Review: "Interstellar"

Director: Christopher Nolan
Runtime: 169 minutes

How do you solve a problem like Christopher Nolan? So much expertise with complicated plotting, yet such a mechanical approach to flesh and blood characters. The answer is at once simple and daunting: outer space. The characters of Nolan's latest, Interstellar, journey into the cosmos for solutions to problems facing mankind on Earth. Meanwhile, Nolan takes his characters into the beyond while looking for answers of his own. Interstellar is not perfect, nor is it the sort of flawed masterpiece that initial hype and a thrilling marketing campaign promised. Instead, it's a honest step forward for Mr. Nolan as both a director (where he was already far stronger) and as a writer (where he tends to flounder). 

One of the big complaints lobbed at Nolan has been his impersonal touch with characters and his reliance on exposition in the form of dialogue. Interstellar sees more progress with the former than the latter, but both show an improvement that was missing from Inception and The Dark Knight Rises. Better yet, he has evolved without going too far to the opposite end of the spectrum. Interstellar is the first of Nolan's films to get a genuine emotional reaction out of me, and it's nowhere close to being schmaltzy. Turns out, Nolan himself is capable of feeling human emotions (or at least, his programming has finally allowed him to understand and communicate them).

Nolan's previous films have touched on familial relationships before, but they've never really registered until now. Though Insterstellar still relies on Nolan's love of Dead Wife Syndrome, it still connects as a story about a family against its epic narrative canvas. Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) spends the majority of the film's three hours away from his two children, but the bond between parent and children is effectively conveyed through juxtapositions with the main story line.

Plus, it's not like Cooper doesn't have a good reason for heading off into space for an unknown amount of time. Set somewhere in the future (40 - 100 years), Earth's population has dwindled, and a plague known as Blight has wreaked havoc on crops. Terrifying dust storms are a regular occurrence, and the entire world is living in conditions that vaguely resemble the Dust Bowl. While Cooper maintains a living as a farmer (corn is the one of the few crops not wiped out by Blight), his real ambitions lie far off of the ground. So it's a mixed blessing when, thanks to his daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy), he pieces together a series of coordinates left behind by unexplained phenomena. Those coordinates lead him to a secret NASA base, where the space-faring organization is mounting a desperate mission in hopes of saving mankind, without necessarily saving the Earth. 

It's not long until Cooper's old mentor Dr. Brand (Michael Caine) lays out exactly what's at stake with NASA's clandestine operations. Earth is becoming increasingly incapable of supporting human life, and the time has come to look beyond for a new home. Either through coincidence or some higher design, a wormhole has appeared near Saturn, opening a gateway to a galaxy with several planets that may be the solution to humanity's dire situation.

The arrival of the mission, with its explanations of relativity, wormholes, and disruptions of the space time continuum, should be the point when Interstellar starts to stumble. There's a lot of detail to cover, and the initial stages seem like the perfect moment for Nolan and his brother Jonathan (who co-wrote) to drown the viewer in scientific blather. Yet unlike the overbearing explanations of dream layers in Inception, the details of Interstellar come across as far more valuable. The tendency to explain story-oriented details over character development is still present, but it feels more focused, streamlined, and more confident in the audience. Inception covered so many little details of Nolan's dream world logic that it became ludicrous. Minor aspects were explained away just to make sure that everything was most definitely thought out by the screenplay. The Nolan brothers may not leave much to the imagination, but the explanations doled out by the talented cast are mostly worth hearing. Space is an incomprehensibly large and terrifying place, so the details of how a black hole affects time is not only valuable, but critical in raising the stakes of the mission.

Interstellar is built on a race-against-the-clock foundation, which ultimately serves the story quite well. The film taps into plenty of very real concerns about the future of our species, and ties them in to an epic adventure full of white-knuckle intensity. Nolan's space sequences are rarely flashy, but there remains an awe to the execution. Even with the presence of Hans Zimmer's towering, pipe organ-driven score, the crushing silence of space is still a thrilling and disturbingly neutral antagonist. Watching Cooper and Dr. Brand's daughter Amelia (Anne Hathaway) try and dock a landing vessel to an out of control hub unit is both graceful and chaotic. Nolan is an uneven director when it comes to staging action sequences, but his zero-gravity set pieces here are never less than thrilling and nerve-wracking here. More rewarding is when Nolan ventures outside of his visual comfort zone. The scene where the main crew (which includes Wes Bentley, David Gyasi, and a robot voiced by Bill Irwin) passes through the wormhole has a level of visual imagination that's been sorely missing from Nolan's previous work. 

Just about everything in space is so powerfully rendered (the visual effects work is so good that I never even thought about it), that it's slightly disappointing when Nolan jumps back to Earth. Though the return trips to our pale blue dot end up being important to the film's universe-spanning endgame, they tend to let the wind out of Interstellar's sails. The plot complications that arise from the Earth scenes, which feature Jessica Chastain and Casey Affleck as the adult versions of Cooper's children, are a mixed bag. Affleck's initial appearances, in video messages to his father, are lovely, but later scenes turn him into a hardheaded jackass for no real reason. Chastain fares better if only because her character's actions are germane to the plot. Having joined NASA despite her resentment toward her father, Murph's actions salvage the Earthbound material, though this has more to do with Chastain's abilities as an actor than the material she's been given.

Nolan's work with his space explorers fares much better. McConaughey refuses to let his current winning streak die, and his work here fits right into the role of the typical blockbuster leading man through Nolan's gloomier lens. Cooper's position as lead pilot of the mission represents a chance to fulfill a life long dream, but at a potentially terrible cost. McConaughey wears that struggle beautifully, flipping between hard-nosed strategist and homesick parent without missing a beat. Hathaway is quite strong as well, and her interactions with McConaughey provide some of Interstellar's emotional highlights. The actress even manages to sell a slightly gooey monologue about love transcending time and space, which says a lot about her talents. Though Bentley and Gyasi are stuck in pretty dry roles, Bill Irwin's voice work as robot aide TARS is surprisingly effective. TARS' programmed attitude helps ignite a few moments of humor, which keeps Interstellar from being crushed by its space opera severity.

From a technical standpoint, the film is mostly aces, although a few areas are in need of some polishing. Cinematography is noticeably rougher, which actually works in the film's favor. Too often, the future is presented in bright and sleek shades of color. The dingier look of Hoyte Van Hoytema's lighting is a smart change of pace from Nolan's recent, overly polished aesthetic. The art direction reflects this as well. The interior of the space vehicles is futuristic, yet has the look of technology that hasn't been cleaned or updated too recently. Zimmer's aforementioned score is absolutely beautiful adding extra doses of wonder and terror when needed. And, despite one prolonged bit of overbearing cross-cutting between Earth and space, Lee Smith's editing keeps the adventure moving along over the course of the film's butt-numbing three hours.

Interstellar gets off to such a strong start, yet it's almost a relief to see Nolan go for the conclusion he delivers here. Intentionally or not, Interstellar's climax will provoke lots of discussion over whether or not it imploded during its landing. Given the mind-stretching nature of the adventure, finding a properly balanced ending was always going to be a tricky prospect. Instead of trying to please everyone, Nolan has unapologetically made the movie he wanted to make, regardless of all the references that may be present. For the first time, one of Nolan's movies is inviting legitimate discussion, drawing some further into his orbit while pushing others clear out into space. It's the Nolan movie we deserve, whether or not it's the one we all wanted, and at the end of the day, that's something to be thankful for, flaws and all.

Grade: B+

Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"

Director: Christopher Nolan
Runtime: 165 minutes

To say that expectations have been high for The Dark Knight Rises would be a monumental understatement. Christopher Nolan certainly got off on the right foot with the 2005 reboot Batman Begins, bringing a brooding and gritty vibe to Gotham's Caped Crusader. With Nolan at the helm, the story of Bruce Wayne took on a newfound sense of darkness and dread, devoid of the campy sensibility that so pervaded Tim Burton's two late 80s/early 90s films and the much-maligned Joel Schumacher films (Batsuit nipples; never forget). Here was a superhero movie that stood, more than any before it, as a testament to the post-9/11 mindset of America, and the world at large. 

Now, I'll admit, I've avoided using the term "post-9/11" to describe Nolan's bat-flicks until just now. Yes, the two (now three) films exist in a darker and more realistic world, but the thematic connection to 9/11 seemed not to click. But the mind has a way of working these things out when we least expect it. Nolan's films show realistically rendered depictions of attacks on American soil in so many ways that have otherwise been absent in comic book adaptations. 

Violence, even for superheroes, was now capable of achieving a rather chilling resonance, whether it was watching Ra's Al Ghul try to launch a biological attack on Gotham in Begins, or watching the Joker's attempts to instigate anarchy across the city, the threats felt more powerful because we lived in an age where A) these things were eerily possible and B) we knew there were people out there who wanted to hurt us. If Sam Raimi's first two Spiderman films (and to a lesser extent, the first two X-Men films) took comic book movies into late adolescence, Batman Begins took them into full-blown adulthood.

Yet it was 2008's The Dark Knight, with a large debt owed to a certain Mr. Ledger, that turned Nolan's series into a critical and financial mega hit. In addition to the gushing praise for Ledger's turn as the Joker, Nolan's film also became labeled as the best comic book movie of all time. And, among certain segments of the population, it has even been hailed as one of the best movies of all time. Period. As in, people were prepared to compare it to The Godfather (let's not go there).

The big question for Nolan and company, of course, then became "how do we finish this trilogy without letting people down?" And when it comes to answering that question on paper, The Dark Knight Rises seems firmly headed in the right direction. Instead of trying to repeat the success of The Dark Knight's iconic villain - a lone figure who essentially defined the film - Nolan has split villain duties (sort of) between Tom Hardy's hulking Bane and Anne Hathaway's slippery Selina Kyle (Catwoman, sans moniker). Lightning doesn't strike in the same place twice, and Nolan was smart to try and spread the role of antagonist among multiple characters.

Yet for all that seems okay on paper, there are equally as many missteps in the writing and in the execution on-screen. There are many individual aspects to pick apart, but it all fits under one giant umbrella: Nolan (and co-writer/brother Jonathan Nolan) have simply tried to cram in too much, despite the 2 hr 45 min duration. Batman Begins contained itself with ease, and The Dark Knight, despite sometimes bursting at the seams, managed to hold all of its pieces together, if just barely. Yet the pressure to create an epic and satisfying ending has, unfortunately, blasted a massive crater in the franchise's armor. The characters and subplots are many, yet even with nearly three hours, there's barely room for any of it to breathe. Combine these problems with the serious tone and massive expectations, The Dark Knight Rises often buckles under its own weight.

Nolan has never made a film that I've found dull, but here he's finally made one where I was actively distracted by the pacing issues. The scenes don't drag so much as they feel like Nolan has misplaced the emphasis. After a fun, Bond-style opening introducing Bane, the movie settles in for quite a bit of set up, which involves everything from a cop (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) trying to help a boys' shelter, to a Wayne Industries board member who won't stop inquiring about an abandoned clean energy project (Marion Cotillard), to Bruce Wayne's physical and emotional recovery after eight years away from his alter ego. Nolan has so many dots to connect that he often races things along. It gives one the feeling that the writer/director simply expects us to just go with each development without daring to question it. The film may never become stagnant (thanks again, Lee Smith), but so often it feels, well, off. As lovely as Ms. Cotillard is, the romance that develops between her and Bruce comes right the hell out of nowhere, only so that it can be used later for a BIG moment that ultimately rings hollow and completely wastes the actress.

All of this is compounded by two big issues: dialogue and narrative structure. Nolan's tendency to have his characters spell out themes and motivations has, sadly only become a bigger problem since Inception. Sometimes it feels entirely appropriate (variations of Begins' "Why do we fall? So we can pick ourselves up again" line), yet often it’s just unnecessary. The personalities of the characters struggle to shine through because they're burdened with such heavy dialogue and thin characterization (as such, the series' returning players achieve the strongest emotional resonance). As for the structure, Nolan falls into an odd cycle of repetition. I'll avoid the details, but the film essentially puts Bruce Wayne through an arc of physical and emotional recovery twice during the film, when all it does is eat up time. It's the second arc that really deserves the time, yet a period of nearly half a year ends up flashing by so the film can charge into its conclusion. Not only does the second arc have the potential for more resonance, but it's also more interesting in what it reveals about Bane, and how it brings the trilogy full circle.

And so when all hell breaks loose in the finale, Nolan is stuck making a bunch of revelations and cutting among a bunch of threads so that they can reach their conclusions. On their own, any one of them could have worked, but in trying to be so epic in scope, the film accomplishes the plots with most of them not coming off as meaning much. In the end, only Wayne and Batman's story, though it has its share of rushed moments and implausibility, resonates. Against all odds its ending provides a lump-in-the-throat moment amid an otherwise emotionally-distant film.

That's not to say that the film is a complete loss, by any means. There's quite a bit that's well done, once one looks past the flaws. The performers, at least those with something to work with (sorry Ms. Cotillard, Ben Mendelsohn, Matthew Modine...) are all perfectly engaging. Bale does nice work in his last run as Wayne/Batman, adding an extra amount of pain and exhaustion where the script fails him. Hardy's Bane is also enjoyable, and his oddly suave and cheeky tone make him a compelling presence, even though he lacks the Joker's overt psychotic tendencies. The film's biggest and best surprise, however, is Hathaway, who manages to make Selina teasingly sexy without making her ludicrously sexual. Watching her switch her personality on and off with an effortless snappiness is one of the film's strongest elements, even though Nolan saddles her with a strange subplot in which she's looking for a powerful computer program.

On the production front the film is also aces, with nice cinematography and art direction. The only puzzling exception is that, for the first time, Gotham actually looks like it's made up of multiple cities (scenes were shot in New York, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh), instead of a cohesive metropolis. Hans Zimmer's kettle drum-heavy score, despite being repetitive, is used nicely to either enhance the tension and momentum, or add them when the film can't quite generate them on its own. And, as much as Nolan is to blame for the film's flaws, he also deserves credit for some of its successes. As a director, he remains capable of moving an audience through a dense narrative with surprising ease, despite the problems that pop up along the way. And, when it comes to pulling out show stopping moments that actually carry weight, his skills remain firmly intact. A massive attack at a football stadium is, besides massive in scale, truly stomach-churning, and the aforementioned finale is nicely handled despite the borderline ridiculous circumstances.

How it ends, I won't say, but at the very least Nolan ends with his best foot forward, more or less. The journey can be rough and overcrowded, but at the very least the ambition deserves some level of admiration, even when the execution sometimes falls short. Unfortunately, it's not just a case of expectations. The film is easily the weakest of Nolan's trilogy, despite some compelling stretches and decent acting. It may improve with time, once the disappointment has worn off and the flaws accepted, but it's a shame that such an adult-minded trilogy had to start tripping over itself as it crossed the finish line. As far as its craftsmanship and ambition, however, The Dark Knight Rises is still more successful than your average summer blockbuster. But in trying to cover so many bases instead of just cutting to the core narrative, this franchise's epic final chapter struggles to stay afloat. It doesn't sink, but only by a hair's breadth, thanks to its conviction and the goodwill built up from its two vastly superior predecessors.

Grade: B-

One step forward, two steps backward: Trailers to ring in 2012

Even though we're still dealing with awards season craziness, it's never too soon to start looking past the acceptance speeches and trophies, and into what cinema holds in store for us in the new year. Over the past two weeks, three trailers have emerged for three very big potential blockbusters. One is a sequel, while the other two are prequels (more or less). And all three have one thing in common: insanely high expectations.

When your previous film develops rabid fanboys, becomes a massive box office success, and scores an actor an Oscar, all while being a super hero movie, the next installment is under scrutiny from day one. That's certainly been the case with Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises, the director's final contribution to Batman's cinematic legacy. Everything has been picked apart, and concerns have been raised regarding everything from casting to costume choices. With the release of the first full trailer, however, Nolan's latest is finally putting some (or at least, my) worries to rest. The trailer covers quite a lot thematically without spelling out the specific direction of the plot. It also gives us some nice looks at Tom Hardy as Bane, and Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman, who shakes off her rom-com personality to inject a surprising amount of menace. The actions scenes look intense, and the idea of Gotham actually falling into chaos (a fulfillment of the Arkham breakout in Batman Begins) looks like an interesting way to bring Nolan's trilogy full-circle. Oh, and the creepy chanting that plays over the last half of the footage? Perfection.

Trailer Grade: A-

Next we have Prometheus, Ridley Scott's long-gestating prequel-but-it-sort-of-isn't to Alien. Boasting a stellar ensemble, the film's entire look is fantastic, and I can't wait to see more footage. We need another well made, big budget sci-fi flick to counterbalance the likes of Transformers. That eerie, monolithic face statue, as well as that strange crescent structure are enough to get me hooked from a visual standpoint. Even more interesting will be to see the creation footage that Scott and crew were reportedly filming in Iceland. On a nerdier note, it will be interesting to see how the film plays off of its mythically based title. Given the film's tag line, it's probably meant to be a rather dark variation. Scott has been a bit of a slump that past few years, but here's hoping that a return to sci-fi will help him return to his best. Love that gradual reveal of the title too.

Trailer Grade: B+

Finally, we come to the most troubled of the three: Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The first of two films covering the novel (part two hits in 2013), the film has struggled to move ahead with production. Guillermo Del Toro was originally set to direct, before financial and legal issues delayed the start of shooting so much that he bailed. Jackson is back in the chair, which is reasurring that at least it will be the exact same vision as before. Let's just hope it doesn't end up feeling, stale, though. The footage is relatively simple, not showing anything epic, and focusing more on the characters and the lighter nature of the narrative. A lot of the footage still needs to be color-graded, but overall I'm very hopeful that the long-delayed return to Middle Earth will be worth it. The film is being shot on cutting-edge technology at the highest frame rate ever for a major motion picture. How this will affect the film, for better or for worse, remains to be seen, but at the very least it will help the film feel slightly different. Now if only we can get around to seeing some footage of Smaug...

Trailer Grade: B

Teaser Trailer: "The Dark Knight Rises" [Fixed/New link]

**Click HERE to find a different version of the teaser (the player can be odd when embedded, so it's easier to simply link to it). The TrailerAddict embed doesn't always want to work for some reason...

Topping The Dark Knight isn't going to be an easy feat, but that hasn't stopped Christopher Nolan from aiming big. Even with the minimal footage (I'm surprised there's any; the first teaser for The Dark Knight was merely a logo with voice over), this teaser gives off a feeling of something big. Nolan has said that The Dark Knight Rises will bring his Batman trilogy full circle, though he hasn't clarified whether that's in a narrative or thematic sense (both?). Either way, this trailer, which contains a brief glimpse of Tom Hardy as Bane, is certainly exciting. That said, however, I get the feeling that, based on the shots of Gary Oldman in the hospital bed, we're headed for even darker territory than The Dark Knight, which is no small feat, especially in a big budget blockbuster.

What I watched this week: Missing entries

Even though I've been posting a lot of reviews lately, I've realized that I've been neglecting my "What I watched this week" series for quite some time now. As a make-up, here's a condensed set of reviews for my undocumented viewings from January, before I wrap up January with the "Best of the Month" post later today.

Cabaret (1972) dir. Bob Fosse

Notable for winning eight Oscars without taking home Best Picture (it lost to The Godfather), Bob Fosse's screen version of the acclaimed Broadway musical is a complex and entertaining look at the lives of outsiders during the rise of Nazism. In addition to Bob Fosse's fantastic direction and choreography, the film benefits from strong performances from Liza Minelli as the boisterous Sally Bowles and Joel Grey as the eerie, seedy MC (both performances and Fosse won Oscars). Other cast members don't fare so well (leading man Michael York is on the bland side), and the subplot involving Marissa Berenson's romance feels slight. Still, the film deserves praise for the way it tackles so many complicated subjects - namely sexuality - with depth and sophistication.

Grade: B+/A-

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) dir. Woody Allen

One of Woody Allen's best-loved films, and deservingly so. While some of the prolific auteur's recent work often delves into tedium, Hannah works on all fronts, as both a comedy and drama. The entire ensemble is strong, especially Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest (both of whom won Oscars). And while some story strands feel a bit hurried in their resolution (Caine's affair with Barbara Hershey's character), this zippy film tackles potentially heavy subject matter with enough intelligence and lightness that it becomes engaging, lively, and wholly entertaining to watch. One of the best scenes involves the titular Hannah (and her sisters) discussing any number of problems over lunch, as the camera circles around them repeatedly. It's a work of masterful directing, shot composition, writing, and acting, that exemplifies Allen at his finest.

Grade: B+

The Vanishing (1988) dir. George Sluizer

What starts as a simple enough case of a missing person gradually becomes deeper and stranger as it progresses along. George Sluizer's slow-burning thriller features surprisingly strong characterization, especially when it comes to the kidnapper (Bernard Donnadieu). By gradually piecing together how/when/why Donnadieu's Raymond Lemorne kidnaps Saskia (Johanna ter Steege), the film becomes a surprising mix of mystery and character study. And even though it drags a bit in finally getting to the point of it all, it has an unsettling, wickedly poetic ending that more than makes up for it.

Grade: B+

The Sting (1973) dir. George Roy Hill

"Heist Film" and "Best Picture Winner" aren't the sort of terms that normally go together, but that's exactly what happened with George Roy Hill's 1973 crime film. Though it marks one of the major collaborations between Robert Redford and Paul Newman, the film's strongest performance actually comes from Robert Shaw as the duo's nemesis. An intimidating presence from his first scene, Shaw pretty much makes the movie, which is a little bit too long for its own good. Still, it's lively and fun, and has enough suspense and twists to make it worth the ride.

Grade: B

I am Love (2010) dir. Luca Guadagnino [3rd Viewing]

Heeeeere we go again. Well, they say the third time's the charm, and that's sort of what happened to me with this film. It's actually much more subtle than I gave it credit for in how it portrays Emma's (Tilda Swinton) feeling of being trapped, and some of the hidden nastiness of the Recchi's comes out. The photography and music also gelled together much better, and for much of the film I found the viewing experience quite thrilling. Unfortunately, the screenplay still has a handful of issues that hold it back. Even though Emma feels trapped, the film still doesn't quite justify her desire to run away. She doesn't hate the family she married into, and even if her husband can sometimes be a little stern, he's done nothing (in what we see or in what is implied) to make him a "bad guy." Worse, the chef Emma has an affair with isn't even remotely charismatic or alluring, which hurts the idea that Emma falls for him over his cooking (one last time: she's filthy rich and lives in Italy; great food is NOT in short supply). But nothing about the film is a bigger offender than the ludicrous ending. Now that so much of the film has improved for me, this part is even worse than before, because it ends on a hollow and unsatisfying note rather than a triumphant one. Even with the incredible choice of music, the close-ups become laughable. Worse, the fact that Emma runs away from her family (and civilized society as a whole, one could infer) right after her eldest son has died and the whole family is genuinely in mourning comes off as being in rather bad taste. As I mentioned in my review of Enter the Void, I am Love is a film that wants to be a thrilling pure cinema experience, but unfortunately falls short because it doesn't give the same attention to characters and writing as it does to its stunning aesthetics, thrilling as they can be.

**I've just realized that I can never talk or write about this movie without going on a rant. Sorry...

[Final] Grade: B-

Insomnia (2002) dir. Christopher Nolan

After watching Inception for what feels like the 10th time, I decided to go back to one of Christopher Nolan's earlier films, and found a pleasant surprise. Insomnia actually makes me wish that Nolan would (after The Dark Night Rises) take a break from the BIG stuff, and do something smaller like this or Memento. It's also, to me, proof that Nolan is a better director than he is a writer. Written by Hillary Seitz (and adapted from a 1997 Norwegian film of the same name), the screenplay is much less reliant on expository dialogue (some of which is beyond unnecessary in Inception), and has an overall better flow than the writing in some of Nolan's bigger productions. And, like most Nolan films, the standout isn't the performances, but rather the construction and execution of the story, which Nolan does a fantastic job of. And while the ending may hit something of a cliched note, this steadily paced thriller actually ranks as one of Nolan's best films.

Grade: B/B+

Richard III (1995) dir. Richard Loncraine

Though not quite as out-there in its imagery as Julie Taymor's Titus (1999), this 1930s set telling of the Bard's play benefits from engaging visuals, clever staging, and a magnificent performance from Ian McKellan. There's plenty of menace in McKellan's Richard, but he doesn't over do it, and even adds tiny little quirks of almost child-like glee to his character's scheming. Unfortunately, Annette Bening and Robert Downey Jr. don't fare as well, and their American(ish?) accents clash with Shakespeare's word play. Maggie Smith, on the other hand, completely sells her role in the limited time she's given, and a series of curses she bestows upon Richard to his face is so intense you can almost feel her voice dripping with poison. And when the film reaches its climax, it ends on a wickedly funny note, and uses its time period and location to brilliant effect, even if it results in some slightly stiff green-screen work. Not quite as visionary as Titus, but certainly striking and memorable for a number of good reasons.

Grade: B/B+

Villains revealed for "The Dark Knight Rises"

After months of waiting, Christopher Nolan has finally given us his villains for his third (and final) Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises, due out in July 2012. Anne Hathaway will play Selina Kyle, who traditionally becomes Catwoman, and Inception and Bronson star Tom Hardy will play Bane. Hardy's casting as Bane makes sense enough; he has the right look to play someone frighteningly equipped with brawn and brains in equal measure. According to Wikipedia, the character is even considered one of Batman's greatest powerful foes; apparently in one comic book storyline, he even manages to break Batman's spinal cord. Ouch.

Hathaway, on the other hand, is more of a question mark. She's certainly a talented actress, but she has a certain joy about her that makes it difficult for me to picture the future Oscar co-host as the classic villain/love interest. After all, Hathaway is nearly a decade younger than Christian Bale, which has the potential to cause chemistry issues. Then again, the character could simply be more Selina Kyle, and less Catwoman. She could start off as another love interest, and the film could set up for her transformation, either within the film or as an incomplete subplot (though that would be odd, considering that Nolan isn't returning after TDKR).

To be fair, many of us had similar thoughts when Ledger was cast as the Joker ("how on earth is that guy going to become the Joker!?!?!"). And of course, we aren't even remotely close to knowing what the Nolan brothers' (plus David S. Goyer) vision/design is for the character. It's safe to assume that she'll be scaled down somewhat in terms of flamboyance (Nolan's bat-verse is pretty free of camp). And I doubt that we'll be seeing anything like this:

All in all, the pair of Hathaway and Hardy make for an interesting pair of casting choices. The film doesn't begin shooting until April or May, which means we won't get any grainy on-set photos from afar for quite a while now. Hopefully Nolan and co. will give out a costume sketch or something along the way, but if not, we'll simply have to play the waiting game.

"Inception" - REVIEW

It's almost hard to discuss Inception, along with the positive and negative responses to it, without looking at the traits and changes of its director, Christopher Nolan. His personal project, which would probably never have made it to the screen were it not for the success of his first two Batman reboots, is something of an intriguing oddity. Like James Cameron's Avatar, Nolan had an early draft of the script in his drawer for years, but only recently found that he had the capabilities to make it. In some sense, Inception is something like Mr. Nolan's attempt at delving into the head-spinning story-telling and structure of his indie breakout Memento, with the big-budget trappings and gloss of The Dark Knight. With expectations sky high after that second Batman film, and with enough time having passed for its detractors to step into the sunlight without fear of being ripped to shreds, Inception arrives more open to negative (or at least non-ecstatic) reception, and in some ways, this is a good thing. For while Nolan has made a movie that engages viscerally and intellectually, it can't always engage the heart as fully as it should. Not that it isn't strong film making - keep reading and you'll see that I liked or loved lots of it - but it feels like a cautionary film, one that suggests that perhaps Mr. Nolan should (after Batman 3, which I'm still super excited for) return to the smaller, more organic roots of the film that made him a name.

Inception is that sort of film that needs to be talked about as vaguely as possible in regards to plot. What I'll say isn't much different from what you can glean from the trailers: Cobb (DiCaprio), part of a team who can hack into dreams to steal or plant ideas, needs to get one last, daunting job done in order to "get home," (what that means, you'll have to discover). The rest of his team includes Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Eames (Tom Hardy), and Ariadne (Ellen Page). Also along for the ride are Ken Watanabe as Cobb's client, Marion Cotillard as Cobb's wife, and Cillian Murphy as the group's target. Yet for such a wonderful ensemble (Mr. Hardy being the most fun), this is not an actor's film by any means. The ensemble isn't one-note, but most of them are far from being fully fleshed-out. Yet even so, with the exception of Ken Watanabe being somewhat difficult to understand, I have no complaints about anyone.

Like any Nolan movie, the women are bound to come up as a subject of debate (as one critic wrote, they tend to be "effective window-dressing" in his films), but as for me, I found both ladies were used to lovely effect. Cotillard is predictably beautiful, but also intriguing though hers is the hardest performance to discuss considering its spoiler-ish nature. For now, let's just say that it's leagues ahead of her work in her last mainstream summer outing, Public Enemies, in that she's interesting and engaging during the whole movie, and not just in the last 20 minutes. Page however, I can talk more freely about, and gladly so. She certainly creates a sharp divide among movie-goers, but after this film, I'll plant myself firmly in the "like" camp. Ariadne is, as predicted, used as the audience insert (ie: the one who can ask "why?" so that the others can explain the dream world to the audience in some manner other than a Star Wars-esque prologue scroll). But thankfully Nolan gives Page more to do than ask "why?" (or at least doesn't keep those questions strictly to the job at hand), and her one-on-one scenes with DiCaprio are some of the best character-oriented ones. Page is likable, smart, and believable as a depiction of how a "normal" person would react after being thrust into such a daunting world.

The men are an interesting story as well. DiCaprio, headlining his second head-twister this year after Shutter Island, makes an effective leading man, but I can't help but wish that Nolan had gone with someone who could more easily call for sympathy and give off shades (heh) of warmth, considering Nolan's slightly distant way of handling his characters in his writing. Still, he does the role well, and he certainly fares better than Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who aside from getting the film's show-stopping hallway-fight-turned-zero-G sequence, doesn't bring quite enough spark to his role, though his chemistry and bickering with Hardy suggests a relationship that I'd like to have a deeper look at. Mr. Hardy, however, exudes more charisma as the shapeshifting forger, delivering some nice little quips with ease and bringing in some of the needed humor. But for me, the real MVP of the men, and maaaaybe the movie, is Cillian Murphy, who has a much larger role than anticipated. Let's just say that the payoff of his story arc is the closest to a fully-realized emotional payoff that Inception has, perhaps more so than Cobb's own interests. Perhaps the problem can be traced back to something I noticed in The Dark Knight. With Nolan's (alleged) coldness in his films, emotional payoff is generated more out of a visceral response to pure intensity, than to a deep attachment to the characters. But what made those visceral moments practically enough of a substitute for heartfelt emotion was probably built on the fact that there were fewer (front and center) characters to keep track of. With Inception, we're dealing with a crew five shy of an Ocean's 11 sized set of protagonists, and the emotion elicited (and thereby the intensity of the film) is hampered as a result, which makes me glad that Nolan stopped expanding his ensemble where he did.

But now that we've taken a look at the actors of what is not an actor's film, it's time to look at, well, everything else. In The Dark Knight, people accused Nolan of overwriting scenes with expository dialogue. For whatever the reason, this is one of those complaints that I can respect and understand, yet despite repeated viewings of that film, it never really makes an impact, and remains a non-issue. For most of Inception this is also likely the case, BUT I'm curious to see how the portion of the film that deals most with explaining the rules holds up on a second viewing. Will it become slightly tedious hearing it all again, or will it hold up because of one of the true stars of the film (that being Lee Smith's editing)? It's hard to say, though Nolan and crew do keep the pace nice and sustained, especially considering the run time and increasing layering of the dreams unfolding on screen. A pair of other standouts dominate the film. First is Wally Pfister's cool, rich cinematography (which is a knockout on an IMAX screen). And even though some of the film's shootouts and chases feel slightly routine in their setups and choreography (Nolan should probably focus more on "adventure" than "action," even though that vehicular chase/battle from TDK is still incredible), they're bolstered by the occasional gorgeous use of slow-motion, and the last part of the arts/tech triumvirate, Hans Zimmer's score, a mix of the intricate and the blaring. If at time a bit too loud as it pours out of the speakers, it's still engaging as all get out, and matches the beats of the movie perfectly. Like I am Love, the blaring score is part of what helps the film shake you and make an impact, although in Nolan's film, that feeling of being shaken also comes with an actual sense of satisfaction when the credits start. Fourth place goes to the special effects, the most prominent in any Nolan film. I've saved them for last because it almost feels needless to talk about them. In a word, they're seamless, and never was I thinking that I was looking at pixels. That said, as far as how Nolan uses the effects, I sometimes wish he had gone a little more mad with his vision. Dreams aren't usually as orderly as Nolan presents them, and the dreams could have used more moments (albeit small ones) where the characters improvise creations, such as when Ariadne makes a bridge rise up in front of her as she navigates through her first dream.

So while Inception doesn't quite inspire the rapturous response the expectation and pre-hype had created like it did for The Dark Knight, this is still thoroughly engaging slam-bang entertainment, even if it is a bit cold to the touch. Nolan's direction is strong, even if some of his writing needs work to serve an ensemble who prove themselves more than up to the task of filling up their roles further were they given the material. It's also a technical marvel as previously mentioned, and can perhaps best be compared to its visual effects: engaging, intense, detailed, slick, a bit too distant, yet somehow wholly believable (ie: the anti-A-Team) because of the effort put in. Even with its flaws, Nolan's blockbuster, likely to remain the best of mainstream cinema of the summer along with Toy Story 3, does manage to accomplish what its tag line promised: The dream is real.

Grade: B+

New "Inception" character featurette

It's amazing that considering the amount of footage available for viewing, that Inception has managed to keep its main plot shrouded in mystery. Obviously we have some vague idea that DiCaprio and crew are after "one last job" and that they can enter dreams, but there's nothing remotely spoiler-worthy about that. Rumors are that many of the cast members, if not all of them, didn't fully understand what the film was about during much of the shooting process; hopefully that means the film is simply a mind-bender and not an overly confusing mess. Long-time Nolan cinematographer Wally Pfister's work here looks impeccable, bolstered by Nolan's insistence on shooting on-location and the vivid VFX work. My only real question actually worth asking is: why leave out Ken Watanabe? We know he's something of a villain, and we've clearly seen him in previous footage, so why leave him and his character title out?

"Inception" trailer #3!!!!

WOW. Even with the plot clearer...WOW, this easily tops the teaser and first trailer. Glorious new footage, and incredible music (please tell me that piece is part of the score), with a combination of psychological and physical action...I'm in.

New "Inception" poster

And still no Marion Cotillard. Anywhere. I know there are behind-the-scenes stills of her, and I know she plays DiCaprio's wife, but they couldn't work her in there somehow? Is her role that small? Regardless of Cotillard's exclusion, I'm not crazy about this poster. I like the city blocks folding over on themselves, but the characters' poses at the bottom seem a little too "A-Team" for me.

"Batman 3" and "The Hobbit" by 2013

2013? 2013!? That's the longest we might have to wait? Okay, maybe I should calm down. After all, Christopher Nolan isn't a super hero (ha ha), and even with his brother Jonathan working on the script for Batman 3, he'll probably need a break after the extensive work on Inception (which I'm unbelievably excited for) before he jumps back into the director's chair. Still, it's been nearly two years since The Dark Knight, and it took three years between Batman Begins and that film. It would have been nice to have a repeat of that time table, but that looks highly unlikely. Oh well, at least it's being made, and with Nolan on board (which was confirmed a while ago).

Also, how nice is it to finally hear something GOOD about Del Toro/Jackson's The Hobbit? For a while it seemed like the whole project had come to a complete standstill. It's nice to see that at least one major film franchise is getting its next installment off the ground. People can rag on Del Toro for Hellboy all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that he wrote and directed both The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth, two stunning fantasy-dramas. And with Peter Jackson simultaneously in a rut as a director (The Lovely Bones) and on a high as a producer (District 9), it's good to have the grand maestro behind The Lord of the Rings trilogy involved in a pivotal role. I, for one, am more than ready to return to Middle Earth.