from my work, then on with the show. I will probably do an official kickoff blog-likely to do with horror movies, since they're a favorite, and since it's the month for such things to be more available, so stay tuned today, I guess. Or don't. I really don't care either way. Just happy to put my ideas, even of matters so trivial, somewhere other than the backburner.

True Grit (2010)

Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen

Run time: 1hr 50min.

"The wicked flee when none pursueth." Proverbs 28:1

In the battle of The Duke versus The Dude...as much as it may be sacrilege to even whisper...this envisioning of True Grit dominates even the memorable John Wayne's Oscar-winning turn by a longshot. The Coen Brothers simply cannot make a sub-standard film. They are THE directors of our time, and though True Grit had a path already paved for it, their work here draws just as much from the 1968 Charles Portis novel to give it its own identity rather than re-hash what was accomplished cinematically in 1969.

There is a sense of apologetics to it; making it known that many faithful followers of The Duke will be put off by the intrusion on a classic, yet simultaneously it forges ahead in its own fashion. Oddly enough, this is probably their least intrusive film I have seen other than Intolerable Cruelty or O Brother, as far as pervading a viewer's psyche and making an audience uncomfortable. It certainly has its squirm-worthy moments, but it is utterly accessible and it has several chuckles along the way. It is reminiscent of Clooney's protagonist Ulysses and John Wayne's take on Rooster Cogburn's awkward interactions with the little girl he reluctantly allows to accompany him on his mission of vengeance. I say this knowing that it is ultimately unfair to compare the Duke and the Dude...and also equally unavoidable. Might as well embrace it. On to the film at hand.

We open with our introduction through voiceover to a grown Mattie Ross after the turn of the century. She recalls the events that transpired concerning her father's brutal murder, by the cravenly Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). She was only 14 then, and soon we meet her at this age, played adeptly by Hailee Steinfeld. We encounter her tending to the final arrangements of her father's burial; but she looks to enlist the aide of a lawman who will help her exact justice for the wrong done to her and her family. The only reasonable choice of course is Jeff Bridges' incarnation of the cantankerous Marshall, Rooster Cogburn.

She is the film's moral center in a world where the good guys are good and the bad are bad; and then there are good guys who are bad at being good and good at being bad. In a place and time when America was still carving out its identity, much of American society's makeup was created in this harsh, but manner-driven old west, and the Coens lovingly embrace this conundrum. As the original is often regarded as a character study, one could also argue this breaches the same material across the hull-and makes each character toe their respective lines, none more so than Mattie. She has moxie, but a sense of justice. She is naive to believe the rest of the world is bound by her own code that she is ingrained with, but intelligent and experienced enough to endure the brutality and stern journey that awaits her.

In an early scene where Mattie first meets Texas Ranger LaBoeuf, (played by Matt Damon being, well, brilliant again---he's hit a home run in every role since The Bournes) his quirky sense of grandeur for his trade and title leave him floundering when vexed with this sassy, smart 14 year old. It's a nice balance, and again, helps set the tone for the players. Her time spent in town interacting with a wide variety of folks, including Marshall Rooster Cogburn made me smile. She hires Cogburn, being told that he is a man of "true grit"---so that he can capture Tom Chaney and hang him for his crime. LaBoeuf has made a career out of chasing Chaney; he wants him for murdering a Senator in Texas. Mattie will not stand for this and aims to see the job done right by accompanying Rooster on the hunt. Of course both men recognize the danger in this and unbeknownst to her they set out into Indian Territory where Chaney has fled. She tracks them down and in the river crossing scene--I couldn't help but think that Rooster's mentality was---"if she makes it across alive...fine. If not, it's going to ruin my best suit getting wet to save her." A recalcitrant trial by fire of sorts. It is fun to witness him hedge about it.

This is where...and I'm prepping you for it, lest you need to cover your ears (or in this case, eyes) that Bridges far surpasses John Wayne's take on Cogburn. It is in his quiet moments, when no lines are uttered...that Bridges masterfully espouses the weary, hardened, yet likable soul of old Cogburn. Each facial expression tells a story, longer than the one you are in the theatre to witness. His gaze pierces you. Let it. That's what it is there for.

You hear some high-pitched gurgling that you may give pause to and recall the bumbling Dude of Life from The Big Lebowski; (he even uses the word "abide" as the Dude does-subtle-but I think certainly intentional) and be on the lookout for a nod to The Duke--Bridges' gait as he stammers about from dismounting a horse or navigating the daylight in sobreity round the courthouse is a tribute to the old cowboy. And best of all, it does NOT detract from the storytelling, or his interpretation of the Marshall. You see it; you smile; you move on. Bravo, Jeff.

The most prevalent character to me, is the landscape. The Brother's treatment of arid life in the time of tumbleweeds and spurs becomes such a visceral presence that it drives the film; I am reminded again of O Brother, Where Art Thou and even somewhat of No Country For Old Men. With these three films Joel and Ethan are single(?)handedly reinvigorating Americana and the classic Western. I hold a large breath of trepidation and anticipation to see who else follows Western suit and with what material, for none can handle it as masterfully as these two have proven to do.

As the journey progresses, so do the risks, the dangers and the cold reality that have become as natural as the air that Cogburn breathes. Not so for his impressionable female companion. In slight disgust and wonderment does she witness some of the more viscous work that the Marshall's reputation has staked. She also becomes the self-appointed mediator between Cogburn and LaBouef who bicker like an old married couple, that ultimately still kind of like each other. The fear and debate is that the trail has gone cold, led them astray and Tom Chaney will have eluded them; seeking solace in the refuge of "Lucky" Ned Pepper's (Barry Pepper) Gang.

Talk about gritty. Barry Pepper is on-screen for about 5 minutes total and will make the hairs on your arm stand up. As the climax builds, we are steered away from the threat of Tom Chaney who briefly seems dangerous only in his ignorance, and laughable in his abundant ineptitude. It is Lucky Ned who presents a calculated danger. He has history with Cogburn, an ugly one and he won't be going quietly. But look out. Most dangerous is a foolish man who thinks he has nothing to lose. It is in the final act that we see at last, no longer the glimpse of Cogburn's grit and merit...but now the prevalent quality of determination to see justice done and safety granted to Mattie. This did cast my memory back to the 1969 version; Joel and Ethan's camerawork on the starry night horse ride is a last homage to what has transpired before. It is here in this scene, after all she has witnessed, endured, been subject to, that this resilient young woman is a girl once more--frail, vulnerable and crying sorrowful tears. This is her passage into womanhood; her loss of childlike innocence.

There is one glaring difference sadly, between the original film and this. Ironically, John Wayne won his only Oscar for his portrayal of Rooster Cogburn, though many contend he was far superior in several other roles, such as The Quiet Man...some even believe as this role neared the end of his life and career, he was given the Oscar almost as a lifetime achievement in cinema instead of for his take on the crotchity Marshall. And so, even though as good as Coen's version is, superior to the original; as pensive and clumsy and yes, "Gritty" as Bridges makes his Cogburn out to be, little of it (save the cinematography, possibly the adapted writing and direction) will probably be in Oscar contention. If the field for Best Picture stays widened to 10, it will get nominated. Matt Damon as Texas Ranger LeBouef may also get a nod, but will ultimately get overlooked; Brolin and Pepper aren't featured long enough; Steinfeld might garner some due attention; and if the Academy can forgive Bridges his temerity to reinvent an immortalized character...made immortal by a legend himself...then maybe, just maybe, he will be considered for a second year in a row.

I say all of that to say this. This is how I know that the Coens are the most exceptional directors I've seen. They had the opportunity to make a movie---to pay tribute to a classic---which they did. They made it endearingly, carefully, artfully...and deserve a lot of praise and recognition for it, but in the end probably won't get it because it will be forever measured against the orginal. And they went ahead and made it anyway. That, my fellow viewers, takes true grit.

How good is Inception?

I am skipping over some much needed blog time that was supposed to be dedicated to a wrap up of the awesome Disney trip we took to do a movie review.

Inception. Directed by Christopher Nolan

Let me start by saying it is not a perfect movie, neither in story nor in craftsmanship. With that out of the way, it is as close to both that I have seen in several years. It is a complete, comprehensive movie that can satisfy an array of tastes and one can affectionately disregard any mistakes or inconsistencies that may occur. What I mean to say is this: When you are dealing with the subject of dreams or of time travel, but keeping all else relatively "normal" or realistic, you tread dangerous ground. Yet Director Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Dark Knight) spent nearly a decade putting all the pieces, or layers, if you will, together to make one heck of summer movie. It has a little bit of everything. Intense action; drama, love, humor, and an engaging story.

Any movie that has people talking about it days after the initial viewing is something to take note of. And please understand; there's no gimmick here. People aren't talking it up because of a one-dimensional intrigue such as The Blair Witch Project, which is about as close to the Emperor's New Clothes as one could get. People are talking up the depth of detail, the intensity, the subject matter, the action, and several of the performances which all coalesce with just enough grit and grace to keep viewers wanting more, thinking more.The movie asks you initially to accept that you are now in a world where technology exists advanced enough that dreams can be hijacked and manipulated by those other than the dreamer. Dom Cobb (played with appropriate caution by a coolesque Leonardo DiCaprio) is an expert in this field, and is looking to steal subconscious secrets from top corporate heads. He's been contracted by their competitors to do so and we soon learn he is trying to find the right amount of money or the right client that holds the power and sway to overturn an unjust charge of matrimonial homicide that has him defected from America, away from his two children. His wife (the lovely Marion Cotillard) begins to appear in multiple dream sequences of his own, as well as the targets he's hijacking-becoming increasingly troublesome for the rest of Cobb's team.

As with dreams, there is more to the story than what we first see. Cobb believes there is a way to supplant an idea within someone's dreaming subconscious so deep that the dreamer believes it was their own idea. This notion proves to be very risky; if it's not deep enough, the subject realizes it's someone else's idea and their subconscious begins to attack the invading dreammakers. If it is planted too deep, the hijackers risk being lost in a permanent state of dreaming; called limbo. Therefore, they must enact dreams within dreams, which become very intricate—plan on asking yourself lots of questions throughout and afterward. Every new twist and turn has a new rule. It’s a weird, wild ride, surreal and astutely so. Give credit to all involved to making a dream come to life, as well as life come into a dream. Look for the "kick". A way to awaken people from dreams, by setting their sleeping bodies off balance, such as falling over out of a chair. This plays a critical role in the timing of when everyone awakens from each dream, which, as we know in real life, only last a few moments, but feel like hours.

Cobb tells his team to carry totems; a small object that can only be distinguished by them. The totem might be a loaded die-that only the holder of it knows which way it will always fall. That way, if they see the die in a dream and it falls the way they designed it to be loaded, they can rest assured they are in their own dream since no one else would have knowledge of the item. I cannot disclose more than this without potentially sacrificing or spoiling the suspense of the film. Simply know that Cobb has his own agenda in all of this, and his initial meeting with an old client (Ken Wantanabe) sets what the both the viewer and the dreamer perceive to be reality into tailspins; it's the most fun I've had at the movies since the Dark Knight. Small wonder it came to us from the same imagination.

Joseph Gordon Levitt, (originally of TV's Third Rock From the Sun) is an absolute treat here. His performance in the underrated "The Lookout" left me wanting more of him on screen, thankful he'd shed his TV moniker as an alien trapped in a teenaged boy's body. He plays Arthur, Cobb's technical assistant as a dry, stuffy, lump, and performs in a zero-gravity fight scene that the Matrix creators are probably gushing about. Incidentally, Levitt did all the stunt-work for that scene himself; a testimony to his dedication to the role. Another fine actor featured is Tom Hardy (Rocknrolla, soon to be released Mad Max remake). Eames (Hardy) is known for being a master of disguise within each target's dream. He mimics and hides himself in people's subconscious, taking on the characteristics of familiar faces and personalities to make the dreams more real, and less suspicious to the dreamer.

Honestly, Ellen Page (Juno) is the weak link among the cast which is surprising, given her phenomenal Oscar nominated turn in Juno. Her character, Ariadne is called upon by Cobb, to be an architect inside these hijacked dreams; to duplicate places, scenery from the dreamer's past to lend to the illusion. For whatever reason, Page cannot deliver the urgency her character needs; it's not a bad performance by any means. It's simply noticeable as less then stellar when compared to the treatment of all of the other characters, devices, action and story. I am willing to forego it and forgive it because there's enough going on to keep the viewer engaged, though she did slow the pace of the film-and I think her character was intended to do so as a voice of reason for Cobb. Sadly, it doesn't translate fully-and I simply wanted to just get on to the next scene.

For all of its opulence in the visual effects department, one realizes these are merely a byproduct of a wonderfully told story-but a necessary byproduct. Inception doesn't get past the first 30 minutes without the stunning visuals; the stunning visuals aren't in the first 30 minutes without a well thought out story. Credit can be given to Nolan for building a strong team around himself. The cinematography is breathtaking. Tom Berenger, the stunning Cillian Murphy, and Michael Caine are also featured. Again, it is not a perfect movie. It's just one that everybody will be talking about, that thousands of people will view multiple times, and one for which multiple Oscar nominations are imminent. That's about as close to perfection as one can ask.