Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 20, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Sorcerer's Apprentice earned a modest $24.7 million in five days. What went wrong here?
Josh Spiegel: It seems unique these days when my tastes completely line up with the rest of the country's (Toy Story 3 notwithstanding, as that movie was bound to make millions). For example, I genuinely don't know why anyone wants to see Salt, a movie that looks to make a chunk of change next weekend. I also had no idea why anyone wanted to see Sorcerer's Apprentice, which had so little going for it. Yes, it's got the director, producer, and star of National Treasure, but it's not National Treasure and the movie didn't open in December. What's more, the five-day opening did no help for the film's numbers, as with Knight and Day last month. If anything, I think this movie is a great example of people choosing to wait for DVD. Does this movie look terrible from the trailers? No. Do I need to spend 10 bucks to watch it? No. That might be part of what stopped people from going.
Shalimar Sahota: Maybe kids have had enough of the cliche fantasy films? Plus, I always thought it looked a bit too Percy Jackson. It did tick all the boxes to pass for a summer blockbuster. Excellent looking effects, humorless humor and Bruckheimer as producer. However, maybe if they went with younger characters and stars, then the kids might feel that they have someone they can identify with. The casting of Jay Baruchel (at 28 years old, passing for 20) just doesn't seem to fit. Why this can only muster an opening weekend of $17 million, but The Last Airbender can break out to $40 million (fully committed fanbase?) is beyond me.
Eric Hughes: Nicolas Cage? Honestly, I don't know who in their right mind would look at the movie listings for this past weekend and go, "No, I'm going to rain check what appears to be the movie event of the summer in favor of Nic Cage with wiley professor hair and top hat.
Jason Lee: Color me confused. Like Shalimar, I thought that the movie totally looked to be in the Percy Jackson mold (an $88 million domestic finisher), and considering that this one had both a star director and the Disney brand, I was ready to see it really take off. I'm really surprised that it underperformed the way it did.
Jim Van Nest: I'm kinda surprised at the results for this as well. I know as a father and a Scout leader...this movie had some pretty heavy buzz among the boys and families I have a lot of contact with. I actually thought this might be a breakout. One thing that works against it is there's a lot of family fare out there and I know around us, people will usually wait a couple weeks to avoid the crowds of opening weekend. It's not rare for a family to be a couple movies behind the openers. Of course, this could all be crap and it could just be because people think it looks sucky.
INCEPTION SPOILERS BELOW. SERIOUSLY...DO NOT READ ANY MORE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW PLOT POINTS IN THIS FILM.
Kim Hollis: For those of you who have seen Inception, what did you think about the film? What criticisms do you have of it? Who do you think offers the best/worst performance? How do you feel about the ending?
Josh Spiegel: I loved it (and am lucking into seeing it again today). I was biased towards enjoying it, but the more I think about the movie, the more I'm admiring how ingeniously plotted it was. There were various moments (the fight scene in the hotel with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the kick that comes in three levels at the end of the climax) that were as iconic as the interrogation scene in Dark Knight, or even bullet time in The Matrix. What's more, Nolan manages to provide lots of hints early on without making it fully clear, or at least providing said hints to make audiences appreciate it more as time goes on. If I had a criticism (and perhaps something I'll feel more certain on after a second viewing), it's that the first hour of the film, being the set-up, isn't as wildly exciting as the following 90 minutes. The only other criticism I have may be a fault of the theater I saw the film at (though I've heard the complaint elsewhere): I couldn't understand half of what Ken Watanabe said. Not sure if that'll change with a better sound system.
Among the performers, I'm not sure there's a weak link; Tom Berenger, Michael Caine, and Pete Postlethwaite don't have much to do, but that's not a fault. One performer I haven't seen singled out much is Cillian Murphy, whose big moment at the end was more affecting than I'd have expected. Ellen Page and Marion Cotillard were both very good; Page needs a better agent, though, because she should be billed second, not fourth; she is in far more of the movie than I would have guessed. Not a bad thing, but worth pointing out.
The ending is something I'm still puzzling over (as it should be, I'm sure). My initial assumption is that the final five minutes of the movie, from when Cobb wakes up on the plane, is a dream, as evidenced by the still-spinning top. Could it be real? Sure, and that wouldn't take away from my enjoyment of the film. However, there are solid arguments for it being a dream: the kids are wearing the same clothes, look the same age as they did in the flashbacks, and the grandmother (who we hear on the phone at the beginning) is conspicuously absent. If only because my brain was worn from this movie, I didn't fully connect the last shot to the last bit of Blade Runner, one of Nolan's favorite films, but the connections are there. Great movie, and a movie that I want to see again (as opposed to need).
Tom Houseman: If you want my thoughts on Inception, read my review that's so glowing you might go blind reading it. Suffice it to say, there are only two movies I have gone out of my way to see more than once in theaters (I was dragged to second viewings of the third Pirates and X-Men movies, so I don't count those). Inception will very likely join Little Miss Sunshine and The Dark Knight on that list.
David Mumpower: I want to preface my comments about Inception by indicating that I am not predisposed to love the work of Christopher Nolan like Tom and Josh are. I didn't care for The Prestige, a chore of a movie, I find Insomnia aptly titled and while I admired the artistry of Memento, the ultimate message of nihilism alienated me. Similarly, while I consider there to be innumerable moments of genius in The Dark Knight, the final 40 minutes of that film is a glorious mess. Some of it physically hurts my eyes to watch. I consider Batman Begins to be the superior movie, but that's partially because I believe that the discussion for best comic book adaptation to date is a three film conversation between Spider-Man 2, Iron Man and Batman Begins. When I look at the body of Nolan's work, he has the one great movie, a pair of titles filled with genius that don't move me as much as I wish they did, and a couple that did nothing for me.
Keeping all of the above in mind, I was shocked by how much I found myself enjoying Inception. In point of fact, I briefly imagined what it would be like to sit beside the Wachowski Brothers as they watched the movie in that even they must realize that this is the Matrix sequel audiences wanted rather than the ones they received. And I say that as someone who likes the Matrix sequels. I simply realize that most people did not and the sublime multi-layer mis-en-scene introduced in Inception feels like either a significant progression or the logical conclusion of ideas introduced in The Matrix.
The beauty as well as the conceit of Inception is that this is a computer programmer's movie, a series of nested loops. The impact on the top level filters down to each additional iteration in a manner that is to the best of my knowledge heretofore unknown in modern cinema. Realistically, this is exactly the sort of premise that Quentin Tarantino would have ripped off and claimed as his own (ahem, *homage) had it been originally introduced in Asian cinema. From a structured perspective, it exponentially expands the perils, plights and possibilities of action sequence storytelling. Inception offers that rarest of rare future-defining moment of storytelling thanks to one magnificent hotel floor (and ceiling) fight.
To a larger point, this is exactly why I enjoy the movie so much. I had assumed that the moment The Dark Knight became the Box Office Behemoth, Nolan was done making movies like Memento. To my utter shock and pleasant surprise, he chose to make an even more complicated feature rather than shy away and take a blatant cash grab project like Obvious Sequel #4. I would imagine that the power trio of Michael Bay, Brett Ratner and McG are all sour this week now that they have seen an action film that none of them has the skill and artistic confidence to create (though I hope that McG gets to that point one day). With the advent of Inception, Nolan has squarely placed himself ahead of Peter Jackson at the head of the class as the next Spielberg. He seems to have the requisite bravado to take that mantle and claim/earn it as his own.
With regards to the other questions, I do think that the criticisms about DiCaprio failing to engage as a lead actor do have some validity in roles like this and Shutter Island. I like him more in roles like The Aviator and Catch Me If You Can where he is more myth than man. I also consider his taking this part immediately after Shutter Island to be the 2010 equivalent to Tom Cruise doing The Firm and A Few Good Men consecutively. I understand why Dicaprio was drawn to both roles, but I also had trouble shaking the thought that he should choose the mothers of his children a bit more carefully. Still, even in liking his performance the least, that's like picking the worst Miami Dolphin the year they went undefeated.
As I mentioned yesterday, the performance I enjoyed the most was Tom Hardy as Eames. His role requires obfuscating complexity yet I was never confused about his character's behavior at any point in the film. That's a marvelous accomplishment for such an inscrutable part. I also think that Ellen Page is perfectly cast and has identified herself as the best early 20s actress in the industry (Scarlett Johansson no longer qualifies). Also, Marion Cotillard's character has more going on than any I can recall in recent movie history. She's a femme fatale, a murderous stalker, a romantic lead, Trinity, a tortured What Dreams May Come-r, and a Misery-esque victim. There is a huge wow factor to everything she accomplishes during Inception.
With regards to the ending, I love the devious nature of it. It's much less open ended than it seems on the surface, breathtakingly fitting for this subject matter. It's a misdirect, a symmetry of sorts with Nolan's prior post-Batman project, The Prestige.
Even if two people can share one totem, something not resolved in the film, the top could be jarred by something happening on the prior layer of dream a la the elevator fight and the plummeting van. So, the resolution of the top is inconclusive. That's why the ending is so brilliant. It seems important when it is in fact prestidigitation. The key facet is not the top but rather the physical appearance of the children. That identifies whether time has passed or he has in fact returned to that moment of flight that defines his life since his widowing.
Finally, I hope Nolan offers absolutely no explanation of Inception for the next several years. Please let the mystery build and the debate run its course.
Kim Hollis: I echo the thoughts expressed here about the quality of the film. I loved the complexity of it, and I felt that the script was really tight. There were layers upon layers, and unraveling them is the fun of the movie. As far as criticism, I did feel it was a bit slow in the first portion, but also found it to be deliberate rather than boring. I think the best performance - or at least the one I found most interesting - was Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I don't really believe anyone offered a bad performance, honestly. I liked Leo (but I always like Leo), and I actually thought Tom Berenger had a very interesting supporting turn that would have been very challenging, even if his screen time is limited.
As for the ending, I prefer to think that it's just ambiguous, but I do like Josh's notion that the whole thing wasn't a dream, but rather that he was dreaming from the point that he woke up on the plane. I also like the possibility that Saito became good enough understanding what the group did that he might have fulfilled his promise to Cobb by giving him what he so desperately wanted in dreamworld, where it could realistically occur, rather than the real world, where it probably could not.