




"We create the world of a dream. We bring a subject into that dream and they fill it with their secrets." Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) explains this key plot point early in the film to newcomer Ariadne (Ellen Page). It's an important description of the dream heists that Inception is based upon, but it's also a good basis for understanding how the film as a whole works, how the director/writer Christopher Nolan put it together, and even on a deeper level, how an audience interacts with a film. While Inception is about as intelligent, entertaining, and imaginative as summer blockbuster's get, its lasting contribution isn't really what someone is going to get out of it, but what someone is willing to put into it. However I think I may be getting ahead of myself here, so let me begin on the surface level.
Perhaps though, this isn't a problem of Nolan's making. As I mentioned in the opening, our characters in the film create a dream world and then allow subjects into the dream that populate the dreams with their secrets. What's onscreen is the film and world that Nolan has created; the themes and emotion of the film reflect the vision and mind (secrets) of Nolan himself. However, in talking with a few people about the film, I found that they had a connection with Cobb's family that I didn't. As I expressed my disappointment in the emotional arch, they were surprised because they felt it worked perfectly. Perhaps, the story is a bit more complex than I've given it credit. Perhaps my disappointment and disconnection reflects less Nolan and more of me?As I began to think along that line of thought, I find it incredibly rich that the central idea of the film (that of building a dream and allowing others to fill it) are essentially what happens when an audience interacts with a film. Each film has all the same elements of a dream world created and sustained by architects (writers), point men (directors), and forgers (actors). Like dreams, movies just begin suddenly and move from scene to scene, and when they bend reality in a way that's unreal we react accordingly. What makes this idea interesting is that the audience then becomes the subject, and we fill these films, stories, and worlds with our secrets and our projections.
** For an interesting read using this line of thought, read below the end of the review. Warning, it contains some spoilers
In this way, Nolan has left several things open to the viewer, and really allows the viewer to fill in accordingly. In this regard, the film is a smashing success and works not only as entertainment, but as a journey of adventure, interaction and catharsis. Without giving away the ending, I will say that it's most not an artistic cop out, but is seated firmly within the ideas and intentions I've mentioned above.
**Continued from above: SPOILERS

This movie is so focused on plot and breathless action that the acting is incidental. Unlike the Oscar-winning “Hurt Locker, these characters haven’t time for a significant emotional arc — they’re too busy running and shooting.
Still, Kinnear is a despicable villain, and Damon is his usual charismatic self. Amy Ryan has a few good moments as a reporter whose sloppy pre-war reporting about WMDs paved the way for the conflict, and Khalid Abdalla (who was born in Scotland) is excellent as a Saddam-hating Iraq army veteran who teams up with Miller, serving as his translator and the film’s conscience.
Bottom line: “Green Zone” is high-octane speculative fiction with a political agenda. You can already hear Rush Limbaugh harrumphing.
Read more at: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/11/1803503/green-zone-laced-with-action-and.htmlStill, let the reader understand when I suggest that Green Zone is a Geisha movie, in the sense that the more you know about Iraq and movies, the less you will enjoy it. I don’t know a lot about Iraq, and even I know too much for this movie."
Read More At: http://decentfilms.com/reviews/greenzone
There is also something else worth reading on his site regarding Green Zone http://decentfilms.com/blog/green-zone-kinnear-lied
Overall Grade: C-
Overall Grade: C-
In what may have been bearable for an hour and a half, entering into Bay's cinematic world for two and a half hours was an exhausting and uncomfortable experience...in the bad way. (Munich by Steven Spielberg is an exhausting and uncomfortable experience in a good way). Rather than entertained and amazed, I felt pounded into submission by a juvenile worldview. For that is exactly how juveniles try and get across their views, with loud and base arguments rather than engagement and discussion.
Everything in this film is seen through the eyes of horny teenage boy in arrested development. All the relationships our main character Sam (Shia Lebouf) has are at an arm's length distance. There is no sense of intimacy, no revelations, no connections. Everyone is an object of use or desire, an obstacle, or just a thing to our characters. Any woman outside of our main character's mom is objectified primarily as a sex symbol. Bathed in golden yellows and filmed with a peeping eye, the portrayal of women here is immature in the least, repulsing at best. Most of these women are found at the college Sam attends and it too gets the Bay treatment. Sam's dorm is co-ed, where all the women look like hot models (his roommate compiles a 'Freshman Top 50') and apparently come out of the bathrooms and walk the halls in just towels. In fact, from the first day at college, one of the women tries to throw herself at Sam, doing anything to get him to have sex.
Getting the adolescent treatment as well is the military. Michael Bay should be the first person the military hires to film their commercials because he films the military in the same way he films women, with an objectified and leering camera. However, Bay gives us shot after shot of military porn without any depth or context whatsoever. The military commanders and soldiers (which the first film at least gives them something to do) are so one note and unexplained in the film, that one could guess they really were written by a teenage boy.
Of course, it isn't all bad to see the world through a teenage boy's eyes. There really is a 'cool' factor to Transformers 2 that other films have a hard time matching. Bay is masterful at incorporating visual effects to the locations and giving us some incredible visuals. Of course, as with any juvenile 'cool', it's empty and hollow and forgotten afterwards. There is scene that plays out for nearly five minutes where a decepticon robot infiltrates a military compound by turning itself into little balls and reassembling itself. Its a 'cool' scene that must have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of an effect houses time. However, it reminded of the virtuoso mechanical spider sequence in Speilberg's Minority Report, where Cruise and a Spider struggle to keep his eyes blindfolded. Integrated into the story and the characters, Spielberg's spiders may not be as complicated and 'cool', but they are memorable and effective.
The other advantages of this worldview are that we are treated to a bunch of action sequences. The action sequences range from good (a forest encounter between Optimus Prime and three Decepticons being the best) to outright boring and frustrating (the entire action finale). Included with this worldview are cartoonish stock characters and an over-reliance on sex and body fluid jokes. Some of them are funny, but we unfortunately have to sit through a parade of them to hear a couple good ones.
Is Transformers 2 a bad movie? It would seem a slam dunk 'yes' from my analysis above, but I am forced to conclude that Transformers 2 is a bad film only because I care nothing for the perspective in which Michael Bay has infused the whole thing. I have to give the film respect for being a big, bold, and unique artistic film. For those who don't mind the universe Bay has created in Transformers 2 (judging by the box office returns and some friend reactions there seem to be plenty), then I can understand how they give the film high ratings. This is not a lazy or slapped together film (even if the cobbled together plot suggests it). Transformers 2 represents the unique labor of an artist who has given birth to a film that fully encompasses his cinematic vision. On that alone, I give it respect that others seem to not pick up on. However, I just don't enjoy wallowing and celebrating in indulgent teenage immaturity. Call me a prude, but if that sounds like your idea of a good time, then this film is for you.

It’s a credit to Fincher that the film always remains engaging, suspenseful, and interesting. The killings themselves are suitably tough to watch as well as unnerving and the manhunt to follow is equally riveting. The technical aspects are as good here as they are in any other film shot for the 70s, especially Harry Savides’ cinematography that perfectly conveys the heavy moral darkness of the film.
While the film works perfectly well as a methodical crime story, we all know in real life that the Zodiac killer was never found. This of course poses some severe problems for anyone trying to make a film because there is no closure. Who was it? Fincher’s creative answer is to not make the goal of the film the capture of the killer, but to make it about the obsession that paralyzed the lives of the men who sought for the killer.
It’s this direction that truly impacted me in watching this film. By the end of the film, Zodiac so wonderfully conveys man’s search for justice and meaning in a world of moral confusion, that is was undeniably relatable. What happens to a man when the quest for justice is never completed? How does one find balance and meaning to a life’s quest that goes unfulfilled? Can a man ever find peace, when such things go unfulfilled?
It’s not an easy answer, but Zodiac attempts to answer this question (which I won’t spoil here), and it’s not only satisfactory, but it’s revelatory. It’s an answer that has grown on me and has taught me patience and peace with the particular obsessions of my life. For that, this is a film I can’t live without.
Other Essentials: All of the outstanding performances, props to any film featuring Brian Cox in a supporting role, the outstanding soundtrack


Overall Grade: C
Overall Grade: B
Overall Grade: C+