Reviews by lotr23

The very definition of guilty pleasure (assuming you like this sort of thing, of course). It's predictable, super melodramatic and at times way too fast-paced, but it's VERY unlikely to bore you. In fact, the fast pace is probably the reason for that, so maybe it makes more sense to commend the filmmakers for making The Other Boleyn Girl a swift-moving film, as it makes it feel involving, even if it leaves you feeling like there's a few too many plot holes.

As the obvious central figure of the story, Natalie Portman deserves particular recognition here. Her Anne starts out as a vulnerably jealous older sister. Her pain is more than perceptible to the audience. We then get an interlude in which she does not appear on-screen for a certain amount of time (during Anne's exile to France), and upon her return, Portman shocks us with the transformation she's given to her character, who has become a delicious villainess, who lays out her plans with a cunning smile and gives us no reason to doubt that she'll accomplish what she's setting out to do. As if that weren't enough, during the climax Portman returns to that former vulnerability that characterized Anne in the first act, and she achieves this seamlessly. It is because of this fascinating full-circle transformation that Portman's work trumps that of Eric Bana, Scarlett Johansson and the supporting members of the cast, even though they hold their own, for the most part.

It feels weird to speak well of this film, since I'm not the soap opera type at all (and it does often feel like one), but this one definitely had me from start to finish. If you enjoy dramatic period pieces that focus less on the politics and more on the intimate dynamics of the characters that inhabit stories like this one, this is your movie.

If you put aside the fact that its final half hour teeters on the ridiculous, Fierce People is pretty much a brilliant movie. The first half features very well-crafted dialogue; it's not often that we're pleasantly surprised with the way dark comedy is handled in a film, but here's a fine instance of that. The second half takes a turn for the serious, and it doesn't work AS well as the first half, but that doesn't take away from the entertainment value. Because the second half takes a turn towards the thriller realm, plot contrivances inevitably ensue, but they're not as bad as what we've witnessed in other movies.

Diane Lane and Donald Sutherland are very good here, and it really is a shame that it was so difficult to get Fierce People released (the process has taken years, apparently) because the solid performances work to make this a really involving cinematic experience.

A few days ago, I reviewed Charlie Bartlett and observed that Anton Yelchin's performance as the title character wasn't particularly amazing, but that I still thought he had a lot of potential, especially after seeing his work in Alpha Dog. Although Fierce People was obviously filmed long before either Alpha Dog or Charlie Bartlett (as you can clearly tell by how much younger Yelchin looks in this one), it's evident that his acting talent was already more than solid when he did Fierce People, and now this just serves as further evidence that he's one to watch. As Finn, Yelchin is effective in a lot of ways, whether it be scenes in which he needs to be funny or scenes in which he needs to be scared (emphasis on the traumatic scene in which he's lying in bed, once the film has taken a turn towards the serious realm).

On a similar line, Kristen Stewart has been in plenty of movies in which she's been able to show us her range as a very good young actress. After playing Jodie Foster's daughter in Panic Room, in 2007 she played memorable characters in Into The Wild and In The Land Of Women. Here, she wisely avoids turning Maya into a stereotypical spoiled rich girl, and instead gives us a character who is hindered by how unaware she is of what is happening around her, yet isn't a conceited brat.

As a film that aims its arrows at the upper-class and that comments on what financial privilege can do to people, Fierce People is a thousand times better than The Nanny Diaries, another recent film that covered similar ground. While the former isn't ashamed to take the realistic path and depict several disturbing aspects on screen, the latter played it safe so freakin much that it was nearly unbearable. The Nanny Diaries was absolutely horrible; Fierce People is a veritable masterpiece next to it. Ironically, Chris Evans starred in both movies, and his work in both films actually serves as a great tool to compare them. In both cases, he plays the privileged, rich kid (in fact, he's a Harvard student in both films), yet his character in The Nanny Diaries (who we know simply as Harvard Hottie) is such a dumbed-down, annoyingly simplistic fellow so as to make you gag, while in Fierce People, he's deliciously arrogant as Bryce. Put it this way: if the stupid and irritatingly innocent Harvard Hottie came across Bryce in the woods at night, he should run for his life, or the devilish Bryce will make him squeal... literally. And let me tell you, my referring to Evans' character in The Nanny Diaries so negatively is a big deal, because 99% of the time, I find Evans to be immensely attractive, but he was so grating in that movie that I forgot all about that momentarily. On the other hand, in Fierce People he takes full advantage of his charming great looks to make for a perfect interpretation of a self-important rich bastard, who pretends to be Finn's friend but, as you'll surely expect, ends up screwing him (in more ways than you might think).

With all that said, there's no question that the last few scenes of Fierce People stumble a bit in making everything seem plausible. It's not as jaw-droppingly contrived as other things we've seen, but there's a feeling that it could've been handled better. Other than that, this is a decent film, one of those unfortunate cases in which distribution problems didn't give it the exposure it certainly deserved, but hopefully a lot of people will discover it on DVD and appreciate what this truly talented cast brings to it.

Features great cinematography, good supporting performances and a decent script, but is marred by a horrible lead performance and a poorly-crafted climax. To be fair, the overwhelmingly negative critical response to Silk is a little harsh. It's being referred to as an extremely slow-moving and boring drama, and while there are some elements of that, we've seen far more monotonous films, especially in the realm of period pieces. Silk is mostly engaging, at least to those who can appreciate dialogue-based films and aren't in need of a dosage of action sequences.

The main problem with Silk, though, is that Michael Pitt is incredibly bad as Herve, and I hate saying it because I do like Pitt (see The Dreamers for evidence that this guy can actually give a decent performance). I recently reviewed Charlie Bartlett and said that Anton Yelchin's lead performance was sometimes disserviced by his "blank stares"... little did I know how much worse someone could do with the same kind of expression. There is a scene towards the end in which Herve is listening to someone read a letter for him, and the scene absolutely requires him to display emotion, yet we get absolutely nothing. Credit goes to Keira Knightley and Alfred Molina for balancing out Pitt's horrible leading turn here. They give us as much as they can with what the script allows them.

Though the ending packs an emotional punch and cleverly reiterates words that were spoken in the opening scenes, the emotional void in Herve's countenance makes it impossible to be fully invested in this. In addition, one of the aspects that leads to the climax is truly laughable. I don't want to spoil anything, but during the final scenes, a character is supposed to find another character in a city and the searcher has absolutely no address or other helpful information, and the explanation that is given when the character finds the person being searched for is simply ridiculous, almost to the point that it takes away from the seriousness and emotional depth of what is happening in the concluding scenes. The only thing I give Michael Pitt credit for is the subdued nature of his narrative voiceover, which perfectly fits the tone of the movie; not much happens in Silk, but it's still mostly interesting to watch it unfold. Still, there are too many crucial factors that keep it from being as effective a drama as it should be.

For a film that apparently wants to bring a new spin to the teen comedy genre through the unusual plot of a kid serving as his peers' psychiatrist/druggist, Charlie Bartlett is extremely generic. It explores important issues of the teenage years, such as having anxiety over being accepted by others, being bullied, having suicidal thoughts, yet none of these things are brought to us in ways we haven't seen before. One of the film's main problems is that it wants to bring all these serious issues across with a side of comedy, and it would've been great if this had been pulled off successfully (see the British film The History Boys), but instead, the exploration of those serious issues and the attempt at comedy collide fruitlessly, keeping both from working as effectively as they should. The drama is only engaging on certain occasions, while the comedy really only gives room for a few "hehe" moments, but nothing that'll make anyone bust a gut.

The only performances here that are uniformly good are that of Kat Dennings (as Charlie's love interest and the principal's daughter), who brings a flair that would otherwise render the romantic aspect of the film as a total bore, and that of Mark Rendall as Kip Crombwell who manages the tough task of not coming across as a cliched emo kid and actually gives us the chance to sympathize with him. As the title character, Anton Yelchin is pretty uneven, though I'm glad he took on this role, because I do think he has a lot of potential (after watching him play the kidnapped boy in the severely underrated Alpha Dog), and hopefully this movie will help him move towards more recognizable roles in which his true talent might unfurl more effectively. Yelchin is very funny during the scene in which Charlie tries out for the talent show (playing the role of a girl who is explaining to his dad that she just got her period), but in most of the dramatic scenes, he seems to be staring blankly rather than conveying the emotions we need to see. Likewise, the usually great Robert Downey, Jr. looks extremely bored, for some reason. I don't necessarily agree that he needs to stop playing the alcoholic (especially considering how great he was in last year's Zodiac). He should take whatever role he wants; he just needs to do a better job than he's done in Charlie Bartlett.

The final scenes of the film involve a musical number by one of the characters. This scene feels completely misplaced and unnecessary to the film, and the fact that it is placed during the climax makes it an even worse sin. While I appreciated the sporadic quirks, it's hard to help feeling that Charlie Bartlett could've been a lot better. If you think this is the kind of movie you might be interested in, you might be better off waiting for the DVD, as it's the kind of film that might seem less disappointing on a smaller screen, when you don't have to pay $10 for it.

As a movie that apparently wants to achieve the same level of authenticity as The Blair Witch Project did through its documentary-style filmmaking method, Cloverfield isn't very successful. The story we get on the characters during the first 30 minutes in order to get us to care about them is as gimmicky and movie-conventional as it gets. This would maybe be okay if after those 30 minutes elapsed, it no longer focused on that, but the film insists on continuing to jam that storyline down our throats, all the way till the last few seconds of the film. This makes it feel like we're just watching a regular movie, rather than one that is supposed to exude a "real-life" feel.

Where The Blair Witch Project was relentlessly creepy, Cloverfield is unsuccessful at manufacturing any feeling of suspense. As most people are aware, one of the best decisions the makers of Blair Witch made was to NOT show us what it was that was haunting the protagonists. Cloverfield takes the opposite path, by giving us plenty of blatant glimpses at the "monster" (which, if you really are curious about it, there's nothing special about the specimen - nothing you haven't seen before). I totally saw coming everything that happened in the last couple of minutes, and it hardly had any impact on me, which is the opposite of what I can say about the horrific last few seconds of Blair Witch.

I did get motion sickness, but I don't know that that's necessarily a fair thing to reference to call Cloverfield a bad movie, because all it means is that at least the camera aspect of it is realistic. So, though I did feel dizzy at times, I can't really hold that against the movie, but its lack of believability in virtually all other aspects is definitely a detriment.

Before I get into the merits and weaknesses of CYRUS (and thankfully, there are more of the former than of the latter), I'd like to say a few things about the cinematic trajectory of directors Jay and Mark Duplass. For those who see the word "mumblecore" in the critical consensus for CYRUS and don't know what it means, it'll probably be easier to understand what it means if you see the Duplass brothers' first two feature-length films, THE PUFFY CHAIR (2006) and BAGHEAD (2008). Essentially, a movie that follows the mumblecore approach is one in which the dialogue is largely improvised (see last year's HUMPDAY, which actually starred one of the Duplass brothers). I have to say that I didn't get the impression that there was improvisation in CYRUS: it felt like there was a script, and that the actors were following it. That wasn't the case with the brothers' first two films, which I'll talk about now.

THE PUFFY CHAIR is unlikely to have been seen by many people, and that is a real shame because it is a truly fantastic piece of indie filmmaking, perhaps the best movie of the so-called mumblecore movement. The dialogue is improvised, but it is incredibly insightful and well thought-out. It's a road trip movie that is incredibly perceptive about relationships and has a handful of humor to boot. And it has an amazing final scene. All that for a low budget and with virtually no script. I don't know whether or not to recommend it, because it may not be your "type" of movie, but if you think that it is, I say put it at the top of your Netflix queue right now. Unfortunately, two years later, the Duplass brothers decided to make a different type of film. BAGHEAD is sort of a horror/comedy, but it's not exactly what we're used to getting when we look forward to a film that mixes those two elements. The movie is actually ably directed... but some of the acting is truly DREADFUL, in particular that of Greta Gerwig, who's performed better in several other movies, including this year's GREENBERG.

With CYRUS, there's good news and bad news. The good news is that Jay and Mark Duplass have returned to drama, which I think is their stronger genre. The bad news is that, despite having a higher budget and much more famous people in its cast, CYRUS isn't nearly as great as THE PUFFY CHAIR. However, it's still great to see that they're finally being able to reach slightly more mainstream audiences, and one suspects that after the success of CYRUS, they may eventually take some of the brilliance we saw in their very first film and pour it into their next project.

John (John C. Reilly) and Jamie (Catherine Keener) got divorced several years ago. One of the things that I immediately appreciated during the first few seconds of CYRUS is that Jamie is portrayed as an ex-wife who still sort of looks after her former spouse and even tries hard to see if he can meet another woman, and Jamie does all of this even though she's already engaged to marry her current boyfriend. In fact, she has sort of become John's confidante; any time he has a problem, he usually goes to her. It's an unusual departure from the stereotypical character of the ex-wife, who's usually on-screen to nag or argue.

Jamie is so helpful that she invites John to a party so that he can meet people. The fact that John is an awkward fellow who has trouble making conversation becomes quickly evident, and there are some delightfully awkward, cringe-inducing moments during John's interactions with people at the party. It all gets even better, though, when John sneaks over to pee on a plant, thinking that no one is seeing him. Enter Molly (Marisa Tomei), whose first line is uproariously funny, and the same can basically be said from the rest of the conversation. We get the feeling that Molly doesn't care about the fact that John bumbles a little bit in conversation. They seem like a perfect match. They start sleeping together, but something suspicious keeps happening: Molly always leaves in the middle of the night. This prompts John to follow Molly one night to her house, and that's where he discovers our title character, Cyrus (Jonah Hill), who is Molly's 21-year-old son.

The first half of CYRUS teems with masterful dark comedy. There's an expertly executed conversation when all three characters are together for the first time at a dinner table. The line "But you can feel it already" is delivered at the most inopportune moment for the characters, yet it is incredibly opportune for comedic purposes. The reason why the first half of CYRUS is magnificent is because the title character behaves completely amiably towards John, yet there's this constant undercurrent that something is off. A moment in which a character is seen holding a knife in the dark is truly a brilliant touch. There's something clearly unhealthy about Cyrus' relationship with his mother, and all the subtle hints at this are handled greatly by the Duplass brothers.

The reason why CYRUS starts losing points in its second half is that all the subtlety suddenly goes away when Cyrus and John literally declare war on each other. The film stops being about the nuanced conversations and about the indirect hints that the title character may be related to Oedipus and it chooses to announce all of this way too plainly. This is all a matter of personal preference: I like my movies more subtle, simple as that. There's still plenty of hilarity to be found, particularly from the way Cyrus silently mouths "Fuck you" at one point and then from a hand-written message that Cyrus gradually reveals to John.

The entire cast is solid. John C. Reilly is great at acting like a bumbling idiot during the initial scenes, and even better, he never goes over the top once his anger towards Cyrus gets the best of his character. Marisa Tomei's is easily the best performance of the film: she has to balance her attraction to John with her ill-conceived clinginess to her son, and she never hits a false note. When my favorite critic (James Berardinelli) reviewed CYRUS, he noted that he could easily see Jonah Hill playing a serial killer, considering what he did in this film. I had a hard time believing or understanding how it could be possible that Hill could give that impression, since CYRUS seemed like such a light-hearted movie. But now that I've seen it, I completely agree. Some of the moments in which Hill stares deeply, without blinking, are truly eerie. This is different from anything else that Hill has done, and a sign that he could easily continue giving even more nuanced dramatic performances.

Minimalism is something I largely encourage when it comes to films (and it worked absolutely perfectly in THE PUFFY CHAIR), but it gets a little in the way of the last few scenes of CYRUS. The movie doesn't become bad at all in the second half: it just becomes too simple, which is an unexpected departure from all the depth and nuance we had gotten used to from the first half. The film's denouement is what one may call "too easy." A deep dramedy could've given us a little bit more than this. To sum it up more simply, CYRUS is a great movie during the moments in which its title character is still nice to John, while he's still holding in all of his frustration towards the fact that his mother is dating someone. Once Cyrus explodes, things become a little bit more obvious, and the movie continues being GOOD, but nothing more than that.

The title is appropriate in more than just one sense. MOTHER AND CHILD is the latest film from Rodrigo Garcia, who made the equally wonderful and nuanced NINE LIVES back in 2005. MOTHER AND CHILD consists of three interconnected stories. Two of them are merely decent, but the third one is so great that it elevates this film into being more than just good, mostly thanks to a magnificent, devastating performance from Naomi Watts, who I continue to believe is today's best working actress.

The film opens with a 14-year-old girl who decides to have sex with her boyfriend, and we immediately find out that she got pregnant and gave birth to a girl. We move ahead 37 years in time. Now 51, Karen (Annette Bening) clearly lives a melancholy life, as she thinks about the baby that she gave away when she was a teenager and wonders what became of her. Karen lives with her mother, a very old woman who seems to be in a constantly bitter state. As we cut into one of the film's other storylines, we discover that the baby that was given away is the now 37-year-old Elizabeth (Naomi Watts), who grew up as an adopted child but hardly had any help from anyone, and she was basically all by herself at 17. She worked extremely hard, and has now become an ultra-successful, extremely qualified attorney. One of the most fascinating moments in MOTHER AND CHILD takes place when we first meet Elizabeth during her job interview with the head of a law firm, Paul (Samuel L. Jackson). Elizabeth informs Paul that she's done what she's had to do to get ahead, that she prefers to work alone and that she doesn't mind having either a man or a woman as a boss, but that she "prefers reporting to a man." Of course, as far as Paul is concerned, this proves to be very little of a problem, as the relationship between these two goes beyond the professional realm. Some of the best scenes of MOTHER AND CHILD feature the amount of control Elizabeth has over her lonely life, as she dwells in an apartment by herself, and gets miffed when her over-perky neighbors come ring her doorbell to welcome her to the building. The scene in which Elizabeth introduces Paul to her neighbors is hilarious and has an amazing punchline. Finally, there's the third story, which features the married couple, Lucy (Kerry Washington) and Joseph (David Ramsey), who are desperately trying to adopt a child. The connection between this last storyline and the first two doesn't emerge until the film's final act, so I won't spoil it here.

The storyline involving Karen't strife over having abandoned her baby at such a young age is pretty solid, especially because Annette Bening is so well-connected to her character and is able to emote so adeptly. One of the most important aspects of Karen's story is her blossoming relationship with co-worker Paco (Jimmy Smits). My only problem with this storyline is that there is a sudden, jarring transition from a particularly sad scene (in which several confessions are made) to a happy wedding, and it definitely feels like there needed to be something in between to connect these two events. The romantic aspect of Karen's storyline doesn't feel 100% genuine, and there is a scene shortly after the wedding in which Paco's daughter shows up to spew some over-sentimental lines that feel misplaced (the script even has this character say a line that another character in the film has already said, and it feels contrived). As for the story of Lucy and Joseph, there aren't any nit-picks to be had. The performances are good, the character arcs are handled nicely, and there's even some good sense of humor.

But what really makes MOTHER AND CHILD a very good film is Elizabeth's dark, unabashedly sexual, and wonderfully melancholy story. There's a constant sense that, as much as she has been incredibly successful on a professional level, the unorthodox way in which she was raised has turned her into a truly disturbed person, who doesn't know how to even realize that she wants somebody to love her. There's a truly eerie moment in which Elizabeth has a sudden, knee-jerk reaction while standing in front of the receptionist's desk at a doctor's office. Later in the film, Elizabeth connects with a blind young girl who likes to sit on the building rooftop. Here, I watched fearfully, as I imagined we would descend into cliche, sentimental territory... but it doesn't happen. When the blind girl tells Elizabeth "You can count on me," we imagine it means that Elizabeth will eventually TAKE the opportunity to count on her, but the actual outcome is far from what we expect. The conclusion of Elizabeth's story is shocking and truly devastating. It's all thanks to Watts' unbelievable skill. She's shown how fearless she is in the past, but she continues proving it in MOTHER AND CHILD. Her supremely raw performance as Elizabeth alone makes this film more than worth watching. In fact...

**SPOILERS BELOW**

Naomi Watts' performance in MOTHER AND CHILD is so powerful that something happened to me that hasn't happened to me in a long time while watching a film. I was emotionally affected by a character's death, almost as if I truly felt that someone I knew and appreciated in real life had passed away. It might seem ridiculous, but it's precisely because of how uncompromising Watts is at creating such a delightfully flawed, interesting character that I felt that way. MOTHER AND CHILD may have been a merely decent film without her, but thanks to her performance, it's an above-average dramatic piece.

THE EXPLODING GIRL is a delightfully poignant, deftly-paced, often lyrical dramatic piece and character study. It's the kind of dialogue-based indie film that can't ever be boring, due in large part to its staggering honesty and realistic nature. Some of the reviews will give people the impression that THE EXPLODING GIRL is a chore to get through. What I can say is that that will only be the case for people whose eyes glaze over during emotion-driven, intelligent dramas and who need something simpler to watch. Then again, if you're one of those people, you're probably not reading this, so I'm writing for what I hope is a majority of people who can appreciate this type of film.

Ivy (Zoe Kazan) is returning home, as she's now on break from college. The first thing she does when she arrives is meet up with her best friend, Al (Mark Rendall). They were friends all through school, but they've each gone to a different college, so they only get to see each other when they're home on break. We can tell that this one of those relationships in which a guy and a girl are best friends and totally comfortable with talking to each other, but (of course), there's an underlying, awkward fidgetiness going on that gives one the impression that there may be something more going on here. They don't reveal it to each other, of course, but their eyes quickly reveal it to the audience members. To Al's dismay (but not to ours), his parents rented out his room while he was in college, so now Al doesn't have a place to stay, so of course, Ivy invites him to stay at her place during break. It's only natural, obviously, since they are best friends. This will all make any reasonable moviegoer expect that a few contrivances will happen and soon Ivy will dump her college boyfriend, realize her feelings for Al, and they'll stay together. But no... we get something much more authentic (and hence, much better) in THE EXPLODING GIRL.

This is an incredibly tender movie. The character of Al is developed scrupulously well. He likes to hang out with friends and smoke weed and have fun, but he cares deeply about Ivy, who is a tad more socially awkward. There's a particularly great scene in which Al is lying on a bed in between Ivy and this other girl (with whom he has all the chances in the world to hook up), but he decides to go home with Ivy. And it is NOT one of those "Oh, pfft, that would never happen in real life" moments in movies; the moment is handled in such a sullen and subtle way that we more than believe Al's decision. We don't know for sure if he's in love with Ivy, but there's never any doubt that he cares for her enormously. There's another incredibly well-executed moment in which Al tells Ivy about this girl he's in class with whom he has a crush on. As Ivy and Al talk to each other, the film does a brilliant job at blurring the line between the friendship that these two have and potential romantic feelings that they're keeping bottled up inside.

A lot of the film's running time is dedicated to Ivy's phone conversations with her boyfriend, during which we never SEE her boyfriend (we only hear his voice). This would be a bad idea if it weren't for the fact that it's all staged so amazingly well. Zoe Kazan's reactions during these phone talks are pitch-perfect. A lot of the conversations happen while Ivy is walking on the streets, so there's a constant sense that things are moving forward. And the guy who does the voice of Greg (Ivy's boyfriend) does a terrific job at conveying apprehension. My only problem is with a pivotal moment early on in the film during which Greg tells Ivy that he's had a car accident. I don't have an issue with Kazan's performance when she reacts to this; I just have a problem with the lines that she's forced to deliver, because they are the exact conventional lines that we hear in every movie (and TV show) when someone's been in an accident. Normally, that wouldn't bother me too much, but it does when we're dealing with a movie that thrives on realistic dialogue. But that's merely a nitpick because, to be honest, EVERYTHING else about these phone conversations is handled remarkably well.

The other small flaw to be found in THE EXPLODING GIRL comes towards the end of the film, during an over-extended scene in which Al and Ivy are sitting together, and we get an unnecessary amount of shots of birds flying during a sunset. It's fine if this was meant to be symbolic of something or other, but it's not fine that the shots feel self-indulgent and that they go on for so long. Thankfully, the film's very last scene goes back to the languid tenderness that we had gotten used to throughout the movie and that I thoroughly loved. All I'll say about the last scene is that it's an understated moment in a car, and that it involves hands. It is expertly shot, brings solid emotional heft to the film's coda, and it leaves the ending open to interpretation, which is often a great decision on a filmmaker's part.

THE EXPLODING GIRL is an uncommonly observant piece of indie filmmaking that accurately captures the turbulent confusion that one can experience when going back-and-forth from life in the college environment to life back home. The film recognizes that the idea of leaving people behind and then picking things up where they left off isn't quite so black-and-white, and the emotional turmoil that can come from that type of situation emerges profusely during the interactions between Al and Ivy.

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT features a terrific lead performance from Annette Bening and it benefits from an endearing warmth that permeates its running time even when we move into dark subjects.

The premise is incredibly appealing and has all the potential in the world to make for a great indie drama: Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore) are a couple, and they each had a baby through artificial insemination, so that they can jointly call themselves the mothers of Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson). Once Joni turns 18, though, she and her brother become interested in finding out who their biological father is, so they do just that. Turns out it's the scruffy, laid-back Paul (Mark Ruffalo), who dropped out of college and has made a career out of working at a restaurant. Paul enters the life of the family of four, and as you might expect, much dysfunction ensues.

The first act of THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is wonderful. The awkwardness during the moments in which the title characters meet Paul is handled perfectly, and it gets even more hilarious when he visits their house and the moms finally get to meet him. There's a fantastic conversation during which Nic interrogates Paul about his occupation and aspirations, and later, there's an expertly-executed moment in which Jules nervously talks about her job as a landscaper, with Nic giving skeptical looks the entire time (only one of the examples of how remarkable Bening is throughout the entire film).

One of the things I did start noticing as the film went along, much to my chagrin, is that this is really the kind of movie for which they decided to show too many of the good moments in the trailer. There was one scene featured in the trailer during which Paul tells Laser that he's "glad" he donated his sperm, and I have to admit I was shocked by how EARLY this moment actually happens in the film. I would've thought that it would come much later. But there's an explanation for why it comes early... THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT makes the (perhaps unfortunate) decision to suddenly stop focusing on the relationship between Paul and the two titular characters and instead start focusing on the adulterous affair that starts blooming between Jules and Paul. I didn't mind this TOO much, but it's hard not too think about how much more of a greater film this would've been if the focus had been more on the struggle experienced by Joni and Laser. The scenes in which Jules and Paul secretly have sex are only a little bit interesting because of the whole dynamic with Jules supposedly being a lesbian; if Jules had been cheating on a male character instead of a female one, this whole plot line wouldn't be much more interesting than any other love triangle we've seen on cable TV. In fact, to be honest, the relationship between Jules and Paul is quite difficult to believe. Paul says "I'm falling for you" at a moment during which we certainly don't buy that enough has happened for him to say that. We later get the obligatory contrived moment in which Nic discovers a piece of evidence that unveils the affair. And finally, Paul eventually makes the call to say "Let's just run away with the kids." As much as I appreciate Moore and Ruffalo's performances, they deserved a better script for these scenes.

Fortunately, though, the film does sort of pick up the pieces during its final act, as the focus turns to Joni's departure for college. The final scenes are deeply affecting, and Bening is way on top of her character (I saw MOTHER AND CHILD last week, and as good as she was in that, if she has an Oscar nomination awaiting her this year, it's for this film). The ending is both sad and understated, without being sappy or manipulative. I wish I could say that THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT was as controversial or emotionally searing as it should have been for its entire running time, but I can't quite go that far. In fact, to sum it all up, I think that the last two words of the title are a pretty apt descriptor of the film's overall quality.

Audacious, incredibly intelligent and scrupulously executed, INCEPTION is very easily one of the most engrossing films of 2010, and it joins TOY STORY 3 as part of the dynamic cinematic duo that saved this summer from the dross of boring remakes/sequels that got sent our way. The story is every bit as multi-layered as the dreams it depicts, and contrary to what some people have said, it's not difficult to follow in the least bit. Everything is made reasonably clear (as long as you pay attention, obviously). INCEPTION is an incredibly deep and sophisticated film, combining action sequences with emotional subtext in the best possible way.

I'd like to point out that I think some people who have reviewed INCEPTION have done a great disservice to readers by including a synopsis of the film. Normally, a synopsis is a requirement in reviews (and don't get me wrong, I love writing my take on "what a movie is all about"), but this is absolutely, positively a case in which a person is better off knowing NOTHING about the film before they go into it. Well... they should certainly go into the film with the warning that they'll need to pay attention... but that's it. Therefore, I won't be including a synopsis here, but I guess some details will inevitably come up, so that's the heads-up for those who haven't yet seen it.

Though INCEPTION has many ideas, there's one in particular that really stuck with me, because it feels like a commentary on the way a moviegoer approaches the experience of actually sitting down to watch a film. While discussing how to "manipulate" dreams, our characters explain that it's best for a lot of "negative" stuff to happen FIRST, so that then the ultimate outcome will not only be "positive," but it'll have a stronger impact than it would if there hadn't been so much adversity at first. It's catharsis, as they put it. We get more satisfaction from something if we had to work hard, if we had to struggle to make it happen. And it happens when we watch movies: have you ever seen a movie in which there aren't any conflicts whatsoever? Of course not, because it would probably be boring. You need to have something be at stake so that you can feel satisfaction at the end. In fact, one could argue that a movie is like a dream because you're transported to another reality, and you get to see it. To use INCEPTION's lingo, you get to watch other "subjects" doing things.

I understand that people can have varied opinions on movies, but the opinion that I completely reject is that of those who think INCEPTION is too complicated. It isn't. I've seen movies that are too complicated, and they're generally not good, or nearly as well-crafted as this. To guide us in the wonderful labyrinth that is the film, there is one particular character, Ariadne (Ellen Page) who essentially serves as our eyes throughout the film. She is the one who is exposed to this new world of "dream manipulation" without knowing anything about it. She's also the one who is curious enough to dig into the demons of our main character, Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), and who ultimately discovers his secrets and understands the emotional battle he's facing. To make it even more obvious that she's essentially our guide in INCEPTION, when the ultimate "awakening" occurs during the film's last act, it's her eyes that we watch open repeatedly, as each dream and each dream within a dream comes to an end.

The storyline of INCEPTION has two main threads. One of them consists of the mission that Cobb and his team go on to carry out an "inception" (which refers to the planting of an idea in someone's head by getting in that person's dreams). That part of the storyline teems with entertaining action sequences and even some moments of humor. The other, obviously more interesting thread of the film has to do with Cobb's demons in light of the death of his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard) and his desire to be able to go back to the U.S. to see his children. This is clearly a matter of personal preference, but I definitely preferred this aspect of the film. I was surprised when I started to see early reviews of INCEPTION in which some said that director Christopher Nolan had reached the heights of Kubrick with this film, but I started to understand the comparison during the scene in which Ariadne decides to go to the "basement" that Cobb seems to be apprehensive about. What we get soon after that is a scene in a hotel suite in which we get to witness fantastic dialogue mixed with a feeling of sneaking eeriness, as we begin to understand more about Cobb and Mal's relationship. This scene, in which Ariadne (once again) gets to be an observer is truly something incredible... but the scene gets one-upped later in the film in another instance in which Cobb, Mal and Ariadne are all in the same place once again. There's an almost creepy feeling that Mal is addressing not just Cobb, but the entire audience, when she poses the following question: "Are you really sure that the world you live in is real?" It's not unwarranted for an audience member to ask him/herself this question during this scene. The experience of watching INCEPTION is just that thoroughly involving.

Now, I'd like to go back to the Kubrick comparisons just for a second. After I watched INCEPTION and realized it was worthy of a 7/10, I started wondering why it was that it seems I can't bring myself to use the word "great" in reference to a Christopher Nolan movie. MEMENTO and THE DARK KNIGHT are largely regarded as masterworks of his as well, yet I also gave a 7/10 to those two. Before you start getting outraged, I'd just like to clear up something about my rating system (even though it's something I've said in the past). I think that a 7/10 is what most people give to a movie that they consider to be "merely good". That's not the case for me. I give a 6/10 to a movie that I think is just good, a 7/10 to one I think is VERY good, and then anything 8 or above is already in the realm of greatness. An 8 goes to something that is extremely good, even if I might have a nitpick or two. 9s and 10s both go to movies that ARE great - the difference is that a 10/10 goes to a movie that is one of the best I have EVER seen in MY LIFE. Anything that gets an 8/10 or above is basically guaranteed a spot in my year-end top 10 list, while anything that gets a 7 has at least a good shot at an honorary mention. Therefore, the fact that I gave a 7 to INCEPTION and you maybe gave it a 9 doesn't necessarily mean you liked it more than me. I'm just a little bit more conservative in terms of how I assign my ratings. Most people give lots of 8s and 9s, while I give a lot of 5s and 6s. It's just how I do it. INCEPTION is a very good film. Why isn't it great, or more to the point, why isn't it Kubrick caliber? First off, the action sequences aren't anything special. They're relatively generic, and I can't imagine they'll do too much for the adrenaline. But more importantly, I think what has kept me from considering the likes of MEMENTO, THE DARK KNIGHT and now INCEPTION as GREAT movies is the fact that there's a bit of over-ambition going on in them. Nolan aims really high, and you might wonder "Well, what's wrong with that? Kubrick did, too." And it's true, but the difference is all about the pace. A lot of people may not notice it, but pacing is crucial to a film's success. Kubrick was a master at it, in literally every film he did. Nolan's approach can be a little bit too frenetic for me. There's an occasional feeling of clunkiness when there's an attempt to throw a bunch of deep ideas at you one after the other. It's not that it's too complex for me; it's that it's a lot to take at once, and it's important to let a filmgoer breathe as he/she takes all of it in (the only currently living director who I think has a great, Kubrickian handle on pacing is Quentin Tarantino).

A lot of people will consider what I just said to be pointless drivel, and that's fine, and as a way to appease the Nolan-philes who will certainly be outraged by what I just said I'd just like to end by reiterating what I already said when I started this review: INCEPTION is one of the most well-crafted films of 2010. Its insight into the human mind is uncanny. This is further proof that, contrary to what Hollywood believes, we really DON'T need all these pointless movie reboots/remakes, all of which are being made because of the philosophy of "Well, hey, if it's a title that people RECOGNIZE from a past movie or TV show, they'll go see it." INCEPTION is a sign that original ideas can work absolutely wonderfully. It's just a matter of (as Nolan's characters would say) taking a leap of faith. Now if only we could plant THAT idea inside studio heads' minds.