Inception (2010)

 "The smallest seed of an idea can grow. It can grow to define or destroy you."

I can't believe it's taken me until 2023 to watch this uniquely brilliant film. Better late than never, right?

As you can imagine, this Christopher Nolan masterpiece (he has more than one of those, of course) has quite blown me away. It's not the conceit of entering people's dreams, or of dreams within me: that was spoiled for me by the episode of Rick and Morty that was riffing on Inception. Nor, really, is it the intricacies of the plot, brilliant though that is. 

No: it's the very human tragic romance between Cobb and Mal. My mind was blown by the revelation that, after exploring dreams within dreams and spending a subjective fifty years in a self-constructed dream paradise, Mal became convinced that it was the dream world that was the real one... so she demapped herself, as David Foster Wallace would put it, ensuring that Cobb would be framed for her death so he would be motivated to follow her into what she sincerely believed would be blissful, loving happiness. She died pointlessly, and made her husband's life a living hell with his children forever denied to him... out of love.

And then, later, we have bombshell number two. Yes, the main plot concerns a kind of reverse heist trying to plant an idea, an "inception" in the mind of a corporate heir in order to enrich Cobb's client so his life can be unruined, etc, blah blah. And that's all fascinating. But far more mind-blowing is the realisation that it was Cobb who planted the idea of the world not being real in his wife's mind so they could leave their dream world in the first place, by being run over by a train together. And the dialogue exactly parallels that in bombshell number one. It's all quite existentially jaw-dropping.

The ending, with the top still spinning, is nicely ambiguous: can Cobb finally have happiness with his children or is he still dreamimg? I would suggest that the answer to this question lies not in the spinning top, which may or may not fall, but in the fact that the two children have not seemingly aged since Cobb last saw them.

The impressions left in my mind, though, are certainly of admiration at the ideas and the plot, but of deep engagement with the very human emotions at the heart of this film. Cobb and Mal are both decent people, and a genuinely loving couple- indeed, no one in the film can be said to be "bad", just fundamentally decent people trying to do the right thing and sometimes making very human errors. That's quite profound. And both hopeful and horrifying in equal measure.

Dunkirk (2017)

 "He's shell-shocked, George. He's not himself. He might never be himself again."

Obviously, this is no typical war film: it's Christopher Nolan, after all. We don't even see any Germans, just the effects of their bullets, bombs and especially planes. There isn't even a central character as such, just an ensemble cast whom we follow throughout. Then there's the famously non-linear narrative structure- the events at the beach taking one week; the events at sea taking one day; and the events in the air taking one day. Yet this is over-hyped, I think: the film is perfectly easy to follow, and the film is about much bigger things than its own structure.

This film  is an extraordinary achievement. There's plenty of heroism on display, but also shell-shock, fear and paranoia- the scene in which the British soldiers in a sinking boat threaten to throw overboard first a Frenchman and then a man from another regiment is deeply disturbing. But this is reality. It is not a gung-ho adventure story. That would not be Dunkirk. Yet we see the heroism of Collins and Farrier in the air, and the heroism of Mr Dawson, Peter  and George, civilians who risk everything- with seventeen year old George losing his life... at the hands of a panicking, shell-shocked British officer.

The cast- Tom Hardy perhaps excepted- is composed of character actors rather than stars, reinforcing that this is not a stirring action film but an honest attempt to depict what the evacuatrion would have felt like. Both the direction and the soundtrack are utterly peerless throughout, evoking the feel of besiegement and desperation. And the performance of Mark Rylance, in particular, is utterly sublime.

There is hope at the end, yes. The evacuation is a success against the odds. It's a nice choice to have Churchill's famed words be read from a newspaper by a young soldier. Yet we're left in no doubt that the road ahead is long and hard. Wars are not won by evacuations. Yet nor are they won without an army. Mere survival is not victory. But it does, of course, keep the hope of victory alive.

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)

 "You said I could eat bad guys!"

I only watched this film as an easy watch after a knackering day, expecting a non-demanding bit of third rate superhero fluff- much like this film's predecessor, enjoy it though I did.

Instead, directed by Andy Serkis- he of the recent extraordinary performance in Andor- we have a taut, entertaioning action film that doesn't outstay its welcome and develops its characters superbly. I know not of Carnage and Shriek- they are after my time as far as the comics are concerned- but I really loved them as characters, well written and acted. Woody Harrelson in particular is superb as a serial killer who, we learn only at the last minute, was made that was by child abuse. It just goes to show that those who participate in judicial killing, whether signing death warrants or administering a lethal injection, are as evil as their victims and deserve no less.

Not only the villains are well-characterised, of course. Ediie and Venom's bromance gets a nice little arc, and both of them come to accept that Anne is lost to them, and to wish her well.

The plot is simple yet effective, with the King Kong conclusion an oldie but goodie. This is a film about love, however twisted; about the lingering effects of child abuse; about the evils of judicial killing- those who take part in this vice all die- but, most of all, it's a rollicking ride.

And that mid-credits, echoing Spider-Man: No Way Home: the fugitive Eddie/Venom are in the MCU...?

Venom (2018)

 "Eyes! Lungs! Pancreas! So many snacks, so little time!"

I thought, given that current stuff that must be blogged is interrupting my consumption of the former Netflix Marvel seasons- damn you, Stranger Things, Obi-Wan Kenobi, The Boys- I'd best start to attack the current backlog of Marvel films. So it starts here.

This is one of those films that starts off as though it's going to be rubbish. I don't like the texture, the coliuring, the cinematography, surprising from the director of Zombieland... but the script and acting win through. 

This film doesn't pretend to be clever. But, after getting obver the music video direction, it becomes apparent that the script is decent, if not exceptional, and that both Tom Hardy and Riz Ahmed (as Elon Musk, in every detail) are very good indeed.

It's odd in a Venom film not to see Spider-Man- Sony own him for cinematic purposes at present; is this film part of the MCU? We see Stan the Man, I suppose. But it's interesting that a film based on Venom and Eddie Brock can succeed without reference to Spidey- although, of course, we get a subtle appearance from John Jameson.

Tom Hardy and Michelle are both impressive in the vrewlationship that anchors the film. Hardy impresses as the Symbiote. The story beats are good, despite the lack of Spidey and directorial shortcomins., and I look forward to more Sony Marvel stuff.

Layer Cake (2004)

"England. Typical. Even drug dealers don't work weekends."

I'd wager this film was not entirely without influence in Daniel Craig winning a certain high profile role a couple of years later, but it deserves recognition for far more than that. The directorial debut of Matthew Vaught after producing Lock, Stock and Snatch, it superficially resembles them with its gangster subject matter and its fast, witty directorial style.

Except it’s more than this. Layer Cake is certainly a fast-paced gangster film with a complex plot full of layers upon layers of motives and double crosses in the dangerous, impossible to escape world of criminality. But it’s unnamed protagonist is deliberately different from the stereotype- middle class, educated, professional and unflashy, he’s only in crime because of the money to be made from the drugs trade, and intends to make his fortune and then retire. Naturally, he isn’t going to be allowed to do this for all sorts of reasons involving various British character actors.

It’s amusing to see the character of the Duke as a contrast; clearly intended as a piss-take of the typical British cinematic gangster, he’s a joke, out of his league and inevitably doomed. Our protagonist is different, right?

Over a riveting couple of hours we slowly discover that no, he isn’t really, in spite of his smarts and his apparent sense. This is not a world from which one can ever escape, or expect a long life to expectancy. However clever he is, however he may run rings round his many sudden enemies after an ecstasy deal gone wrong, this world will kill him- and it’s fitting that he should be killed over a girl, randomly, after he thinks he’s got out.

What adds even more depth, though, is that the film is about something. Once there was cops and robbers, then along cane the drugs trade. As the opening narration says, one day all this will be legal. But, for the past several decades, prohibition has spawned a shocking amount of unnecessary crimes and innocent victims. And that’s the moral of this film; prohibition has blood on its hands.