Inception (2010)

I will always remember the first time I saw Inception. Because I was living in Tahiti when it came out I wasn't able to see it right away (unless I wanted to hear a francophone Leo which I'm not really into). I was geeking out for WEEKS leading up to its release nonetheless and doing everything I could to avoid the internets. I would talk to my friends on the phone and the second the conversation turned to the great new Christopher Nolan flick I'd shout "STAHHHHP!!!" and then their eardrums broke. I lost friends. I take spoilers verrrrrry seriously.

I saw it within a week of being home. Three times. I remember eating Red Robin with two of my guy friends and not having two seconds to eat my onion rings because we couldn't shut up about whether or not the top was still spinning or whether it was wobbling. (Kinda sad I couldn't have enjoyed those onion rings more). But I was just so mind-blown. I had endless discussions about the ending, the music, the buildings folding on top of other buildings, how beautiful Joseph Gordon Levitt and Tom Hardy are, and the fact that THERE'S A ZERO-GRAVITY FIGHT SCENE. Those conversations didn't stop for weeks.

Where Following is Memento's father, Inception is Memento's son. Inception borrows elements from both films and marks Nolan's first original film since Following. I mention these connections because I have not been so floored by a movie since seeing the 1998 & 2001 predecessors. Though Inception is more impressive on a visual scale than Memento, we are still thrown for loops and twists in the narrative (albeit linearly this time). Memento is a puzzle built on polaroids and tattoos. Inception is a maze in a much more literal sense. The very buildup of the dreams in Inception is a labyrinth mirroring the maze that we the audience must navigate. Most of the time we're disoriented and confused, so we just have to trust that Nolan knows what he's doing and that we'll make it out safely. He didn't lead us astray in Memento, so we're confident it'll all make sense in the end this time, too.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a thief (another nod to Following). His burglarizing territory, though, is not homes, offices, or computers. He specializes in breaking into the mind stealing secrets from high executives and business tycoons in their sleep. His skills make him a coveted player in this new game of corporate espionage. After a mission seemingly gone wrong, Cobb and his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon Levitt) are approached with a risky job of a different nature by a wealthy Japanese businessman named Saito (Ken Watanabe). Instead of asking them to extract an idea, he asks them to plant one. His target is the heir to a rival company, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). If all goes well, Fischer will wake up from a dream and decide on his own to dissolve his father's company.

It appears, though, that inception - the plantation process, not the movie title - is harder to pull off than their run-of-the-mill extraction jobs. "Don't think about elephants. What are you thinking about?" "Elephants." Arthur explains, "Right, but it's not your idea. The dreamer can always remember the genesis of the idea. True inspiration is impossible to fake." "No it's not," Cobb disagrees. He doesn't go into detail, but he knows it's possible because he's done it before. Despite the imminent risks, the stakes are high for Dom. He is less motivated by the excitement and intriguing concept of "inception" and more by Saito's promise to let Cobb walk away from the business and return home to his kids. Dom, after all, means "home" in most Slavic languages. DiCaprio plays Cobb similarly to his performance of Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island. Both are driven to obsession over loss and guilt (more on that later) and Leo can deliver in that type of role

So in true classic heist movie fashion, Cobb assembles his team to get the job done. Along with right hand man Arthur we have Eames (Tom Hardy), the "forger", shape shifter, and scruffy badass (associated with Ray & Charles Eames - famous architects), Yusuf (Dileep Rao) the sedative-concocting chemist (think Joseph - biblical dream interpreter to add to the name-tally), and Ariadne (Ellen Page) the maze-building architect wiz. Cobb is introduced to Ariadne by his father-in-law Miles (Michael Caine) who seems to know the ropes of the dream-invading course but doesn't run it anymore. It's just one of those things where Michael Caine appears on screen and you automatically assume he is wiser than anyone else and he definitely knew what he was doing when he brought the new girl on.

Cobb shows Ariadne just how limitless her power is in dreamland. We learn right along with her that physics and gravity no longer matter and architectural paradoxes are now possible. This is where all of the special effects eye candy happen and we're not disappointed by the grandeur and dazzling impossibilities. Not only does Ariadne build the mazes, she is the guide. Just like Ariadne the daughter of King Minos helped guide Theseus through Minotaur's labyrinth, she guides the characters and the audience through the maze of Inception and Fischer's brain. (More name significance, guys). Ellen Page portrays her with just as much realism and intelligence as she did the lead character in Juno three years earlier. We trust her like Cobb trusts her and her character is cleverly devised to enlighten us in this unfamiliar subliminal territory.

As an aside to that thought, let me give a plug to Nolan's storytelling genius, here. It is brought to our attention that we never really remember the beginning of our dreams - we always end up in the middle of the action. Holding to that idea, Inception is much more about process than about beginnings. Of course the idea behind dream invasion is foreign to our concept of reality. But the origins to the dream-sharing don't matter. During Ariadne's apprenticeship, we are provided with just enough detail to keep us satisfied, but ultimately we are enveloped in the process of this dream-world, not with how it came to be.

I digress.

Though special effects and visual bravado trump emotion in the story arc, the one relationship we are invested in is that between Cobb and his late wife Mal (enchantingly played by Marion Cotillard). Though Cobb is, like, on the run, forbidden to return to the US on charges for her murder. It's complicated. Mal is by far the most interesting character of the bunch. We get to know her as she haunts Cobb's dreams and the dreams he shares with others sabotaging their missions along the way. We feel invaded by her piercing gaze, enchanted by her curly bob and French accent, and haunted by the way she thumbs that knife. Her character is so complex and deeply layered that we connect to her internal conflict better than any of the other comparatively thinly-written characters. Cobb is driven to near insanity with guilt and grief over her death and his intense love for his unstable wife. If we're going to keep going with the whole name thing then "Mal" is "bad" in French which unmistakably reflects on her infecting presence in the dreams.

Also noteworthy is Marion Cotillard's connection to Edith Pilaf's song "Non je ne regrette rien" - a fun little inside joke with that key plot device.

Since it is so difficult to plant an idea without the dreamer detecting its origins and since Mal is making it her business to sabotage Cobb's missions they need to delve deep into the subconscious. A dream within a dream within a dream, if you will. Everything comes to a climax in the dream-sequence that spans over an hour of screen time. Fischer's name is no doubt a nod to the game of mind-chess that is going down in his psyche and each character needs to carefully strategize to get the check mate at precisely the right time. Regret, loss, obsession, and redemption are important themes intertwined with the intense action sequences jam packed with special effects. It's visually enthralling, mind-bending, confusing, and moving all at the same time. The more I write, the less sense it makes. It really is something that should be experienced.

That end, tho.

I won't get into it too much. Just like the beginning matters less than the process, the end is the same. Some argue that it was all a dream. Indeed, the audience doesn't have a totem like the characters do to distinguish reality and dreams and are therefore never clearly able to identify a given scene as reality. This would explain why the other characters are flat since they're only projections of Cobb's subconscious and it would also negate most plot holes. It's a compelling theory, but ultimately I am of the camp that there was some reality and that Cobb is not dreaming right before the credits roll (the he wasn't wearing his wedding ring, the kids are older, the top was definitely wobbling camp). Why? I don't know, maybe because I would like to think that Cobb found some happiness and catharsis in real life, not just in his dreams. Regardless of whether or not the top toppled after the screen turned black is rendered irrelevant because Cobb doesn't care anymore. He doesn't obsess over his dreams like he used to and he has emotionally broken through prepared to be with his kids again.

These theories are fun to hash out, but they're not why I love Inception. My experience with this movie four years ago changed the way I viewed dreams and my expectations for sci-fi movies. It anchors me in to experience something phenomenal. The music is enthralling, and the wholly original plot exciting. In short, Inception dazzles and reminds us why movies can be magical. 9/10

My last plug for the name thing: Dom, Robert, Eames, Arthur, Mal, Saito = DREAMS. Wut.

American Psycho (2000)

Everyone day-dreams. It's automatic. To fantasize is an exciting ability of our psyche that many of us thrive off of. Think about it. Every time you go on a date there's probably a before, during, and/or after day-dream of some sort. There certainly is for me. Before a date my mind goes through a best-case/worst-case scenario and I wander to the realm of what-if's. What if he kisses me? What if I say something witty that makes him laugh? What if he doesn't like me, what if he tries to take advantage of me? What if I punch him? Yeah, that would be pretty funny... Then there's the after-date fantasies. You replay over and over in your mind the things that happened and you dream about what didn't happen. You dream about what it was like to kiss them or what it would have been like to kiss them or what it would have been like to go further. In the mind there's no such thing as jumping to conclusions too quickly - everything is fair game. Pretty soon, though, you're criss-crossing reality with fantasy and you can hardly distinguish what was real and what wasn't. It doesn't matter if it actually happened or if it is all fake because in your mind everything is real. To quote Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, "Of course it is happening inside your head... But why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" 

Our mind and our imagination are absolutely incredible. Sometimes dreams, or even day-dreams, can haunt us, though, and be so invasive that they creep into our reality. Our minds, in essence, affect our existence. What we imagine combined with what is real can change the way we view people and situations. The idea of imagination mixed with reality is explored and examined in American Psycho. 

Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) is a 20 something Wall Street yuppie living his own American dream. On the surface he has everything going for him. He's attractive and healthy, he's got a hot fiancée (Reese Witherspoon), and he's living in Manhattan and making the big bucks as an investment banker. Every morning he wakes up and goes through his same beautification routine using 20 different gel cleansers and exfoliating lotions. He does his stretching, his yoga, his push ups and sit ups. He is the American dream. But there's something hiding behind his perfect exterior. His appearance and careful selection of his business card or his watch ("don't touch the watch") is a metaphor for his materialistic drive into nothingness for he gains no emotional reward. "There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there." 

You see, this man who has it all is also a sadistic murderer. It's nothing overly premeditated - it's just something to do. It's a stress relief after a day in the office. Some people go on shopping sprees, Bateman goes on killing sprees. "I just had to kill a lot of people!" This drastic change in the typical Wall street routine puts the "psycho" in this American story. It's graphic, it's unsettling, and you can't take your eyes off any of it.

If you'll allow me to step back momentarily I want to make it clear that most of the time that I was watching American Psycho, I had no idea what the hell was going on. Even now - after watching it three times, writing and re-writing drafts on drafts on drafts of blog posts - I still don't have a clue what the hell was going on. But director Mary Harron and author Bret Eastman have succeeded in getting me to think for hours about the man who works in murders and executions - I mean mergers and acquisitions. 

I'll come back to Patrick. 

Here's the thing: the more you watch it (and really, I don't necessarily recommend watching it more than once - twice TOPS) the more you question. Nothing can be taken at face value, and that is where the worth lies in this masterpiece - albeit a flawed masterpiece. It succeeds in its agenda as an over-the-top satirical commentary on yuppies and greed and I must admit there was some entertainment value embedded in the disturbing over-the-toppery of Christian Bale and his business constituents (including Jared Leto, Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas, and Bill Sage). But at the end of the day, the question remains: what was real?

What is over-the-top on the surface is even more exaggerated and grotesque in the mind of our protagonist - assuming that these murders were, in fact, a figment of Bateman's imagination. This conclusion is shared by many, though the ending is meant to be ambiguous. Of course these brutal murders being imaginary is not apparent throughout the film despite the outrageous circumstances surrounding his threesome with two prostitutes and the subsequent physical abuse, his chasing a girl through an apartment suite butt naked with a chain saw and the praise he is given by a homeless victim whom Bateman blatantly insults and, well, murders. 

That's because everything is from HIS perspective and from HIS mind. It's all terribly real to Patrick. Not only is it real, but it's perfect. He insults with wit and timeliness. He sleeps with beautiful women and the sex is perfect. His murders are ravenous and maniacal but they feed his appetite. For a while after I saw this movie I came to believe that the murders were actually real just glorified in Patrick's crazed mind. It is all too crazy to be 100% real, but perhaps some of it was - only less perfectly executed and not so uncannily timed to Huey Lewis and the News. I might add, though, that the incredible use of soundtrack is strong evidence that this is actually happening in his head. Like, he's sitting on his leather couch plugged in to Whitney Houston and day dreaming about his next killing spree.

However, as soon as that ATM starts telling him to insert a kitten instead of a card and a police car just explodes, everyone's dropping eff bombs realizing that things aren't adding up anymore. Your expression of disbelief mirrors that of Patrick's as he stares at the exploding car and showing - for the first time in the movie - a sense of fear and bewilderment. It's as if he, too, realizes that reality and fantasy are merging and he can't believe what he is seeing anymore. With some superb acting by Christian Bale, Patrick shows vulnerability in just one expression. Despite how disgusted we are with his character, we see that there is a soul beneath this twisted, mentally insane man.

The problem that I see with this theory - the "everything wasn't real" theory - is that there is no barrier between what WAS real and what WASN'T. Take, for example, detective Donald Kimball (Willem Dafoe). Is that character completely made up? Is he a product of Bateman's mind reacting to his psychological deterioration? Because seriously when he pulls out that Huey Lewis CD you know that it can't be happening. Can it? Was he there? Who was there?

Also, the blood on the sheets? If that scene at the laundromat WASN'T real, then why was it even included? I'm just saying.

The only character I'm positive is not made up is the secretary, Jean (Chloe Sevigny). The scene where he takes her out and nearly murders her (all the while cracking Ted Bundy jokes) is another example of the lines between reality and fantasy being merged and indistinguishable. There is something real and tangible about that relationship - something not found in his interactions with any other character. Chloe Sevigny plays the genuine, soft-spoken secretary well and allows us to emotionally connect with someone more familiar to us.

The consistent theme of mistaken identity is the key to making any sense of the meaning behind the ambiguity. The humorous scene with the business cards is the most telling scene of American Psycho. The businessmen discussing the wording, embossing, color, thickness, engraving and typefaces are merely suits - their rivalries are over cards and dinner reservations, not over actual people. It's always someone who looks like someone else, a name forgotten, and a reputation without a face. No one remembers anyone's names because everyone looks the same, dresses the same, and has similar jobs. No one has individuating qualities. It's hard to follow the dialogue with Bateman and his colleagues because they keep calling each other by different names. If Patrick was actually a murderer, it essentially doesn't matter because no one cares enough about what's going on in each other's lives to do something about it. 

This theme could also be an argument for the reality of the murders. Bateman's therapist claims he ate lunch with Paul Allen in London after Bateman murdered him - this could be because it didn't actually happen or it could be because the therapist can't remember who Paul Allen is either. Bateman tries to confess but no one listens because no one cares. Paul Allen's apartment is for sale because it's been vacated of its previous occupant (dead) and the real estate agent would rather lie about finding dead bodies than decrease the value in the apartment. Perhaps the message is in the incredulity at such a self-absorbed, shallow society depicted to extremes with bright crimson blood splatters.

Which is right? Was it real or was it in his head? Unfortunately either conclusion pertaining to the reality of the events comes with plot holes and so it's difficult to come to a firm conclusion. But I don't think there is one right answer. I think that both sides are intertwined in this ambiguous message - the reality and the fantasy are mixed and indistinguishable just like in our day-dreams. I do think that most of the action is going on in his head, but that doesn't make it any less real.

The ideas and character study are fascinating and ultimately the film works because of Christian Bale's incredible performance. There is no self-preservation in his acting and he allows the audience to hate Bateman's despicable character without guile. It's a breakthrough performance for the future Bruce Wayne and Academy Award Winner. American Psycho is incredible in the realm of its own agenda. It's a graphic and gruesome commentary and a wild, amusing ride, if you can stomach it. Now I've got to go return some videotapes. 7/10

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

The greatest disappointment was the gross lack of Chuck Norris jokes…

David Norris (see what I mean? oh, and Matt Damon), with the charming smile in one pocket and a sketchy past in the other, rises from his grungy upbringing to run for Senator of New York.  Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) is a professional ballet dancer, spunky and sassy.  After Norris is slaughtered in the election, he stumbles upon Elise in the men’s room (oh, it’s cool, she’s just hiding from security after crashing a wedding).  Their chemistry is fizzling instantly, and their spontaneous kiss is magical.  Her fire and spirit inspire David to give the best speech of his career – catapulting him to a lead in the next election.

The next day, after failing to spill his coffee according to some agenda that a fairly attractive, skinny black man in a hat (Anthony Mackle) is in charge of, he runs into Elise again.  But that wasn’t supposed to happen.  He was never supposed to see her again.  He was never supposed to arrive at work when he did.

More men in hats confront David.  They explain some religious hoo-dah about “men upstairs,” “the chairman,” life-plans that keep the universe in check, human-beings can’t make decisions… stuff like that.  They swear David to secrecy about their existence, otherwise he gets some serious “reset” lobotomy, oh, and he can never have Elise.

Even three years later when chance takes over and he bumps into her again.  It’s not according to plan.  But then this Thompson dude (Terence Stamp) ups the ante.  If they get together, David will never be president, and Elise will never have the dance career that she would have had.  And he decides to show his omnipotence by forcing a sprained ankle on Elise.  David is faced with following his heart vs. following destiny.

Superb premise.  Once things got cooking in the bathroom I was hooked.  Men with hats observing from above, stalking a potential presidential candidate.  The whole thing with the coffee spilling at 7:05 or the world keels over is pretty awesome.  My first question (of many): are we all observed?  The entire bureau seems to focus all efforts on these TWO people.  I mean, that’s cool, that’s a movie, but they barely put forth the effort to make it look like they observed anyone else at all.  The “big reveal” or whatever missed the opportunity to make this look like a universal organization, encompassing every human being who missteps.  Oh well.

Free agency vs. pre-determined destiny.  Being religious myself, these underlying themes are fascinating.  While many believe “the chairman” to be God as we know him, I think of this chairman dude as being a lot more like the devil.  Obviously this isn’t the real world, and in this real world I do choose to believe that God is watching over upstairs.  But he doesn’t intervene in our affairs like those in The Adjustment Bureau do, he gave us choice.  Satan, the devil, or whatever, wouldn’t give us that choice.  And that makes us slaves to him.  This is a dystopian society, and things AREN’T supposed to be like that.

Which is where my main problem comes from.  (Sorry for the religious rant in there, bee-tee-dubs.  I couldn’t help it).  Spoilers.  After all their cat and dog antics, David determines his decision.  He wants to be with Elise no matter the cost.  His decision is made and no “chairman” is going to tell him what to do.  So, in an escapade of brilliance, he and Elise depart hand in hand to confront the man who writes the plans, since no one else seems to know why they can’t be together.

Call me a realist, but I wanted there to be a face to the responsibility.  I’m so pleased that this dude came to his humane side and changed the plan just for them to be together.  He’s a real sweetheart.  But, as anticlimactic as it is, I wanted some kind of confrontation between the good guys and the messed-in-the-heads.  Some big speech about letting us choose our destiny, no one can force us to do anything blabbity blah.  But instead, we get some immediate resolution between Elise and David’s story… and nothing for the bigger picture.  What happens to the next person who unknowingly never meets the person of their dreams?  The future remains sadly unaffected and I guess I had a problem with that.

Anyways.

Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are a fantastic duo, and I knew that would be so two years ago when I first HEARD about this movie.  I’m not even going to attempt to deny my girl-crush on Emily Blunt, she’s a terribly versatile actress and I’ll bank on any film of hers nowadays.  And, well, who doesn’t love everybody’s man Matt Damon.

The theme and mood of the film is a perfect balance between drama and adventurous excitement.  The music is a wonderful accompaniment to the mood, Thomas Newman is a stud.  The pace too was captivating the entire way (though perhaps with one too many jumps to the future), and I was intrigued until the end with its outcome.  It’s a thinker, and everyone knows that I dig that kind thing.

And again, the plot itself was original and fantastically enthralling.  Walking through doors, super hats, men in suits nonchalantly controlling everything.  Though it perhaps didn’t achieve its potential, it is still worth the watch and an exciting ride.  7/10

Limitless (2011)

Makes you wish you were smarter huh?

Bradley Cooper stars as our hero, Eddie Morra, a snazzy, sharp looking man with a slick apartment.  And yet at the beginning of the movie, standing on the ledge of a forty-story building, it appears he’s about to give it all up and jump.  What could possibly push him to disregard his life, someone who appears to have it all?  Flash back six months, and we can see that Eddie’s climb to the top really started at the bottom. Unkempt, long-haired, broken-hearted, and baggy clothed he shuffles down the streets of New York only to run into his sketchy ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth).  They chat about Eddie’s difficulty getting  his book off the ground (writer is, after all, the international homo-career in cinema), have a few laughs, and then Vernon offers Eddie a pill to help in his distress.  NZT, he called it, FDA approved and on the brink of tearing the market apart, just some paperwork to finish up.

Eddie reluctantly takes the clear tablet and they part ways.  Things get real when his landlord’s hot wife gets on his case for being late to pay rent… Eddie starts getting nervous and sweating, and in a fit of emotional instability pops the pill.  What ensues is arguably the best scene in the film.  Hottie keeps talking, but we hear no words.  The darkened hallway begins to glow, every single detail of the room is emphasized in this new light – as if Eddie were once blind and can now see… everything.  The world seemed to stop around him – all that mattered was this new vision.  He easily evades the situation (and gets some) and things are only just getting started.

Some drug, huh?  He wakes up the next day, as stupid (er, normal – just relatively stupid) as ever but still with a finished first draft of his novel.  He’s dying for another fix, so he sets out to find Vernon.  Vernon ends up dead by some third party, but Eddie ends up with a large bagful of NZT  - so no harm done, right?  Oddly evading the cops, Eddie become famous with this drug and his record-breaking climb to the top.

I think its intent was to be mind-blowing, but I’ll be honest I wasn’t googly eyed and drooling like I was for Inception.  The premise was still trippy though, and I enjoyed that for what it was.  Ever since I saw Bradley Cooper for the first time in Alias I’ve liked him, and Limitless was no exception.  I like to see smarts in action – and watching Eddie become quicker and smarter throughout the movie is sick stuff.  The other actors are good contributions as well (when is Robert De Niro NOT good), though I’m not a huge fan of Abbie Cornish.  Their relationship actually kinda blew. “Oh, you’re a bum so it’s time to break up.” “Oh, now you’re hott and powerful, so I want to sleep with you again.” “Oh you’re going crazy now?  Well, see ya!”  Yeah, I don’t dig that.

It’s engaging, and it does make you think a little bit.  Though the moral implications of such a drug are virtually left untouched, it does allow you to pick at your own brain a little, and if anything else makes you want to learn how to focus better.  Though we may never be super humans, we can develop our brain to serve us better, train our minds to do harder things.  I mean, I don’t know about you guys, but I went home feeling like I should read the dictionary or study economics rather than watch TV…

Also, the camera work ROCKS.  From mystery to thriller, the camera serves the story well.  Eye candy at its best.

Unfortunately, the movie’s greatest flaw is the story’s drive from plot, not character.  Eddie is cool stuff, but we don’t see him grow that much.  There are multiple plot holes (not that I was counting, that’s not how I roll), but there was a significant enough number for me to take note.  But, let’s face it, the plot holes don’t matter.  Focusing on the flaws just makes every movie horrible.    So whatever.  It’s just too bad that it couldn’t have gone deeper with the characters.

In regards to the end… I won’t say much except that I didn’t really like it.  It ended quickly and… well, just not how I would have ended it.  It needed more ambiguity.  There, ’nuff said.

Entertaining, great movie to see in the theater, and I’d watch it again.  I’m glad that Brad the man’s doing more things now.  7/10

Insidious (2010)

Scary movies are the best in the theater.  Always.

Insidious is about a family who moves into a creepy house, hears creepy noises, and then their son winds up in an unexpected three-month coma.  Evil, possessing demon spirits get involved, turns out the kid is at the brink of being possessed and drawn into a land called The Further (terrrrrible title, I know). Apparently he’s been making it a hobby to escape from the real world lately, he can fly and stuff.  Too bad those hell-creatures caught up with him.

Mom does a lot of crying, Dad does a lot of disbelieving. But then Daddy gets to revisit his childhood psyche after a crazy lady talks to them, jumps onboard and decides to help bring their kid back into the real world, alive and stuff.

I’ll be the first to admit, I’m not a horror movie kinda person.  Granted, this is much, MUCH tamer than anything else James Wan ever created but I just don’t do the jumpy stuff.  Probably because my first reaction is to laugh rather than scream, I’ve just never been that girl.  I concede, however, that I can declare this a pretty good movie.  I mean, I still had problems with it, but considering how low my expectations were walking into it, it ended up being more than just a haunted house movie.  It helped that I was endlessly entertained by the screaming DUDES in the building.

Here’s what’s up.  We’ve got two main characters, parents to our demon-boy Dalton (Ty Simpkins) – Renai and Josh Lambert (Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson).  They’ve got two other kids besides Dalton.  At the beginning, Renai may be scared out of her pants at the freakish noises and ghost-like shapes that taunt and follow her, but she’s still in charge of what goes on.  She’s telling her husband what to do, reprimanding him for his lack of existence.  Josh is just that – nonexistent.  My friend and I BOTH thought that he had to be having an affair when he was staying late for no reason in his classroom.  When really it was nothing more than a dumb plot device to keep her alone in the house more often.

Then in the second half of the movie, things COMPLETELY turn around.  Josh finally figures out that Renai and the crazy lady (named Elise – played by Lin Shaye) might actually be right about their son’s ability to teleport, and he finally realizes that he’s the one that’s got to save him.  So he becomes all macho, overcomes his childhood nightmares and becomes likable.  Renai, on the other hand, becomes passive, afraid, and submissive.  I HATE that kind of woman.  I hate it when a woman cannot think for herself and does nothing but wait around for her man to help her out of the sticky situation.  It was a bizarre flip-flop.

On the bright side, while the first half was laughable, the second half was borderline terrifying and definitely unsettling.  I’m a rough judge because I just don’t get scared very easily – but by the end, though I had yet to jump, scream, spit out my drink, or pee my pants, I was a little perturbed.  The cinematographers and cameramen do everything right.  Seeing things as the characters see them, while typical of a scary movie, was perfectly synched in Insidious.  And the loud noises are that much more shocking in surround sound.

True, there are holes and improbabilities.  First of all, where in HELL did the other children disappear to?  “Their Grandma’s” is the script’s answer, but then Grandma (Barbara Hershey) shows up at their house… without kids?  And no explanation to where they’ve gone?  What an awful mother.  That baby was darn cute, too.  I also loved the part where, when the mother was attacked by a man in her room, she and hubby sit there sobbing on the floor rather than go check on their SCREAMING CHILD.

Second, can a six year old kid REALLY outrun a demon running on all fours?  I think not…

Another, perhaps personal, thing that’s bothersome is how this film tries to be scary and creepy from the get-go.  I mean, really?  Are we going to jump out of our pants during the scrolling credits?  I’m afraid of surprise, I’m afraid of things that could actually happen.  Setting the creepy tone that early does nothing but separate the bridge between movie and real-life fear.

The highlight was definitely centered around the Ghostbusters (Leigh Whannell and Angus Sampson) that accompany Elise on their first visit with the Lamberts.  Good comic relief.  A bigger flashlight is all you need…

The more I think about it, the more I realize that I probably sound pretty naïve with this review.  You’re right, I am not a frequenter of the horror genre so I really don’t know what I’m saying.  Maybe this was the worst scary movie ever written (and, bee tee dubs, the script was pretty bad.  Whoever came up with “the further” in the first place should be fired).  But based on whatever I do know, I thought this movie was decent.  It’s the old-fashioned tension that gets me.  Worth a watch, if scary movies are your thing then definitely so.  And let’s not pay too close of attention to the pictures that are taken of me anymore, huh?  6/10

Insomnia (2002)

So yeah, I’m doing a Liz Taylor marathon of sorts… but I’m also kinda going through some Chris Nolan movies.  Cuz he’s the mannnn.  After I saw Following I just had to watch Insomnia because I didn’t really remember it and it too was on Netflix.

So Insomnia is probably my least favorite of the Nolan flicks, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t like it or that it’s by any means a bad movie.  (We’re comparing this to Inception, Dark Knight, and Memento here…) It’s got a great cast (Al freaking Pacino is in it for heaven’s sake… along with Hilary Swank and Robin Williams, all Oscar winners) and still some epic Nolan-esque qualities (who freaking well NEEDS an Oscar).

Pacino plays Will Dormer, an acclaimed detective who hops it over with his partner Hap Eckhart (Martin Donovan) to Alaska to aid in an investigation of a murdered girl.  Dormer isn’t so squeaky clean – there’s an Internal Affairs investigation taking place in Los Angeles over one of his cases for potentially falsified evidence.  He ain’t afraid to use any method possible to find out what he wants or to win.  He and his partner aren’t exactly peachy-keen with each other, they argue over methods and Eckhart might even testify against Dormer.

Then there’s Ellie Burr (Swank), a young over-eager police officer fresh from the academy, and Dormer’s biggest fan.  She’s initially assigned to work with Dormer on the Kay Connell case.  Ya know, I like Hilary Swank.  I like girls that actually look fit and healthy rather than anorexically skinny (You know, The Next Karate Kid, Million Dollar Baby type girl).  She’s also a talented actress and I think she gives a pretty great performance in this.  She creates a character who subtly grows from her naïveté, it seems as natural as a real human being.

Alaska in the summer=the land of perpetual daylight.  It drives Dormer insane, how could anyone sleep in the daytime?  Oh wait it’s midnight already…  Have you ever had insomnia?  It’s awful.  I grew up having extreme difficulty falling asleep at night.  It was the worst in high school.  I’d just be there… on the bed… staring at the ceiling… I’d read a book for a few minutes, listen to music, or not listen to music, open the window, turn up the A/C, get a softer blanket, play a game on my phone, whatever.  It SUCKS.  Luckily I can survive with little sleep, and luckily I’d still manage to average around 5 hours.  Better than going straight through, like Dormer.  And I didn’t have a murder investigation on my mind…

Dormer goes crazy.  Light flashes, confusing memories, fuzzy vision, all that good stuff.  He’s also dealing with some heavy anxiety (murder and stuff tend to do that to ya).  He’s blinking away the fatigue whenever you look at him, willing his eyes to breath.  Al Pacino’s a beast.  He’s good in everything.  I don’t know how a man like that can stand to be so good at what he does, seriously.  But like I said, I know how insomnia goes and Al’s got it down.

It should also be noted that Robin Williams might give the best performance of the bunch, if you can believe it.  I won’t say much more about him, he’s a character best discovered by watching the movie.  I ain’t in the business of giving away too much.

But all I’ve really got to say about this movie is that, *cough cough* it’s Christopher Nolan.  Now here’s the real question – how can a guy like NOLAN survive knowing that he has a repertoire of pure genius sans exception.  What would it be like to be that legit?

Insomnia explores some crazy psychological deals.  Right and wrong, guilt, anxiety.  It’s also a good mystery.  Who killed Kay Connell, what’s Dormer’s deal, who’s the crazy guy that keeps calling Dormer (Robin Williams – no, that’s not the answer), etc.  It’s a thriller, not your standard thriller, but a thriller of the mind nonetheless.  It’s claustrophobic, he’s just sooooo tireddddd. I’d love to watch the original Norwegian version – it sounds a little more hardcore than this.  But by its own merits, Insomnia is great.  Another 50 points for team Nolan.  8/10