Warning: There may be spoilers!
The moment I knew that it was all just a big fantasy was when I realised that a bunch of guys could earn tons of money just by sleeping all day long.
Perhaps only director-writer Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) could make such a snooze-worthy premise become a hugely entertaining movie. Inception is a sci-fi thriller about a bunch of people who possess the technology to infiltrate a person's mind when he or she is fast asleep and dreaming. At first glance, you wanted to pity the inventor of such a device because what practical use could anyone have with it except to check out another person's weird, wet and wild dreams? Apparently, these "extractors", led by expert extractor Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio, The Departed) found a lucrative use for such a device, that is of "stealing" ideas or secrets through a person's dream; for example, industrial secrets from a rival corporate head. Sort of like mind-reading, but more visceral. Japanese businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe, Batman Begins) requires such talents, but a simple mind heist just would not do for this entrepreneur. Instead, Saito wants Cobb to do an "inception", a rarely successful process of implanting an idea into somebody's grey cells. The target is his business competitor's son, Robert Fischer, Jr. (Cillian Murphy, Batman Begins), the newly appointed successor to his father's throne. Naturally, things never, ever go as expected, especially when Cobb's personal nightmares start to literally appear to sabotage his plans.
Inception shares some similarities to movies like A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Cell, and Dreamscape, where a certain individual or individuals are given the ability to invade a person's mind and occupy it like it's another world or dimension, scientifically or supernaturally. Nolan's take is a little more "grounded", so to speak, as his dreamworlds are a little more realistic and bounded by the laws of physics (for most of the time at the least). The excuse is that the Extractors are like conmen who must trick their target into believing that he is still in the real world in order to achieve their objective, so they must "build" a dreamworld that resembles reality, at least for their target. Thus, people in the Inception dreamworld still has to get into fisticuffs and gunfights and leap away from explosions, although that last one may just be more at home in that kind of place. Some people were disappointed because Nolan did not go all out and make his heroes drop entire buildings onto bad guys by just willing it with their minds. It would be fun if Cobb and co. could actually will people into bunnies or toasters. I think Nolan was not trying to portray dreams authentically, but to establish a new mythology based on dreams, with its own set of rules and conditions. For example, the concept of "projections", deaths within dreams, dreams within dreams, and the passage of time in the dreamworld.
Despite all the thinking exercises, Inception plays just like a heist thriller not unlike Ocean's Eleven or The Italian Job. The heist bit brings a lot of action and excitement, while the subplot of Cobb's troubling secret keeps the tension up, emotions high, and the mystery intriguing. The movie is also well-supported by a crew of revered acting talents that include Academy Award nominees Watanabe, DiCaprio, Pete Postlethwaite (Clash of the Titans), Tom Berenger (Training Day) and Ellen Page (Juno), winner Marion Cotillard (Public Enemies), Murphy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt ((500) Days of Summer) and future Mad Max, Tom Hardy (Bronson, Star Trek: Nemesis).
Highly recommended.
P.S. Seems like a lot of people were pretty vocal about how they disliked certain things, e.g. the ambiguous ending, the lack of fantastical sceneries a la The Cell, or how it could have been more "brilliant" even after they proclaimed it as just that only a few sentences earlier. Frankly, with something as rarely clever and as entertaining as Inception, any complaint would seem like severe and uncalled-for nitpicking. But since everyone's doing it, I would like to join in the fun and submit one of my own pick of the nit. Well, one thing that still annoys me now is the question of how an Extractor could actually "steal" ideas or secret from inside someone's dream. Let's say, if you want to steal a new car design from the mind of an engineer. After finding the "safe" in the engineer's mind, and taking the "secret", usually represented by a document folder in this movie, what next? It's not like when you wake up, the document would magically materialise in your hand, right? If not, does that mean that you would have to memorise the document somehow? That may be difficult if the secret you're stealing is a bunch of engineering schematics and you have close to zero understanding about automobile engineering. In the opening sequence, Cobb stole Saito's "secret" represented by a bunch of papers with the word "CONFIDENTIAL" stamped across every page, and he was actually reading it while on the run from Saito's "projections". Was he looking for something specific, or memorising the entire stack? I'm not sure if they were double-sided, but there are at least ten minute's worth of reading material there judging from the density of text even on one side of each sheet (and that's not even counting the time you may need to memorise it!), and Cobb went through it in a second. Maybe the documents are "saved" in Cobb's subconscious, where it can only be "read" again by entering Cobb's dreams, presumably by whomever that hired him to steal the docs in the first place. I doubt anyone would pay loads of cash to an Extractor just to hear them say that, "Yup, your competitor's definitely going with the red one."
BRIEF MOVIE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CASUAL MOVIEGOERS
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Review: Where The Wild Things Are

Where The Wild Things Are is a children's fantasy based on the very illustrated 1963 book of the same name by Maurice Sendak. It is set in the comtemporary world, following the adventures of a young and angry boy named Max (the actor is also called Max, Max Records) who disappears into the world of the Wild Things after running away from a fight he had with his struggling single mom, played by Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich). The Wild Things are enormous bear-like talking creatures with huge heads and an appetite for kids like Max. The boy smartly pretends to be a king from a distant land to avoid becoming Wild Food, and organises some activities to keep the pack together. The wildest of the bunch, Carol (James Gandolfini) was at first ecstatic about having a new little ruler, but soon starts to grow frustratingly suspicious about Max's dubious royal roots.This movie comes highly recommended from certain critics, and was even worthy enough to enter a few 2009 top tens. It is also one of the more disappointing fares of the year for me, especially after believing all the endorsements from noted online critics. Although very competently made under the direction of Spike Jonze, who churned out the one-of-a-kind Being John Malkovich, the movie's main problem for me is that it's a bore. There is a character arc for Max, but its lacking genuine drama and feels like its going through the motions of a typical morality kid's tale. The oft-kilter vibe of the Wild Things doesn't help either. There were attempts to make the creatures lovable, but they still felt inappropriately creepy and unnerving. Even Carol spoke in an Italian-American accent (by no other than goodfella Mr. Tony Soprano himself), which took me out of the movie every time he spoke. I don't know why, but using a British accent in fantasies, science fiction, and historical epics is always effective in helping the audience to suspend their sense of disbelief, even add some credibility to preposterous scenes or expositions.
This movie reminded me of another critically acclaimed kid's movie that also turned into a Big Movie Snooze-fest: The Dark Crystal.
If you enjoyed the movie, then good for you, and do write to me about it, because I genuinely want to like the movie and perhaps the answer will come to light in your comments about it. I didn't enjoy it, found it boring, and at this point in time can't possibly, wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone else.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Check this out! - Inception
Even if it's Christopher Nolan ripping off The Matrix, I still want to watch this piece of plagiarism.
Review: The Book of Eli
What happens when you combine Blade with I Am Legend? You get another science fiction actioner for another prominent African-American actor, Mr. Denzel Washington. The million-dollar question is, is it any good? For a sci-fi actioner based on no existing franchise, The Book of Eli exceeds general expectations.Set in a futuristic post-apocalyptic world (Which movie world nowadays isn't?), the movie follows seasoned survivalist Eli on his spiritual quest to deliver a mysterious book to an undisclosed location and person. Seems that an implied recent nuclear holocaust has reduced the world into a barren, brutal wasteland. The survivors no longer have the luxury of civility and humanity when even the basic necessities of life are scarce. As dictated by the requirements of the genre, Eli is of course gifted in the murder arts, which conveniently explains his longevity in such a ruthless environment. On the way, he meets Carnegie (Gary Oldman in his trademarked villain mode) who runs a water-rich town like a don and coincidentally has a strong interest in Eli's delivery package. Bloody carnage ensues. The movie is backed by a star-studded cast that includes Punisher No.3 Ray Stevenson, Dumbledore 2.0 Michael Gambon, the Flashdancing Jennifer Beals, That Seventies Showing Mila Kunis and A Clockwork Orangy Malcolm McDowell.
The movie is pretty realistic in depicting a post-apocalyptic world, so people who like realism or some intelligence in their action diet would have little to complain here. I'm only not convinced by Kunis' virginal character, although there's a passable logic behind it. The action sequences obviously does not pass the realism test, but what's a junk food without a little MSG? Give Eli an arsenal from any era and he'll dispatch a roomful of stock henchmen with unexplained superhuman efficiency.
The movie touches on the controversial topic of religion and actually has something interesting to say. There is also a Shyamalan-worthy end twist that gives you the urge to rewatch the movie, as you may have already heard from other movie critics. This is a solid sci-fi actioner that is definitely worth your time.
Format: DVD, 2.40:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
Source: Rental (Arts Brother, Jurong Point 1 Level 3)
Experience: Home, 47-inch LCD with home theatre surround system
Cost: SGD $4
Format: DVD, 2.40:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
Source: Rental (Arts Brother, Jurong Point 1 Level 3)
Experience: Home, 47-inch LCD with home theatre surround system
Cost: SGD $4
The cardboard slipcase is unnecessarily extravagant as it repeats the artwork on the DVD case and serve no other purpose except to protect the case. Ironic, considering the subject matter.
There's a bleak but scenic spread that greets every opening. Less interesting is the disc artwork.
Blessed art thy maker, who hath maketh thee anamorphic widescreen. All is right in the world. - The Book of Wei Lam, Chapter 2, Verse 40:1.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Anamorphic problems even in U.S. releases
The anamorphic woes continue. Previously, I have written about how the Red Cliff Part I DVD was not "anamorphic" and the image quality was not worthy of a high-definition LCD TV presentation. Inspired by a discussion on Facebook, I rummaged my DVD storage for my copy of Silence of the Lambs, the serial killer thriller that popularised the character of Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), hoping to relive the grisly world that the bad doctor resides in. To my horror, the disc also suffers the same problem as the Red Cliff disc, as the video appeared squashed on the original or 16:9 aspect ratio setting.
Jodie Foster looking like prime material for Buffalo Bill's makeover.
Changing the TV ratio setting to 4:3 corrects Jodie Foster's fat quotient. However, this proves that the video was modified to fit the squarish frame of televisions of yore, and not widescreen televisions. Notice that Jodie looks just right, but because the presentation won't fit a rectangular widescreen TV, hence there are two vertical bars on the left and right.
You can't really fix this, unless you can "zoom in" to fill the screen more, but the video quality will look worse, and the grainy, un-mastered condition doesn't help the situation. Getting the anamorphic Silence of the Lambs DVD or Blu-Ray is the best option if money is not an issue. The movie was shot in 1.85:1 aspect ratio, so the picture should fit the screen fully like this:
I should have used these graphic examples to highlight the problems on the Red Cliff I DVD. You guys may have been and maybe still are a little confused about my babblings on that post. But it's the same problem there and here.
What's frustrating is that the DVD packaging indicates prominently that the disc is made for widescreen presentation.
What's frustrating is that the DVD packaging indicates prominently that the disc is made for widescreen presentation.
It didn't say that it was anamorphic, though. But that's like saying you could sell me a car without a steering wheel if they didn't mention it having one in the manual.
I bought the DVD probably five years or more ago, likely from Choa Chu Kang Laser Flair, Lot One branch. (Don't worry, Laser Flair, I won't charge. Free publicity.) High definition TVs weren't so prevalent during those days, so I guess people didn't take much notice of the ratio and anamorphic issues, including yours truly. I'm sure I played this very DVD for more than ten times (on my still-alive ten-year-old JVC cathode ray tube television, of course) and still never noticed anything wrong!
Can't remember how much I paid for this. No special features.
Nice, freaky DVD box design, though. Sssssslurp!
If you want to know more about anamorphic DVDs, this site explains it pretty well.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
In my review of the original A Nightmare On Elm Street (ANOES), I forgot to mention another reason why the Freddy Krueger movies aren't scary to me. I'm not sure about your own experiences, but my dreams are usually very hazy, disjointed, frightening, monochromatic, without any sense of time, and mostly beyond my control, like as if they were scripted events - just like a movie! (See Minority Report's psychic scan sequences, which is the closest cinematic representation of dream sequences I've seen so far, even though they're not exactly representing dreams in the movie.) However, when a person dreams in the Elm Street movies, it's like he or she is entering an alternate, parallel world or dimension that progresses in real time, where people can have a substantial amount of free will, participate in conversations, and even make informed decisions! The advantage of doing this is that it keeps the audiences guessing as to whether the onscreen characters are still in the real or the dream world, making the eventual Krueger attacks more unexpected and surprising. This formula makes the movie more fantastical and sci-fi-ish and less relatable to real-life experiences.
This is where ANOES2 gets interesting, as it veers away from the formula even before the formula became formulaic. After the tragic events in the first movie, a new family moves into the Thompsons house, unaware of said happenings. Inevitably, the ghost of Freddy Krueger haunts the sole teenager in the house, this time a reclusive, geeky boy. Probably because the whole nightmare killing thing didn't work out too well the last time, Krueger tries something new, by possessing the kid's body and embark on his killings in the real world. Strangely, his logic-twisting powers in the dream world also applies in the real one. This is more ridiculous than the "alternate world" concept. Trying something new is a good thing because we don't always want to see the same old thing and Hollywood is currently notorious for being creatively bankrupt, but then again in cases like ANOES2, new doesn't necessarily mean it will work for the better.
Many movie critics pointed out the quite-apparent homosexual vibe in the movie, because A: the protagonist is frequently topless and sweaty, B: there's actually a gay bar scene and one S&M-like sequence in the locker room shower involving two men, C: one jock character even made a sober remark that the protagonist would rather "sleep with him", and D: the director claimed that he deliberately made the movie that way. True, they're there in the movie, but they don't deter the movie the way another vibe, the "B-grade vibe" does. Although very tight on budget, the first ANOES felt like a slick, big studio production, with a talented crew and director who were able to stretch every penny with just a little bit of creativity and elbow grease. ANOES2 had more budget, but perhaps with a different director and crew, the producers were unable to replicate the X-factor of the original movie. ANOES2 feels more like a direct-to-video cheapo a la Leprechaun 4: In Space.
With the shift of focus on the real world, ANOES2 loses the novelty that the first movie possessed. The real world of ANOES2 isn't even an interesting place to begin with, having to follow around a mundane lead character that has no apparent appeal or any matter of interest except that he's being psychologically tormented by a supernatural entity. Therefore, I have to agree with the general consensus out there that this may easily be the weakest and dullest ANOES movie, having not yet seen anything else beyond Part 4 except for New Nightmare and Freddy Vs. Jason.

Next: A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors
Related links:
Review: A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)
The stuff of Nightmares
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
















