It’s a nice word.  But what is it?

It is an origin.  A beginning of sorts.  The start.

Now, it will be defined as a cinematic masterpiece by Christopher Nolan.  And well it should.

Nolan’s Inception is a journey through the deepest levels of the mind and reality…a rare event that will unite scientist, science fiction buff, action lover, and spiritualist alike.  Indeed, these groups, as well as the casual viewer, can sit side-by-side in the theater, drawn into this insane tale of chaos and perfect sense.

Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb, an elusive man with an even more elusive past, who carries a briefcase that holds the secret to entering your mind…and your dreams.  Once inside, he can take what he wants, or, in this case, leave what he wants.  Flanked by on-the-spot help including the surprisingly appropriate Ellen Page as Ariadne, and cool-as-a-cuke Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb is on one last mission that could make or break him.  Literally.

The audience is left dangling off the high cliffs of reality, and I believe that is the key to Inception’s masterful touch.  We are often as disoriented as the characters, often not privy to information they are not.  Robbed of the usual in-the-know attitude, we sit on the edge of our seats as solid drama plays out in levels of reality normally reserved for a good night’s sleep or the deep subconscious.

The stakes are high and the action is real.  DiCaprio’s performance is a masterful blend of blank expression that masks deep secrets, and an intensity and passion for inception.  What he keeps out of public view cannot help but seep in while “on the job,” and his unintended disregard for his compatriots only adds to a character complexity rarely seen on the big screen these days.

I could tell you about Inception from start to finish.  I could describe each scene in detail and let you in on the twists and turns.  I could give away the beginning, middle, and end.

And it wouldn’t make a difference.  You would still be lost.  You would still enjoy the movie.  Trust me.

For those of you who meditate, explore the subconscious, study particle physics, or just love to be challenged and entertained, Inception is your imaginary cup of tea.  But make sure you grip your popcorn tight…it’s the one thing that will keep you anchored to reality.

-josh

1) Do you see a sequel because you think it’s gonna knock your socks off?

2) Do you see a sequel because you have high hopes?

3) Do you see a sequel because you think it will reveal new truths to you that the first did not provide?

If you answered “yes” to any of the above…c’mon.  Unless you’re talking about The Empire Strikes Back, then admit it…you’ll see Iron Man 2 simply because Robert Downey, Jr. IS Tony Stark.

I’m right, and you know it.

Iron Man 2 is that not-so-rare sequel that we know, out of the gate, will not be the mind-bending thrill-ride of its predecessor.  However, that in no way detracts from the fun.  We are again taken into the bizarre world of Downey’s Stark – now out of the closet as Iron Man – as he continues his quest for meaning in a life previously filled only with mindless materialism.

And he seems to be doing pretty well…Until a new nemesis in the form of Ivan Vanko (are those Mickey Rourke’s real teeth?) develops similar technology to Stark’s and sets out on a path of revenge with his iron suit and…light whip thingies.

Old standby Pepper Potts provides the familiar anchor, and new face Don Cheadle performs admirably as sidekick War Machine.

And, the same great message is ever-present – one person can make a difference.  Yes, even through the veneer of Scarlett Johansson’s rockin’ leather suit and Samuel L. Jackson’s creepy come-and-go mystery, the audience hears loud and clear that any life worth living must, on some level, be lived for others.  And isn’t that what the hero’s journey is all about?

If your socks were knocked off with Iron Man 1, check out Iron Man 2.  If you are looking for equal par with the first, you will leave disappointed.  If you are looking for a feel-good two hours with a man on a mission, then it’s money well spent.

You’ll keep your socks on, but you’ll still have that warm feeling inside.

-josh

Quietly writing the memoirs of a former British Prime Minister.

Imagine, you are at a windswept beach house in a remote part of Massachusetts.  The roaring ocean, the rolling beach, a beautiful, spurned wife, some political issues…a murder…

Alright, at that point, your dream might start to break down, as it does for The Ghost (Ewan McGregor) in Roman Polanski’s “The Ghost Writer”, based on the novel by Robert Harris.

McGregor is hired to finish the prematurely ended memoirs of Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan).  But what starts as a well-paying ghost-writing job quickly turns into mystery and mayhem, as The Ghost, writer-turned-investigator, is flushed deeper and deeper into the toilet of politics and family strife, that has roots much deeper than the surface.

The brilliance of Polanski’s movie is the crossing of intrigue, drama, and humor that keeps us involved.  McGregor is any curious person at a new job – he wants details, and he doesn’t always know where the boundaries are.  Frustration mounts as suspicions mount, and we are treated to an inside look into a very complicated inter-country cesspool that, very likely, happens every day.  There are thinly veiled references to modern political problems that will keep the attentive viewer smiling, and McGregor’s pitch perfect performance is more than enough to keep you involved for all 120 minutes.

Brosnan’s Lang is brooding and angry, counterbalancing McGregor’s nonchalant demeanor.  Both turn in terrific performances, as does Olivia Williams as Lang’s wife, Ruth.

Although you may start to put the pieces together a little faster than McGregor, “The Ghost Writer” is well worth it.

And, while you’re watching think about all the things in your life that you wanted…that you wished for…that you thought would give you freedom or peace (money, work, etc…).  Then, as you watch McGregor bang his head against the brick wall of political reality, think to yourself, “Should I be more careful what I wish for?”

-josh

To be our own person.

To cast tradition into the wind and break free of the bonds of those who would hold us back.

Ah, the dream of Alice.

Alice in Wonderland, the latest offering from the team of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, certainly scores points in the “giving me things to think about category” although I’m not sure it is one I would rush to think about again.  Burton’s Alice, the captivatingly airy Mia Wasikowska, finds herself in a tough predicament.  Marry a man she does not love or…run.

(SPOILER ALERT COMING UP!)

She runs.

And falls.

Down the hole she goes into a world of red queens, mad hatters, talking rabbits, and eye-poking mice.  The Burton-esque world that awaits is surely one viewers will find tantalizing, filled with digital creatures and dreary backgrounds (of course), but the quality certainly suits the mood of the movie and does much where the rest fails.  Alice has her hero’s journey and we root for her, but there was something in it all that seemed to come up short.  Depp is, as always, worth the price of admission, but don’t expect that you won’t regret missing at least some of that $10 you spent.

However, despite that, we are certainly given the chance to consider, like Alice, if we are making the most of our lives…are we only in the dreams of Wonderland wandering, or do we take life by the horns and face a new destiny of our own design?

With friends like Depp, we would be brave, too.  But for those of us who live in the real world, Alice’s story is something to consider.  If we have dreams, and we live in reality, then when they merge, that is where beauty can be found.

In essence, we can live the dream…even if Burton’s film leaves us feeling somewhat sleepy.

-josh

I am not schooled in the art of war.

But one does not need such schooling to be carried away by the intensity and profundity of Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker (2009; DVD 2010).  He or she only needs to have something they want to live for…something they care about…to feel the emotions that are quietly rampant through Bigelow’s work.

After its stunning Oscar trip, I decided to check it out on DVD and was, quite to my non-surprise, blown away.

The Hurt Locker, written by Mark Boal, is a harrowing look at the Army’s secretive bomb disposal unit that disarms bombs in combat zones.  The search for wires, fuses, and corpses (yes, bombs can be hidden in humans) is intense, and the documentary-esque, hand-held camera intensifies the already suspense-filled scenes.  Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd’s the ‘audience-as-fourth-in-the-humvee’ at times is suffocating and overbearing in the most exhilarating sense.

The movie follows a three-man team, Sergeant Will James (Jeremy Renner), Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) of Bravo Company on their forays through Baghdad, investigating and disposing of explosives.  The performances are raw and intense, as each man, through his courage, also harbors secret hopes and dreams that makes the countdown to home ever more excruciating, as each call could mean the end.  Following these men into the heroic and the insane sets the senses on edge.

As I watched the movie, I was taken by a range of emotions, such as the often perceived inanity of war and the undeniable pressure on brave men and women that is necessary to protect others from the absurdity of enemy war tactics that place civilian and army in like danger.  At times, one is led to question the veracity of Boal’s portrayal of the locals’ often laissez-faire investment in the almost-certain dangers they face every day, as they look on from rooftops and porches into skirmishes that might as well end with an offer of lemonade and a snack.

We can quibble with the Academy all day as to whether The Hurt Locker was the right choice for movie of the year.  However, one thing is clear:  the message it conveys, and how it conveys it with the thin $15 million budget it had, makes it an astounding cinematic achievement.

One certainly does not need schooling in movies or war to appreciate it.  One only need be a member of the human race, with hopes, desires, and a healthy sense of frustration.

-josh

It’s a word that can stir us to our core.  Passion is something that can not only drive our lives, but give it such meaning and purpose that we feel we simply would not…could not…be complete without it.

Often, movies inspire us to bigger and better things – not because of their box office totals or the stars that grace the cast, but because when we see people on the big screen living a life in passion, we often want to emulate that.  We admire it.  We cherish it in others, and in ourselves.

So, last night, when someone I know asked if I wanted to join them in a screening of Giuseppe Tornatore’s Cinema Paradiso (1990-USA release), well, I said…Sure!

After all, I hear it’s the signature movie of the Palm Springs International Film Festival, which I try to faithfully attend.  And it is a movie for movie lovers.  So, what could go wrong?  I already knew the basic premise:  A mid-20^th century Sicilian boy is captivated at an early age with the projection booth in his local cinema, and his life unfolds around his relationship to the cinema’s projector, and its people.

Genius.

And, for the most part, it is.

When we opened the package, I noticed there were two versions…the original release and the director’s cut.  Since I had not seen it before, I lobbied for the DC.  My viewing mates had already seen the original, so it was unanimous.  I plucked the new cut from the box and away we went.

Right from the off, I was completely captivated with Cinema Paradiso’s awesome simplicity.  When we first meet our passionate protagonist, Salvatore (the impeccable Salvatore Cascio), he is simply a troublemaking imp under the shoe of his mother (Antonella Attili), his priest (Leopolt Trieste), and his projectionist father-figure Alfredo (Philippe Noiret).  Salvatore is young alright, but he’s old enough to know what really matters in the movies he loves!

As the days pass in the life of Salvatore, so much of life is projected not only onto the screen of the small theater, but also through its aisles, as the children, men, and women of the small town come of age under the watchful gaze of film.  What is so striking is that in 1940s Italy, the rest of the world might as well not exist for little Salvatore, for he learns to live, love, and laugh, even as he runs the projector in his local Cinema.

But times change and the winds of history blow inevitability into life, and as Salvatore pursues the dreams in his own real-life drama, I was quite swept away in his story, simple as it is.  After all, one sees that his investment in movies is so great that we just have to see the payoff.  However, I found myself having difficulty connecting with certain scenes.  As I had never seen the theater release, I didn’t know which scenes were inserted, however, I shared my discomfort with my friends who indicated to me that yes, one of the story-line progressions had indeed been added in the DC.

I already knew the ending.  I couldn’t wait for it.

But the intervening, seemingly-endless minutes of added footage seemed to sap the movie of much of its emotion.  My fellow viewers agreed.  Unfortunately, unlike them, I will never be able to see the movie ‘for the first time’ without knowing about the added scenes, and I feel that somehow, when I do watch the full version, it will be diminished.

All I can say is that spaced around what feels like an egotistical choice on the part of the director, there is a movie full of place, people, love, and, yes, passion.

If you haven’t seen Cinema Paradiso, you’ll have to make the choice whether to view the DC version or not.  That is up to you.

But what you will not get to choose is your emotion.  If you are not swept away by Salvatore’s journey in this truly touching film, then perhaps you need more passion in your own life.

If you do?

Well, then go see a movie today.

-josh

You know that old saw…if you aren’t really that experienced in something (or, heck, even if you are), don’t take on every battle that comes your way. Save it. Savor it. Try your hand when the moment is right. Well, I think the same thing applies in Hollywood. Don’t take every piece of schlock that comes down the Walk of Fame.

Pick the moment.

Some actors are gifted. They intuitively know how to do that. Maybe they aren’t always wild-and-crazy successful with each hand-selected piece, but they get the job done really, really well every now and then.

They can pick their spots.

And so it is with George Clooney in Up in the Air, the latest from director Jason Reitman. Clearly Clooney has come to a point in his career where he can pick his roles, and here, he’s plucked a star from constellation avenue.

No, Clooney’s not the whole movie. Not by a longshot. In a story about a man who is looking to lighten his load by sticking to the skies, there have to be compelling reasons to keep one’s feet on the ground, lest the audience take flight as well. Clooney’s supporting cast (Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick, Jason Bateman) provides harmony to his pitch-perfect melody, that more than satisfactorily drowns out the screaming children and chatter of this 109-minute flight, with Famiga’s more-than-a-bag-of-peanuts performance as Clooney’s match – literally made-in-heaven – adding to the agonizing drama of a life lived in an effort to avoid just that…drama.

There are no explosions. No ongoing sex scenes. No raging battles, and no self-indulgent prattling about the fleeting of youth. So, what is it? What gives this movie wings?

Well, for starters, it has that quiet…something. The central cast (Clooney, Bateman, Kendrick) is eerily believable as a group of fire-‘em-with-kindness professionals who, at least in the field, seem committed to adding a pinch of dignity to an otherwise awful, and timely deed. And Clooney’s waning devotions to his core philosophy are equally as convincing. You feel like you are actually peering into the life of a faceless drone at a crowded airport.

But these are not the primary ingredients. I think in the end, what draws us is the subtle unfolding of these weightless characters who gently unravel like balls of yarn hanging from plane bellies. We must confront our own attachments and relationships as we watch Clooney soar above his own. When push comes to shove, do we really have shoulders strong enough to support the weight of our lives, or do we flit away at the first sign of true responsibility?

And, maybe most importantly, do we have what it takes to face life squarely with an occasional break? Or do we just want to escape.

Watch Up In the Air with an open and honest mind, and see what you think. Oh, and I find popcorn still rounds out the movie nicely. There will be no need for a small bag of peanuts.

-josh

There is magic in the making…and in the watching.  We can be transported to other worlds or have the mind swept away into ideas, old and new.  Sometimes we are challenged, and sometimes we push back.  In a really good movie, I figure we can have some of these experiences.

Fortunately, in Avatar, we can have all of them.

James Cameron’s latest offering provides us a feast for the senses – all six.  There is a whole new world (similar to earth but…not quite) to explore, called Pandora (let me ruin this for you…yes, the box is opened), a moon in outer space whereupon live the Na’vi, a race of creatures who have human-like qualities, but are a little more…developed.

The movie centers around the human expansion into Na’vi territory to mine a precious mineral called unobtainium.  It’s rare.  It’s expensive.  And a group of Na’vi apparently live right over a mammoth hunk of it.

Humans, in an effort to better ‘understand’ the locals and get a little closer to the unobtainable, infiltrate into Na’vi culture through Avatars, or human-Na’vi hybrids.  It seems the Na’vi are not predisposed to this pillaging of their land, and fight back through various means.  Means that Avatar Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) would like to discover and manipulate.

This set-up alone would provide many movies with all the grist needed for the proverbial mill.  Thank goodness it was not enough for Avatar.

It’s just a starting point.

Something special happens in a darkened theater when the plot we see on the screen is merely a thin veil to the true story underneath.  It isn’t just about the inevitable love or violence that provides so many moments of conflict to push the story ahead.  No.  It’s more than that.  It’s deeper than the hand-crafted language or special effects.  It’s more intricate than battle scenes.  It’s certainly far more complex than the oft-muddied waters of good-guy vs. bad-guy.

In Avatar, we get a rare glimpse at a spiritual subtext that points the sixth finger at the audience, challenging it to take a look at themselves at a deeper level.  What does it mean to have a commitment to earth, tribe, and soul?  Are we stewards, shepherds, or destroyers?  When we blaze the paths of the unknown into love, language, or riches, do we stop to consider the deeper meanings behind these journeys, and are we truly prepared to unravel complex paradoxes in pursuit of a goal that is more than the sum of its gold?

Avatar sometimes doesn’t so much ask these questions, as hurl them into our faces on Na’vi-styled, poison arrows.  At times, we are transported to that ill-fated voyage where Jack Dawson exclaims he is “king of the world!”  Ugh.  But understand what you are getting into when you go.  You are there to witness the progression of movie-making to the next level in addition to hearing a good tale.  We are captive for over 150 minutes after all, and there should be much destruction and gnashing of teeth – both human and Na’vi – to keep you interested and on the edge of your seat.

But in the end, there are questions we need to address.  Big questions.

However, the joy of Avatar is not that I’ve answered them.  No.  It’s that I’m still thinking about them.

-josh