"Inception"

Yes, we all know "Inception" is cool, the story is mind-blowing, the effects are awesome, and all that. Here's my problem with "Inception:" the entire movie I'm watching and I don't particularly care for Leonardo DiCaprio's emotional journey. One thing I love about Christopher Nolan is how well he sucks me in, forces me to make an emotional investment in characters and story. I didn't feel this in "Inception," at least not until the end. The conclusion to that emotional journey was incredible, but mostly I just felt bad that I didn't care up until that point. Part of this problem, and I realize this may be just my problem, is that I felt that whilst it was a part of the story, it wasn't "the" story. The main story was the goal to achieve inception which made for all the awesomeness that proceeded forth from that. Then there was this secondary story of Leo, his wife, her death, his guilt that was the emotional core of the movie. Whilst important to the overall story, it wasn't "the" story and seemed to take a back-seat to it. And the idea that this new girl who just joined the club is the one who helps explore it seemed a little on the contrived side to me, forcing the combining of these two stories. Luckily, at the end of the movie, I did care. I loved the resolution, I loved the conclusion of him getting back to his children, I loved that I cared at the end. It's just that I didn't care throughout, which is hard for me to understand why I didn't. But if I did take one thing away from this movie, it's that I need to wear suspenders and/or vests with suits more often. If I took a second thing away from this movie, it's that it's still a really good movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/

"The Prestige"

I absolutely love this movie! This movie gets better the more I watch it. I think this may be the most complete of all of Christopher Nolan's movies. Each and every aspect works together. I don't even care that Scarlett Johansson is in it. If you have not seen this movie go and see it. If you do not like this movie, please tell me so I can never talk to you again and we can end the extent of our relationship right now.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/

"Insomnia"

Watching "Insomnia" you see a lot of characteristics from other Christopher Nolan movies. The cinematography  is quite reminiscent of "Memento." The dynamic between Al Pacino and Robin Williams  echoes the Young Man and Cobb in "Following." There are similar principles and ideals between Al Pacino's police detective character and Aaron Eckhart's district attorney character from "The Dark Knight." These similarities may lead one to believe that Mr. Nolan is a one-trick pony. And if that is the case, at least he does his one trick very, very well. Whilst all these things make this movie good, there are two things that stick out most to me that make it better than good. The first is that this may be the greatest acted of all of Christopher Nolan's movies. Al Pacino, Robin Williams, Hilary Swank (yes, I know I questioned her choice before hand and yes, she's still not the best) are all fantastic. Al Pacino by himself is good, but when adding Robin Williams, there's just great chemistry between them. The second is the feeling of claustrophobia. This is a movie that takes place in the vast expanses of Alaska, yet throughout the movie I feel cooped up, closed in, unable to escape the "confined" space of this Alaskan town. This feeling only adds to the tension built by the insomnia suffering Al Pacino. Whilst this is not Christopher Nolan's best, it's like saying it's your least favorite Pixar movie*, or bad pizza; it's still good.

*This was probably more true of Pixar before "Cars 2" and beyond.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278504/

"Memento"

Christopher Nolan's second outing certainly outdoes his first, and by a substantial margin. Continuing his use of the non-linear, he tells the story of a man with no short-term memory trying to piece together his wife's rape and murder. That single decision is what makes this movie so amazing. We can toss aside* the fact that Guy Pearce was absolutely incredible in this movie**, Carrie-Anne Moss was by far his greatest female casting decision in any of his movies***, the dark and harsh lighted cinematography**** that fit the story so well, and emotional investment you feel whilst watching it*****. Christopher Nolan's ability to tell a story using the non-linear (and this may be his most linear of his non-linear movies, if that makes sense) made this movie. I try to imagine what it would be like to re-edit this movie and tell it all in chronological order, and whilst I have not done that, I am fairly confident in saying that it certainly would not be the same, not even close to the same. This was the aspect that, whilst it is a part of the movie, made the movie greater than the sum of it's parts.

*We can't really toss aside these aspects, they are intricate parts of what makes the movie great. That would be like saying the Transformers movies are great as long as we toss aside Michael Bay.

**Seriously, I'm not a huge Guy Pearce fan, but he was a-ma-za-zing! Plus I wish I looked like that with my shirt off, tattoos and all.

***Hilary Swank, Katie Holmes, Scarlett Johansson, Maggie Gyllenhaal? Really?

****Enter Wally Pfister!

*****Not enough can be said about this. If you don't feel it, if you aren't drawn in by it, you're probably a ginger with no soul covered in freckles from all the souls you have stolen from others.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/

"Following"

The great thing about "Following" is that you watch this and think, "yeah, I can make a movie that good." Then when you set out to do so you come to the realization that you can't. Some people have a gift at making films and it can be seen on even the smallest of scales. Now, in watching this movie you aren't blown away by how great it is, it doesn't have any sort of wow-factor to it, and there's not an overly grand sense of spectacle. But when combined with Christopher Nolan's sense of storytelling and the fact that it was made on a $6,000 budget, you can't help but at least respect the effort. With that said it sounds as if I'm saying you should just respect it for what it is and the effort put forth to create it, but I still really liked this movie. I may be biased toward Christopher Nolan because his sense of storytelling certainly fits into my "likes" category when it comes to movies, but even is his first budgeted film he abandons the linear model and of course handles it beautifully. I can understand that when someone watches this they maybe be confused as to why they're spending 69 minutes watching a group of unattractive British people in a story that's jumping all over the place, I felt like that at first, especially with the main character looking so different with his head and facial hair styles changing between the different time periods you're going back and forth between. But once you can get things straight (and I must admit I am a bit slow in this category so I'm sure anyone else will be fine), you have a great story that has all the flaws of a small budget movie trying to do the most it can without overstepping said budget. One thing I like about Christopher Nolan is that I always feel the emotional journey whilst watching his movies and you do get that feeling in "Following." It may not be to the same scale as his later movies, but you can't expect that. And the way he handles the relationship between The Young Man and Cobb certainly foreshadows his ability to handle ensemble dynamics and directing of actors, individually and in groups. All things considered, this is a great, small indie-film that was certainly worthy of getting Christopher Nolan a chance at making another film, which we should all be grateful for.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0154506/

"The Evil Dead"

There are a lot of bad horror movies from the 80s. There are a lot of bad horror movies in general. So what is it that makes this bad horror movie from the 80s a cult-classic? What sets this movie apart from others in it's same genre? What made me absolutely love this movie? My first thought is that despite his unibrow, young Bruce Campbell is kind of a ridiculously good looking man. But surely that can't be what set this movie apart. Could it be the ridiculous, over-the-top, unbelievable, unexplained nature of the gobs of gore you see? Well, now I think we're on to something. I realize that is not for everyone (in fact, probably only for a select few), but it was incredibly fun and entertaining, often causing me to cover my mouth, and just plain silly. I love that! Now, bad horror can't be the only thing that made this movie stand out, other wise more movies like it would. Could it be that it had genuinely tense and scary moments? Absolutely! What made these tense and scary moments even better was the fact that it didn't use your typical, over-used scare tactics. If someone is standing at an open door and they close it, you're ready to see the "Big-Bad" behind the door as they close it, or as they stand up ("Isolated" anyone?), or as the camera swings around them. This movie didn't do that. It had those moments, but left them empty, which added to the tension that was slowly building to the final scary reveal. I loved how one moment I was tensed up in suspense, the next tensed up in laughter. This movie nearly reaches brilliance. I may even say it enters greatness. But for now we'll say it pinnacles at really good-ness. The type of really good-ness that after you watch you think you and a few friends could make a movie like this and as good as this, and you wouldn't be far off. And that idea just makes me like this movie even more.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083907/

"Black Death"

Would it really be a spoiler if I said Sean Bean's character died in this movie? I think the bigger spoiler would be me telling you he lives. Either way, this is a medieval period piece that did almost the exact opposite of "Ironclad." Instead of trying to accomplish a grand scale with a small budget and failing, this is a movie that lived inside it's budget and was nicely rewarded with a nice little medieval movie. Sean Bean (who may have to be added to the list of actors required to be in today's medieval period movies) was great as the Envoy to the Bishop. The young Friar Osmund was a torn and sympathetic character in who's perspective we saw the story through. The sets and production design were fabulous. Nice fight scenes, nice acting, nice cinematography, and one horrendous time period to live in. The first time I watched this movie I thought it was alright. Watching it a second time I really liked it. It's unfortunate that this "really like" is not more, but as is the case too often, a movie's ending can leave you wanting. Such is the case with this movie. I wanted more! What is told in a short epilogue to the film is basically the synopsis for what could have been a great movie in and of itself. Especially given the torn nature of Osmund in this film, it would have transferred well into the story presented in this epilogue sequence. It's hard to knock a film because it's ending left me wanting more of it (which I really want in a sequel), and it really was probably just an example of living within it's budget (which I applaud this movie for), so I can't help but say that I really like this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1181791/