253

So I'm sure everybody remembers when online multi-player networks first appeared on modern video game consoles, right?

You do? Oh good, because I have no idea. I was too busy writing angsty poems and doing theatre, two markets that have become way more successful and respected than gaming in the, uh....national and international.......er.....

M-moving on.

The introduction of multi-player gaming networks has completely revolutionized the gaming industry by pushing gaming into the realm of globalization. Different people from different cultures---America, Canada, Denmark, China, India, North Dakota---are now throwing themselves into the same playing space, where they are forced they are forced to interact, for better or worse, with people they will probably never talk to again. Gamers who have observed everyone in this “together alone” atmosphere have probably been prompted to ask themselves: who are we, as people? It is this question that author Geoff Ryman attempts to address in his 1998 novel 253. The novel is not about multi-player gaming, but any gamer who's played more than fifty hours of XboxLive or WoW will more-than-likely have lived the concept of 253.

253 began in 1996 as a web-page called “Tube Theatre”. The story is about 253 people traveling on a London underground train from Embankment Station to Elephant-&-Castle Station. Each passenger is introduced with a separate section of 253 words. These little blurbs give general details about the passengers outside appearance, background information, and inner thoughts. The “Tube Theatre” web-page(sadly no longer active) used hypertext to link one character to another character; the print version substitutes that hypertext for coach maps depicting where each passenger is sitting in each car.

253 won the Philip K. Dick award in 1998 and was praised by its publisher as “the future of fiction”. It has since fallen out of mainstream popularity, most likely because the novel is more proof-of-concept than a real story. The entire action takes place in 7 minutes 30 seconds, has no discernible plot, and no chronological order. The characters are motionless in time, never moving forward on any level, and don't really stand out. The average hungry reader will find the story very hard to get into, a fact the Ryman himself acknowledges in the novel's first five pages.

Ryman's little world is populated with a variety-act of characters. Notables include: a financial adviser re-imagining the end to An American Werewolf in Britain, a thirty-four year old woman with Down's Syndrome who is going to visit her mother's grave, an up-and-coming rapper who gets off the train one stop early to masturbate, and a character that has no idea who or what he/she is. The train is also populated with namesakes: there's a Margaret Thatcher who isn't the real Margaret Thatcher, a Billie Holiday who isn't the real Billie Holiday, a Geoff Ryman who isn't the real Geoff Ryman, and an Anne Frank who the narrator claims is actually the real Anne Frank.

The most enduring aspect of 253 is the narrator, a 254^th character who on-purposely undermines his own credibility. In some of the passenger sections the narrator includes “helpful and informative footnotes”, which he uses to joyfully poke fun at himself. He also throws in fake advertisements with mocking titles like “The 253 Guide to Homely English” and “The 253 Personal Ads: What You Really Need Other People For!” All this, plus the fact that none of the passengers ever truly speak for themselves, forces the reader to question the narrators reliability and motives. It is the concept of “the ambivalent narrator” that Ryman is toying with in 253, and he takes great pains to make his audience notice. He wants us to ask: who is this person? Am I like this when I'm on the bus, or in a waiting room? The profundity of these questions is strengthened by the fact that most of the novel's characters may very well be headed towards their ultimate end.

Though 253 is no longer in print, you can find a fair number of copies on Amazon or at local libraries. Geoff Ryman is still an active SF/fantasy writer and in December 2012 received the Canadian Sunburst Award for his short story collection Paradise Tales. If you're interested in his work, hop on over to smallbeerpress.com where you'll find an assortment of novels available for purchase. 

"Legacy" Schmegacy

Hello everyone,

             Before we start I have something I really need to say…..um…….

             It’s not you……it’s me.

             Anyway, after last month’s midnight premiere of Harry Potter I thought it would be months before I decided to brave the fatigue of 3 AM to see another midnight premiere. Alas, that all changed last week when I got invited to see Tron: Legacy at the Capitol Theatre. It was a sequel to the intriguingly impressive 1982 Tron, and it was in 3D.

              Now I hadn’t seen anything in 3D yet. I avoided Avatar simply because I didn’t want to waste twelve more dollars on Dances With Blue-Cat People and I haven’t been interested in seeing any of the other films that have come out in 3D. Also, I didn’t want to waste money on a lie.

It’s not 3D. Yes, children, I hate to ruin Christmas for you like mom and dad did when you were eight, but all of the films advertised off as “3D” are not Three Dimensional. I know I just brought you all down, so here’s something to cheer you up.

For the men: boobs

For the women: a sexy guy in a hot dog costume

3D is real life. If you’re standing directly in front of me, I can reach around your back and tap you on the opposing shoulder. This is because the world exists in length, width, and the third and probably most important dimension, depth. 3D films only give off the illusion of depth. Look at your computer screen. Now look at your dog(or the floor), now your leg, now the room you’re in, and now, the finale, look back at this review. Congratulations, you have just experienced 3D!

Dance party break! 

…..

…..

If films were actually done in 3D, I would be able to walk up to the movie screen and tap one of the characters in the film on the opposing shoulder. Next time you go to a 3D film, take your glasses off for a minute. I’ll bet you my life savings that the 2D screen hasn’t morphed into real life. Now put the glasses back on and try and tap Johnny Knoxville on the opposing shoulder. Does your hand go behind him? I have a feeling the answer is no.

“But review guy,” you say to your computer screen “It makes me feels like I’m really there.” Maybe, but you don’t need 3D glasses to elicit that feeling. You see, all of you have something called an imagination, which I believe you are supposed to use when watching works of art.

Right, now that I’ve bittered-up the holiday season for everyone, let’s move on to the actual film.

Tron: Legacy was a bold move for Disney. The original Tron was, for the most part, a flop. It did relatively well, but was shat on by critics and the public alike when it came out in ‘82. Over the years, a plethora of SF fans and gamers have developed a cult following of the film, heightening its value just enough to coax a sequel out of Hollywood. Rumors of a second film date all the way back to the 1990s, and the hype for Legacy this year has been extraordinary.

Hype that is, for the most part, overblown.

Legacy has a good, grounded story that could have made for a great film. Kevin Flynn(Jeff Bridges) has disappeared, leaving his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) distraught and depressed. When Flynn’s longtime friend Alan Bradley(Bruce Boxleitner) receives a mysterious page from Flynn’s abandoned office phone, he sends Sam to investigate. Sam accidently gets sucked into the digital world, where he is captured by Flynn’s digital-world alter-ego Clu. Sam then goes through a flurry of gladiator-like games, including a light cycle battle against Clu himself, before being rescued from certain death by a mysterious woman named Quorra(Olivia Wilde), who takes him to be reunited with his father. At this point, the plot goes on autopilot and becomes the stereotypical action-adventure film, ending in a climatic battle of good and evil that evil could have easily won if it had any sense.

Oh yeah, there’s also some sub-plot about people called ISOs and how they’re going to change all of humanity, though it’s never explained why or how and proved to be small beans in terms of plot contribution. 

The rest of the film, save for the production design which I’ll get to in a moment, falls flat on its face from beginning to end. The script evoked feelings of murderous rage, from the melodramatic, stereotypical action film lines, to the bastardization of Jeff Bridge’s character, who was one part Flynn, one part the Dude from Lebowski. Not that I hate the Dude or anything, but he’s the Dude…in fucking Tron. It made me cringe.

As we all know, no bad script can be complete without bad acting. Garret Hedlund’s Sam Flynn made Hayden Christenson’s Anakin Skywalker look good, which is quite a stunning achievement. Jeff Bridges Flynn has apparently found his zen, which makes him moderately interesting to watch at times. In addition, Bridges also plays Clu, complete with CGI to make him look thirty again. The CGI human features were pretty solid, though creepy at times. Olivia Wilde turns in a pair of beautiful eyes and a nice body but absolutely nothing else. The only decent acting to appear was by the very talented Michael Sheen, who plays the smiley gangster Zuse. Sheen’s brief, over-the-top shenanigans were a firework in a field of sparklers, and a thankful relief from the rest of the cast.

Legacy falls into the category of a “saved by a thread” kind of film, and it’s saving grace is the production design. The digital world that was crafted for the film in ’82 was more than good, and the sequel only builds on it. The original world was carved in grids and sharp edges, like circuitry. The newer, more modern, digital world comes in all shapes and sizes. Landscapes, vehicles, and the general environment are three times as flexible, and the color and tint of the art design is a treat for the senses.

            And that seems to be the goal nowadays, doesn't it? Treating the senses?

People are impressed with sub-par entertainment these days, and it bothers me. We have modern appliances and modern technology because someone, somewhere, at some point in time, put in the long hours and the energy to make them. We have memorable paintings, plays, and books that artists sometimes starved themselves to create. None of these people took shortcuts.

I miss the days before computer-generated images became the norm; when special effects were the obstacle rather than the feature; back when a plot problem had to be solved using intelligence and intuition rather than a computer.

It’s not real---a CGI image I mean. You can detail it until your blue in the face, but you can never fool the human eye, and you will especially never fool the trained human eye. It knows when something is real, and when something is not. There’s a reason why films from the twenties, thirties, forties, and fifties continue to fascinate modern audiences. They had spectacle to them. They used huge sets, thousands of bodies, models, extensive costumes(the guy who played the original Godzilla could only stay in the suit for 30 seconds before passing out). Hard, grueling work was put into every minute of every hour to make the final product shine in theatres. Part of the awe of those films is seeing what the minds, hands, and bodies of filmmakers could do when exerted, and the results were extraordinary.

Actors and directors had to fiddle with malfunctioning set pieces(Jaws was a bitch to make) and costume pieces. Make-up had to be used to alter features---you get the point, all right?

What I want to know is: when did “easy” start to mean “better”? When did doing things the hard way become not only outdated, but wrong? I may be overreacting to this; the answer may in fact be “money.” It more than likely is. When money is involved, the meaning of words and actions seem to magically change. Nevertheless, how does having a sizable amount of amazing special effects magically increase a films worth? Why is art that makes you feel good and comfortable worth more in general than art that depresses you?

That’s what I think social networking and information sharing has done: it’s devalued our humanity. Our thoughts and feelings go on to Facebook and are forgotten about. Why? You are human beings. Your depression has value, your pain has value, your suffering has value---as much value as happiness, comfort, satisfaction, etc. The negative feelings need to be welcomed and embraced as much as the positive ones; and not just when and where you’d like them to, but everywhere in everything. 

The friend that I went and saw Tron: Legacy with was a little kid when the first Tron came out. It’s one of his favorite movies of all time. He’s been waiting 28 years for Hollywood to bring it back to the screen. His reaction to Legacy: “It was what I expected it to be.” That, I think, is the most sickening criticism an artist can get. I would much rather have someone tell me my work was shit.

Yet this seems to be the standard nowadays, at least with movie and television franchises. They know that millions of fans will come out and pay for their film, so they don’t bother to make it be any better than it needs to be. Tron: Legacy falls into the same category as Avatar, Star Trek, The Last Airbender, the first six Harry Potter films, and the Star Wars prequel trilogy as films that could have been milestones had the people making them actually cared.

I guess I’m demanding too much. It was too much to ask for Lost to have more depth than a tabloid magazine, for Star Trek to be more than a generic film that anyone could have pulled out of their ass in twenty minutes, for Tron: Legacy to be more than expected. After all, people want to get what they want, and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of---  

You know what; nevermind. As I said earlier:

it’s not you, it’s me.

            Now go put on your franchise character T-shirt. It makes you look more like a geek.

            Ciao.

Harry Potter and the Mid-Night Brawl

Carpooling, friends and family, new cases of diabetes---ahhhh, yes, it’s midnight premiere season yet again; a most wonderful time of any year where people from all sorts of neighborhoods and boroughs get together in celebration of yet another addictive film franchise.

“I love film franchises! Woo!”

This time around, it is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I, starring nude-no-more Daniel Radcliffe, bear-child Rupert Grint, and fan-favorite Emma Watson, directed by (who amongst you is actually going to care?) David Yates. Nine and eight years ago, the first and second Harry Potter films graced the cinemas with their exposition-squeezed stories that informed audiences about the witch-and-wizard world they were being pulled into---and then abruptly ended and went to credits. Finally, as Prisoner of Azkaban lay on the cutting room floor, the director(again, who is actually going to care if I don’t name him?) finally said “fuck it” and began hacking branches off J.K. Rowling's story, leaving behind most of the original material to keep Potter fans engaged but changing just enough so that those same fans interrupted each subsequent film several times to remind the entire audience that “::gasp:: that’s not how they did it in the book!” Since then, the films have gotten a more stable plot line and have had a chance to focus on the characters: Emo-Dysfunctional Boy, Cutesy-Brave Guy, and the Girl-Who-Proves-That-Men-Come-From-Jupiter-And-Women-Come-From Venus.

I’m sure I’m going to get booed for this---

“Booooo!”

-but I wish the three main actors would learn to act something than their own characters’ archetypes. I like the three of them, I really do; Watson, Radcliffe, and Grint make a lovable trio and work well together on film, but they seem to ignore the fact that people change over time; especially vulnerable, susceptible teenagers. Other than looking more grown up, Potter, Granger, and Weasley have apparently not been affected by the events that have forever changed their lives. For starters, Watson has used the same “Hermione-in-agony” expression for almost every moment in the last five films, while Radcliffe has turned Harry more emo than Peter Parker in “Spider-Man 3”, and Grint is as adorable as a puppy, but his actual level of bravery is certainly questionable. After everything he’s been through and overcome, he still cowers in the face of a challenge almost immediately. I’m not saying that newer challenges shouldn’t test his bravery---I’m saying it doesn’t need to happen immediately, yet it does every time. It’s a trait I see in all three of them; they are frightened, they overcome their fear, bravely conquer newer challenges, and come out better and stronger intellectually and emotionally---and then go right back to where they started at the beginning of the next film*.

These characters are satisfactory. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson remind me of the main three from the book; but is that all? Is that all movie adaptations have to do to impress their audiences these days? As long as it follows the book and looks exactly like what we imagine, it’s fine? That’s it? Very few movies are "better" than the books that spawned them. Most of the ones that are considered “better” radically alter the book to fit a different vision, while still maintaining the core material from the original story; radically differ so much so that some fans don’t even consider the two to be related. Quite a catch-22 isn’t it: if the film doesn’t follow the book, fans get mad; if it does follow the book and cuts corners(God forbid they don’t show everything from all 400-600 pages), fans still get mad? Movies based off books have had more success(artistically anyway) when they are just that, based off the book, not tied to it. Why would one want the two to be the same? After all, each one of us sees these fantasy worlds differently, so no matter what, it’s almost never going to look the way we want it to on-screen. Plus, it’s not fair for the directors to have to conform to a story that’s already been written and imagined. Yes, they do get a chance to add their own style to the events from the book, but even then they don’t have too many options.

“Yeah philosophical, thought-provoking questions!”
“Will you please be quiet? We’re all trying to read this review too.”

That being said, there were stylistic choices that I thought Yates crafted superbly. The blacker tones and barren locations of this film informed the character’s struggle with the themes of isolation, loss, and entrapment. The dark heartbeat contrasts nicely with bright spots of comedy and dance(yes, dance) that relieve the tensed angst of the younglings’ mission to find four Horcruxes in the haystack of the entire world. Yates’s animated, Burton-esque telling of the Tale of the Three Brothers is a fantasy within a fantasy, giving this film as expressionist edge that I think is a bit too late in coming. Up to this point, the Potter films had been without animated, avant-garde art styles to turn them on their heads; having one suddenly be thrown into the mix in the next-to-last installment felt useless. Despite that fact, the segment was very beautiful and left me wanting more of it and wishing it had been used in previous films. Also, as I mentioned somewhat earlier, relatability has never been these films’ strong suit as the fans of the franchise have grown up and made all kinds of changes while our dear friends in the Harry Potter world are still getting into fights and leaving each other, apparently forgetting that that has never helped anything, ever.     

I’m not going to discuss how much of the book the film follows, simply because it can be summed up pretty easily: it doesn’t completely follow the book. What needs to be there is, all right? Hedwig still dies, Potter still kicks Umbridge’s toady ass, and Voldemort is still as ugly as---ah! aodjewiogfhretgiohrtgoihtrioygibrpfoatjpoaaf
Ght
Hyt
Ujhytkjuyl
Kiopoiijjh
Ilghh
 Ggg         gtgtr htyj yy6  jyt jk

“Stupefy! Nortono Insta Credito!”

Pardon the interruption there folks. As I was saying---and Vol—You-Know-Who---is still as ugly as the bastard child of Lucifer.

“Lame!”
“Shhhhh!”
“You ‘shhhhh!’”

 Earlier this week, in unconscious anticipation of soon realizing that it was coming out this week, I stumbled across an article in which Daniel Radcliffe had told reporters that Emma Watson"kisses like an animal". Radcliffe was referring to the scene in the film where Ron is being tempted into a fit of rage and jealousy by the Horcrux locket, which shows him an image of Harry and Ron's beloved Hermione sloppily making out. Now, most men my age would be looking forward to seeing Emma Watson make out with just about anyone(myself being in the minority that realizes that she’s about four years younger than me and that that means something), but what I was looking forward to seeing was what exactly Yates meant with his direction; according to Radcliffe, Yates told the actors that the first take was too soft, that they needed to be “more pagan and mad,” which is definitely a candidate in the running for Best Direction EVER!

“You---actor in the background, buttering your toast! More pagan and mad!”

“You---zombies! More pagan and mad!”

“You---Mel Gibson! More pag---act-actually, less pagan and mad for you; you already have enough of that. Thank you.”

Watson proceeded to heed Yates’s direction, and went at Radcliffe with “animal” lips, taking him almost completely by surprise. The scene itself turned out to be about as “pagan and mad” as an environmentalist’s Christmas party, though I’m sure the more perverted fans(of both genders) enjoyed watching Watson and Radcliffe make out naked(spoiler alert!)

“Yeah nakedness!”
“Shut the fuck up!!”
“Quit shushing me and read the review you fat fuck.”
“I’m going to get security.”

So, now to the question everyone has been wondering: if beer liked the taste of beer, would it drink itself? I don’t know.

Now to the relevant question everyone has been wondering: where does Part One end? All I will tell you is that ends with two contrasting scenes.

I would also like to tell you about the emotional impact of the end of the film. Unfortunately, I didn’t get a chance to watch the end of the film. During the last five minutes, an argument that had been stewing throughout the night between a heckler and a man-simply-trying-to-enjoy-the-film erupted when the man-simply-trying-to-enjoy-the-film recruited more like-minded fellows and, all uniting, proceeded to drag the heckler from his seat and yank him into the corridor, with much applause from the audience. However,---

“You---heckler guy at the Harry Potter midnight premiere! More pagan and mad!”

-the man soon returned, shirtless and ready to fight. He immediately charged into the aisles and started taking swings at the men who had kicked him out. Within five seconds, a police officer barged into the theatre and yanked the man, kicking and screaming, off his prey. Someone in the audience shouted “are you really going to do this over Harry Potter?” to which the macho, muscular, shirtless man responded “for Harry Potter? Yes!” He broke free and flew back into the aisles, causing many people---including a guy dressed in a hot dog costume, wearing a sign that said “Muggles are for wieners”---to stand up and hurry out of the way. A second officer then burst unto the scene and began wrestling the shirtless man to the ground( I later found out that the shirtless man was juiced up on Magic Multi-Spell Ale, known in the Muggle world as Four Loko).

And so, as the credits began to roll at 2:30 AM in the morning, all of the die-hard Harry Potter fans were left with a surge of adrenaline, absolutely no crying, and a story to tell for the next morning---all realizing this amidst a slew of shouts from the shirtless man as the officers continued to wrestle him to the ground in the aisles of the movie theater, forever proving that it takes a REAL man(and his whining, violent, and bitchy girlfriend) to enjoy Harry Potter at midnight with Four Loko.

“Yeah, wish I could see those cops kick that whiny asshole’s ass!”
“That’s it. Get out. Get the fuck out!”
“Hey, get your hands off of me. Don’t t---oh fuck, you’re gonna get it now.”

All in all, Deathly Hallows Part I is a film off the path of the other five; in a good way. Yates takes us all on a slow, more focused journey that allows us to truly immerse ourselves in the world we all love,---

“Will you guys stop, there’s only a few more lines l---hey, get off my lap!”
“Get out! Get out!”
“Get your fucking hands---I will kill you, you little son-of-a-bitch.”

---as well as focus intently on our main three in their final and most trying---

“Is it really worth this? For this stupid little review?”
“For this review of Harry Potter 7? On Facebook?!!! Yeah!!!!”

No. No, it really isn’t. Now you, put your fucking shirt back on, and you, next time around, pick a better time to act.

Ciao.

P.S. You---people who are going to comment on this review! More pagan and mad!

*Perhaps that is more Rowling’s fault than the actors. At the same time, though, lots of classic film and theatre characters have repetitious actions. That doesn’t mean the same choices need to made every time.

Strong and Dry

Winter’s Bone starts out with a laid back Missouri porch tune that relaxes you into your seat; and from that point on, it never lets you go. By the time it was over, I was humming Ray LaMontagne tunes in my mind, feeling the evening breeze splash over my hair.

     Set in the heart of the Ozark woods, Winter’s Bone follows seventeen-year old Ree Dolly(Jennifer Lawrence), who is struggling to care for her family. She soon finds out that her vanished father has put their land on jail bond, and sets out to find him. The story that follows is a pocket epic, sprinkled with deception, and driven by Ree’s downbeat determination to unravel the mystery surrounding her father. She meets strange characters, all of whom are a part of a circle of drug dealers, and journeys deep into the forest, though she returns home at the end of every journey. In the time when she is not investigating, she is teaching her little siblings to survive; how to cook, how to shoot rifles, how to hunt, how to be respectful, when to hold on, and when to let go.

        Writer/Director Debra Granik’s vision for this film takes flight with a clean crispness that blends the majesty of the Ozarks’ rolling plains with the snarling tree branches of its forests. Sound mixer James Demer’s emphasis of the trail mix of dirt and gravel crunches keeps the audience trudging along the same path as Ree, and adds a base to the dry atmosphere set up by Granik. Though the story is an epic at heart, it is told with the same inflection and grace as a lullaby before bed.

           There are many unspoken words and off-stage events in Winter’s Bone. Ree’s father is never seen, but the ambiguity of his character informs the twist and turns in the investigation. His past actions leave Ree with furious enemies and devoted friends, all of whom are hesitant to help or stop her.

    Jennifer Lawrence turns in an on-point interpretation of the passive-aggressive Ree, anchoring the film with a performance most actors will envy. She butters Ree with a rich country smoothness that ends in the serrated blade of her gritty determination. Her hawk-like stare freezes the audiences in their seats.

          I’ve never lived in the country before. The closest I’ve ever been are sleepovers at friends’ houses from Elyria to Chesterland(Ohio). At times, I wonder why I used to make the journey out there so much, even though it cost me a hefty share in gas and energy. It’s because there’s something peaceful out there, a closeness that city folk don’t really experience until everything around them is quiet(which is rare). Once you journey through the woods, be it on foot or in a car, you never come out the same. Some of the greatest stories ever told have been told at least partially in a forest. Granik’s film is as much about the Ozark woods as it is about Ree.

        The characters in the story reflect this. They are as close-knit as the trees, letting that closeness guide their common sense. The cast plays their roles passively, substituting drama with juxtaposition that highlights the intricate workings of their strained but hospitable relations. Though some of the names, like Teardrop and Thump, will certainly make any city viewers laugh, the culture that is reflected in every shot is bare-boned and voluntarily vulnerable, daring the audience to judge it.

        Overall, a simple, steady little tale about the Ozarks and its “bread and butter” natives.  

         Ciao. 

"Inception(Christopher Nolan's guide to being a professional Confused Man)"

At first, I feared "Inception" as yet another action movie with a mindfuck twist. Reviews from everybody started pouring in, and my fears were confirmed; this film was "amazing", "thought-provoking", "mind-numbing", "complicated"; basically a piece of shit with flashing neon lights. I sighed in grief. Another "Lost".

     Weeks went by. The ratings skyrocketed. Fan reaction swelled. A buzz electrified the air. The film was adored by people who thought they would hate it, loved by those who thought they would love it. I sighed in frustration. Another "Lost". Yet, due to my incessant desire to critique all things that are hyped, I found myself being pulled towards the film anyway. I finally snapped, and went straight to the theatre after work one day. I made sure to prepare myself as a critic, meaning under no circumstances would I allow myself to get so sucked into the film that I would stop looking at it with a critical eye. With that prepared, I marched into the theater.

     For those of you who are anticipating me saying that my efforts proved fruitless, you will now be disappointed. I never once got totally sucked in. "Inception" is a brilliant movie, enthralling in its own way, and probably the best film I have seen in a very long time. That being said, I hope your disappointment with me is not as great as my disappointment was with this film.

        "Inception" is the story of long time dream-invader and all around confused man Cobb(Leonardo DiCaprio) who is hired/blackmailed by corporate head Saito(Ken Watanabe) to invade the mind of even bigger-corporate heir Robert Fischer(Cillian Murphy) and perform an Inception on him. An Inception is when an expert Extractor(basically a professional Confused Man) enters deep into the mind of a...uh...client and plants a foreign idea into that person's subconscious via the client's dreams. If successful, the Inception will be accepted by the subconscious of the client and forever change him. The act of Inception(god, this sounds like a porno) is an almost impossible process, so it is rarely ever performed. During the Inception mission, Cobb is haunted by the locked-up memories of his dead wife, Mal(Marion Cotillard).

        "Inception" is soft science fiction trying hopelessly to be hard science fiction. For those of you unfamiliar with those terms, hard science fiction is technologically driven writing, the type of SF that is geared solely towards technology and its influence on society. Most hard SF writers were engineers of some kind before they started writing, therefore they naturally write like an engineer would. They do develop characters and explore themes, but the tech and ideas are always front and center. "2001, A Space Odyssey" is a great example of hard SF. Soft science fiction is science fiction that has numerous romantic undercurrents. "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" and the entire "space opera" sub-genre are perfect examples of this. Soft SF uses science fiction as an excuse to write about other things. The writing is usually about modern day society with a twist. This is what "Inception" was, and is why I found the film incredibly disappointing.

      "Inception" has a plethora of big, brain-teasing ideas. Behind these ideas are the technologies that execute them, technologies that are interesting in-and-of themselves. Unfortunately, Nolan never bothers to shine the spotlight on any of them. For example, every single time Cobb and his team jump into somebody's mind, they have to use a mysterious-box-with-blinking-lights. What this box does besides that is never even hinted at. Unless I'm mistaken, the box is never even given a name. Does it contain the built dream they all fall into? Does it save the dreams like a computer?

      Another piece of technology that has a serious personal connection with the characters are their totems---small objects which the dream-team(haha get it?) keeps on their person at all times to remind them that they are in a dream. These objects are unique to their specific carriers, and each one is chosen carefully. After their introduction into the film, they are promptly never seen again(save for Cobb's which is used more as a symbol of his guilt than a totem).     

      The architecture of the dreams gets the biggest shrug of all. In the beginning, Cobb takes on a young design student by the name of Ariadne(Ellen Page). Ariadne's job is to design the architecture of the dreams that Cobb uses to fool Robert Fischer. There is a sequence in which Cobb's partner Arthur(Joseph Gordon) explains the technique behind building a dream to Ariadne. She catches on quickly(as her archetype always does in these films) and is soon an unrivaled expert at the craft(bet you didn't see THAT coming did you?). But after that tutorial sequence is over, dream architecture is swept under the rug and forgotten. The audience sees Ariadne fiddling with cardboard models for one scene and then "shazam, dreamland is ready!" How she transitions from cardboard models to imagination and illusion is never shown, nor how she saves her work for later.

        Had the love story never been in the film, Nolan would have had more time to better explore the workings and capabilities of all these different technologies. I don't know about the rest of the audience, but I couldn't bring myself to give a shit about the relationship between Cobb and Mal. Yes, it was touching at times and might even be a tear-jerker to some, but I found the entire love story to be an anvil that weighed the film down.  

       This is where Christopher Nolan's genius goes sour. From the matrix of memories in "Memento", through the fire of chaos in "The Dark Knight", to the borderless majesty of dreams in "Inception", Nolan has always demonstrated a remarkable connection, understanding, and love for the ideas he presents. He takes pains for them, demands gracefulness, and explores their different textures, colors, and feelings, all while keeping his work smooth and flowing. His ideas are sharp and clear in his mind, and are thus sharp and clear on-screen. They are brilliant by themselves; so why kisses and flowery love stories are more important to Nolan I will never understand. He robs his own work.

         Liked it for the rush, disliked it for its choices, understood its message clearly, and am mixed about it overall. "Inception" has brilliant ideas, a delectable setting, and a clever scheme, all of which is then dashed against the rocks of yet another movie love story; in other words, the-same-bullshit-as-usual-that-could-have-been-amazing.

Ciao.

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Finale!

In a perfect world, LOST would have ended with a sledgehammer-to-the-skull so thrilling that the government would have to legalize marijuana just to deter people from choosing to bash their skulls with sledgehammers instead. Alas, this is not a perfect world, and LOST did not have a sledgehammer ending. Nevertheless, a relatively feasible amount of closure was reached…with an equally proportional amount of plot holes. 

The Good: 
1. Frank Lepidus is man I would sincerely share a joint with at a party one day. His survival skills and instincts border on the superheroic. 

2. One million internet dollars for all those who caught the “Christian Shephard” joke before the finale. 

3. As cheesy and corny as it is, the church ending is nice. It was a celebration with those characters whose contributions to the show were major, and while it leaves a rather unsavory taste in the mouths of those who were expecting more, a simple ending only proves that the most important part of any story is the journey, not the result. 

4. Ding-dong, the Smoke monster’s dead! 

The Bad: 
1. Oh, the gaping plot holes and unanswered questions. First up: why the fuck would Ben want the island to himself? He needs to preside over a society. He’s pretty useless if he doesn’t. 

2. The very ending itself is a frock stitched with mystery as to what the fuck the sideways universe is supposed to be. I always thought it was just a history of what would have happened if the plane hadn’t crashed. I didn’t think it needed to be anything special to the main storyline. In that way, the ending really disappoints. 

3. After all of Jack’s hardship and intense fighting, Kate is the one that pretty much kills Smokey? I mean, 4,815,162,342 points for teamwork, but that was supposed to be Jack’s kill---in total. Instead, he just got to kick him over a ledge. Why does Kate always have to ruin everyone else's moment? Boo! 

4. "This little light of mine/ I'm gonna plug-it-with-a-rock/This little light of mine/I'm gonna plug-it-with-a-rock/This little light of mine/It will always shine/Go ahead/Take-the-rock-out/But you'll dieeeeeee (unlessyou'reDesmond)." Seriously, the LOST writers have great ideas, but what was the point of the light other than to be a convenient plot device? If the island is as important as Jacob says it is(you know, keeping all the bad stuff in), then why build a way to destroy it? 

The Ugly: 
1. I haven’t seen the alternative endings to the show yet, but I’m hoping they all end the same way and just take different avenues to get there. I say that because if I find out that they are three completely different endings, I’m going to rant and be very mad again; after all, the writers have been telling us for years now that they already knew how it was going to end from the start. 

Answers: 
1. The island exists to keep bad spirits away. All it needs now is a night light; then it could---OOOOOOOOOOH! .....Check. 

“LOST: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Series Wrap-up” coming soon…(brought to you by the Dharma Union of Slug-Hunting Tiny Cats) 

Ciao. 

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Parts 6+7

If you want to know why I haven’t written the last two reviews and won’t write a full review this time, skip directly to the Ugly section(don’t worry, it won’t take you long to get there anyway).


The Good: I don’t know. It’s funny and interesting sometimes.

The Bad: Luckily for me, even the more die hard LOST fans are starting notice more of this stuff. I’ve also noticed that I come away feeling slightly dumber after every new episode. But that’s just me.

Purgatory: Everything until the final episode.

The Ugly: I have decided after much careless and distracted thinking that I will discontinue these reviews until the final episode has come and passed. Reason being: LOST hasn’t changed, and I feel like I’m repeating myself in every single review I write this season. It’s still suspenseful, it’s still mysterious, it’s still dramatic, the writing is still kind of iffy, and the “predictable by being unpredictable” principle is still badly visible. The upside: no time travel. The downside: the sideways universe, which is about as useful as snot. I made all my points last season and LOST has done a terrible job coming up with something new(period) to comment on. I suppose, since I always say that nothing is ever fully explored, LOST has more to offer than I’m seeing and I bet if I looked up the source material for the show and maybe did some sort of comparison thing, I could come up with more interesting things to talk about; but alas, I am one man, with one job, and one life, and thus don’t have too much time to delve into the “deeper mysteries” of LOST.* If you really want to dig that deep, just go to your local bookstore or online and look for the book(1).

Plus, LOST is coming an end, so let’s just enjoy it.

Ciao.

P.S. Lesson of revealing too much too soon: learned.

*By “deeper mysteries”, I mean the stuff that science fiction has been talking about since the 40’s that the mass public is only now becoming awa

References: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Philosophy-Reasons-Blackwell-Culture/dp/1405163151/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269356778&sr=8-1