NotSureifthisis7734

Just got back from a screening of The Darkest Hour and honestly this film was better than I anticipated. I confess, I hadn't wanted to go at all but my friend insisted and so to keep the peace I went. Granted, the beginning is a uneven and it was unclear where the story was going but once it clicks in the thing moves right along. You are never sure who is going to die next and that helps keep the suspense level high. The acting is serviceable and the location is a refreshing change from the usual New York/Chicago skylines. It's frankly more interesting to watch the tale unfold against the dinginess of contemporary Moscow, and with Russian soldiers instead of Americans. Moreover, the special effects are simple, but effective.

In essence, invisible beings are here to steal our electricity and only insulators (e.g. glass or Faraday Cages) enable us to be hide from them. Because they are ruthless and utterly determined, there is no hope for negotiation, no chance for peace. Early on it is made clear either we win or we will be exterminated.

I liked everything about the movie, even though the alien invasion genre has gotten a bit tired of late. I was never bored and was always in suspense as to what would happen next. At 89 minutes, this joint Russian-American production probably could have taken more time with its story and characters, and not be in such a hurry to kill them off. Since the background is so different, maybe they could have shown us more of the city or used the locations more effectively.

Yet for all the obvious complaints one can make, the move works if you let it. I believe viewers will find it worth their while. Take it for what it is, and I honestly think you will have a good time at The Darkest Hour.

I just got back from the theater and instead of letting the film settle in my mind, I thought I would just dash out some random thoughts. This is one amazing movie, a beautifully told story, emotional, grim (how did this ever get a PG-13?), wonderfully cast and acted throughout. I was mesmerized during the entire film; Sucker Punch held my attention effortlessly.

So why is there so much negativity regarding it? It honestly looks like most critics did not get it, did not know how to respond to it, couldn't figure it out if the first 5 minutes and gave up. Even the negative reviews, and there are a lot of them, seem to be cribbing from other, as if few knew quite what to say. So instead of just watching the movie and going with it, they chose to ignore what was on the screen, as if they could not get back to the office (Oh, why did I chose to be film critic?) and pound out their reviews. They and their colleagues need to return their diplomas from film school. And then find another line of work.

I honestly do not believe you can absorb this movie in one sitting. Many will no doubt think they can ("Oh, I get it, girl power. Been there, done that") but I assure you they will be wrong. My initial guess is that the film is primarily about freedom: existential, psychological, and perhaps even political (and no, I do not mean only sexual politics). I believe the film is intended to be prophetic. It is urging us, in highly symbolic terms to be sure, to draw on all the sources of strength (including fantasy) that we possess -- just to survive. We will surely need them all in the coming years. I would like to have young people see this film, but as noted it isn't for the 16 and under set.

The reason being my primary source of admiration for the film: there is so much one can talk about after viewing this movie and that is a very good thing.

This is Snyder's masterpiece. This is his vision, wonderfully realized. It is incredibly sad that this film is being ignored by the critics and will likely be lost to much of the audience. There is talk it will even kill Snyder's career. And yet, all that is necessary to enjoy "Sucker Punch" is to simply go with it. Everything is logically laid out and is easy to follow. You will never get lost. One might still not get it all on first viewing, but I assure you there is plenty there to enjoy.

A personal note: I don't recall ever going to see a movie whose ratings were at 20% (as given in the well-known movie review site). I decided to take a risk after reading some fan-boy reviews and watching the previews. I am glad I did. I had liked Snyder's other films and this one was so damn intriguing, I could not resist.

The late, great film critic Gene Siskel stated that whenever two (or more) critics go to a movie and there is strong disagreement between them, the movie must have something. Trust me, "Sucker Punch" has a lot, and it's all great.

I have been reluctant to comment on Inception; there seemed little I could add to the already extensive commentary. My initial sense was that Inception, while it was a welcome relief to standard summer fare, possessed enough flaws and precedents to render its claims to greatness suspect. I gave it 8 stars over my first viewing and let it go at that.

Now, having watched Inception twice since then and having read the screenplay (see the excellent, Inception: The Screenplay), I have changed my mind. Inception is worthy of the praise given it. Without reservation I now give it a 10. This is the first occasion in which I have changed my verdict on a film following my initial viewing. Why? Because Inception is easily the best film of the decade in terms of sheer intelligence, the best film I would argue since The Truman Show. Moreover, its plot of obsessive love, fear of falling, and frightening dreams, makes it worthy of comparison to Vertigo. As good as Vertigo? The fact that Inception can be mentioned without blanching in the same sentence with Hitchcock's masterpiece tells you something.

I came to love the movie but I was desperate to say something new. I wanted to comment on the richness of the world of Inception, and give the viewer a bit more of an understanding of what underlies it.

In the near future, a drug has been discovered that enables people to share a common dream. Viewed by many as a fascinating opportunity for creativity, one danger is that a dreamer's mind can be invaded by an intruder and unless the victim has been trained to resist these "extractor(s)," he can be tricked into revealing his innermost secrets (visualized as being within a symbolic dream "safe"). The battle between a trained mark and one or more skilled extractors can be harrowing.

This technology can be described as a form of controlled lucid dreaming. Until this discovery, all experience had been that lucid dreams cannot be controlled; anything could happen. Since most people have had them, you know what I mean. But using this drug and its delivery system (termed PASIV in the screenplay book), lucid dreams can be controlled. These shared lucid dreams, however, are still subject to external conditions and the dreamer's own internal state.

Note: the idea of entering into people minds while they are dreaming is not new. See the movie "Dreamscape (1984)," which has dream specialists invading the mark, as protectors or attackers. But there are some remarkable new angles in Inception's approach.

First, the dreams can be recursive. There can be dreams within dreams within dreams, though at each additional level the dream state becomes increasingly unstable, requiring the addition of powerful sedatives to maintain control.

Second, the recursive levels cannot be extended indefinitely. They terminate in a state called "Limbo," i.e. "unconstructed dreamspace." Limbo may be infinite in expanse. Little is known of it, though according to the movie's math, time moves roughly 8000 times faster in Limbo relative to reality.

Third, the minds of the participants, particularly if there is an emotional involvement between them, can find their dream "waves" have become blended or entangled.

There are profound metaphysical dangers in this, ontological and psychological. Foremost is the loss of one's sense of what is real, over time being increasingly unable to distinguish between the dream state and reality. Then there is the loss of one's sense of self. Where the dreamers are emotionally involved, e.g. in love, their minds can begin to merge to such an extent that it is a difficult for them to determine where "I" begins and the other takes over, who is dreaming what in other words. There are mechanisms, "totems" for keeping track of where one is in these dream spaces, but the problem is unsolved.

Into this world strides Dom Cobb, one of the best "extractors," a disturbed, troubled man, with overwhelming feelings of guilt towards is dead wife, Mal. Cobb is desperately seeking an escape, and return home to the only happiness he has ever known.

Inception is strikingly original not only in that it introduces a new technology but a new terminology as well. A shoe-in for multiple nominations, it is brilliantly edited with a superb score, special-effects, and a wonderfully, attractive and likable cast. Nolan's meticulous screenplay pursues its sober and somber plot (you may smile/chuckle a few times but that is it) with grace and high-intelligence.

I wish I could sum up the meaning of the movie, but I can't. One possibility is that Inception is an allegory of the movie experience, a dream of movies if you will. There is a strong overlap in what Cobb and his team are pursuing with the movie experience itself as a shared dream in which we share our emotional secrets. Nolan plays on this, but the idea of a movie as reflexive of and subversive to one's life has been often done and it is unclear if Inception adds much.

Another is that Inception should be taken as a movie of dreams, i.e. on its own terms; that it works best if one simply accepts what is being shown on the screen and goes with it. Admittedly, for most, multiple viewings will be required to enable them to get to the heart of the movie's emotions but they will be amply rewarded if they do. The central vision in Inception of life's tragedy is compelling. Whether in the dream state or in reality, we cannot escape ourselves and it is impossible to tell if the happiness we have is real or an illusion.