Just saw "Moon". I liked it, 7.5/10, but there was one glaring plot hole in my opinion. **spoiler** (highlight to see) When it's discovered that the guy is a clone, and the whole process is revealed that the guy is just incinerated at the end of his tour of duty rather than sent home, wouldn't the media be interested in the "only guy on the moon" sending them all of their fuel? It's only the most important operation in the whole world that for some reason only one guy ever does. He never returns to Earth, so that would reek of conspiracy.
**spoiler** Do they even know he's there? Because the real person that isn't a clone is actually on earth, right?
"Moon" **spoiler** They might not, and they might have an elaborate story about how its all done with robotics after the original guy left, and since the media can't get there and probably can't get any information about the far side of the moon, they might just have to go along with the company's story. But they didn't really talk about that. There's an apparent need for the guy to be there, but with the way the AI assistant was deftly able to repair the "gas leak", and with how quickly the team got up there to "right things" when the big harvester was broke down, I would think the cloning process, life support, and whatever they use to keep the clones in stasis would much more expensive than just having an automated process of bringing the Helium-3 back from the harvester to the launch pod. Speaking of the launch pod, is it supposed to be made for bringing more than just the Helium-3 back since it can fit a whole person and account for the weight? And since the man survived the descent, I'm assuming it doesn't accelerate or decelerate or make turns that would be lethal to a human being? And shouldn't that pod go straight to the company? Wouldn't they discover him and kill him on sight?
Finally watched the Boondock Saints: 8.5/10 offbeat, funny and brutal all at the same time Inception: 9/10 Nice mind bender, and I thought Nolan did a really nice job of maintaining tension in the last act where he kept jumping back and forth between dream layers
1945, "Detour" [video=youtube;jkwETw6mZ6k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkwETw6mZ6k[/video] The film is told as one long flashback, and begins around the actual ending. We feel for the protagonist, and love to hate the Femme Fatale. Edward G. Ulmer directs with precision and has a keen eye for how to set mood and evoke feelings of desperation. The tone is amazingly consistent, and the moodiness is archetypal Noir. The film is direct and to the point, not wasting time and only lasting 67 minutes. See this if you can, you probebly won't regret it. The ending is blunt, and sums up the film in, i think, perfect fashion. 9/10
I rented The White Ribbon for tonight. Hope it's good. Recently watched The Ghostwriter. Not too bad. Maybe 8/10.
We walked out of Dinner for Schmucks last night. Not terrible, but definitely not worth $24 for 3 people. A renter.
The Other Guys - 8/10 Hilarious. Honestly the commercials made it look dumb and not that funny but I was pleasantly surprised. Mark Wahlberg is funny in such a unique but also normal way. Him and Will Ferrell went really well together.
I've seen it, I'd give it a 4/10. The message is unclear and muddled, and the jokes are pretty deadpan. It's likable but nothing really great. How did you like the White Ribbon?
These are close to my thoughts as well. I think the plot once again is not well thought out, the nice production value is what impresses people instead I estimate. Like "The Dark Knight" I did not enjoy the story nearly as much as I should have. So many scattered ideas, and aesthetically certain environments could have been far more creative. Inception- 6.5/10 ***spoilers*** The start of the movie is exciting and had beautiful dream scapes. When Ariadne (Ellen Page, the Architect Girl) is transforming areas of Paris, I thought that was pretty cool. But then the movie continues to get more ridiculous with the dream within a dream concept, and these list of silly rules that don't make any sense to anyone. Really, 50 years is a couple of seconds in the real world? Lol what? Nolan should have just cut that part out. Aesthetically the movie seemed to peak at that Paris cafe too. And if that is the "real" reality like Mal (Marion Cotillard, Cobb's crazy wife) tries to claim, shouldn't she be old, not young like at the end of the film? Also how do they get that dreaming briefcase to appear in the second/third/etc. dreams? That's not explained perfectly. How do you materialize such elaborate equipment, I mean it is groundbreaking technology after all, and get a bunch of people to join you in another dream level? Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the guy who stayed behind in zero gravity) uses the endless staircase paradox once, against an opponent. Why isn't this done more often, where they can just shift around other parts of the world? There's a guy that can change his face into anyone he wants, why is he limited to just this skill? And basically, aside from the Dream with gravitational issues, this is just an action movie with some robbers trying to break into safes. Think of all the possibilities in a dream world, really that's the best they could do? A city, military base, house by the beach, and then a limbo world with a lot of buildings where the main character lived. It needed a more surrealist point of view visually.
In response to the spoilers: The 50 years in being seconds in real life isn't a crazy idea at all. In fact, "time dilation" has been studied quite extensively. There are theories that most dreams only last a few minutes, but I know I have had dreams that felt like hours. Basically, that isn't a rule Nolan made up just to help the story along. There is at least some validity to it. And basically, each level they went further down into dreams, the more this theory compounded. Thus, 50 years "in limbo" and minutes in the real world. He and Mal grew old together when they were in limbo, not in real life. When they awoke, they were the same age as when they went to sleep. Upon waking (and before killing herself) is when she was convinced they were still dreaming. As for the briefcase, they showed up the same way JGL's assault rifle and Tom Hardy's grenade launcher did: they were dreamed. As for the technology of it, I don't know the exact technology of how a lot of things work, but they can still appear in my dreams. I mean, I have driven cars in my dreams, but I couldn't strip down an car and build it from scratch. The same principle applies here, no? The staircase paradox is explained in the Paris scene: The more you change, the more aware the dreamer becomes aware something is wrong. This is also why they couldn't just shift to other parts of the world. As for Tom Hardy's "Forger" character, that was part of his skillset. Did you see anyone else doing that? It is a specialty of his, same with the Ariadne's architecture, Cobb's skill extracting the thoughts, etc.
***More Spoilers*** The problem is that we go into the dreams of various DIFFERENT people, and yet they have the same hyperbolic time algorithms. How many people have dreams within dreams, with those specific rules? This is the main problem with his movie. Yes it is silly, and amusing because Nolan put more effort into his rules than the actual movie sets. It is a basic action film with lame dialogue. You're just bringing up "time dilation", that doesn't explain the sheer silliness of forcing this rule down my throat at each dream level. Felt like hours, right.... I said Years dude. Nolan is a moron to me because he destroyed The Dark Knight as well. I don't trust him lately because he continues to approve the use of poor scripts in his films, and he absolutely murdered the Two-Face/Joker thing at the end of his other movie. Just a bunch of stuff crammed into that film at the end, and the boat scene in Batman was even more stupid. A car falling off a bridge, is over 50 years in Dream time? And he made each second in real life EXACTLY so and so amount in the dream world. Dream time is not this precise... It is forced. Dude, I understand what Nolan was trying to say... I understood what the plot was (at least in most instances, it is still confusing) The problem is the plot spends more time establishing its strict and ridiculous rules, than worrying about the dream world. Why can't Nolan stick to how Dreams usually are? You feel a few hours in the dream world, and it is completely random, beautiful, scary, and surreal. Instead we get all these standard military/fighting scenes and a lecture about time. That whole limbo portion is sloppy. First because they were super old in that world, then when they were about to leave (on the train tracks) they turned young again? I shouldn't even try to get into this plot hole. Why can they dream something much more complex than a grenade launcher, but not a grenade launcher? Why can't they imagine an assortment of tools in fact? Arthur is mocked for not being more creative (rocket launcher scene), yet we see him expertly simulate gravity and use the staircase paradox. You're not understanding the premise though. Supposedly the technology is extremely complex and groundbreaking (it has to be). And you can't just "dream" Cobb, Arthur, etc. into your dream, you have to have them connect via the briefcase contraption. So how can they all connect to the next dream world? I'll leave you with a few more comments I found about the film ***(Spoilers in the link below too)*** http://news.discovery.com/human/inceptions-flawed-science-and-logic.html
