jacobclark512

If you're around my age, there's a pretty good chance that Finding Nemo was a part of your childhood, and there's also a good chance that you really enjoyed it both then and now. It is an incredibly heartfelt and emotionally rich story that just happens to be incredibly well-animated. It also stands quite well on its own.

So, naturally, when Disney announced that they were making a sequel entitled Finding Dory, I was more than a little skeptical of how they were going to proceed. Finding Nemo to me was so self-contained that there wasn't much of anywhere to go with the story. I mean, I know that Pixar has done some good work with sequels before, but they've also misfired big time (anybody else remember Cars 2 or Monsters University?).

Thankfully, Finding Dory definitely fits into the better half of Pixar's filmography. It is surprisingly engaging and a natural progression of the first film's story, and also has some of the best animation Pixar has done yet.

How does Pixar make this story work, you ask? It's quite simple (and quite spoiler-free as well): everything revolves around Dory's condition of short- term memory loss. There's not a real villain or even a mild antagonist anywhere to be found in the entire film. This makes it a much lighter and simpler journey than Finding Nemo, but it also makes character development suffer a little bit. Granted, there's plenty of good characters that are developed quite well in the film, in particular an octopus named Hank as well as Dory herself. I'm just of the opinion that an antagonist makes a good character into a great one. That being said, for the kind of film that Finding Dory is trying to be, it actually kind of works and is not something noticed while actually watching it.

This is mostly because of the stellar voice acting. Pixar has always had a knack for finding great voices to fit their characters, but Finding Dory has some particularly good choices. Ellen DeGeneres as Dory was a great choice in Finding Nemo, and seeing the back-and-forth between her and Albert Brooks as Marlin is quite refreshing and quick-witted. As far as new characters are concerned, all of them have great casting behind them. In particular, I enjoyed Ed O'Neill as the aforementioned Hank, Ty Burrell as Bailey, a beluga whale, and Kaitlin Olson as Destiny, a near-sighted whale shark. All of them had great emotion and really made their characters come alive.

What always sets Pixar's films apart from every other animation studio's is the quality of the animation. Finding Nemo was so gorgeous when it was released and remains an incredibly groundbreaking step in animated technology. Finding Dory takes this even further. The sheer quality, depth, and texture of the animation present here is astonishing. It might be their best-looking film to date, which even to someone who understands how far computer animation technology has advanced in the past few years might be surprising.

You might be asking yourself at this point whether or not I'm going to find any significant flaws in Finding Dory. As hard as I try, I can't; however, that doesn't mean it's perfect. It's mostly just really, really good all around. It never quite reaches the stellar narrative heights of the best Pixar films that have come before it and can't seem to tug on my heart as much either, but that doesn't diminish it as a standalone film. Even though it's not the best thing Pixar has ever made (which at this point would be an incredibly hard thing to make), Finding Dory is a well-animated and emotionally tugging film that will entertain both children and their parents that bring them to see it.

Grade: 89

My number one reason for liking Inception might seem fanboyish, but I'll say it anyway: it's a Christopher Nolan film.

Now, my reasons for liking Nolan's films are too numerous to count, but I'll say this: he is one of the very few directors who makes artistic, thoughtful films on a blockbuster budget. Starting out as an indie director with Memento, Nolan really hit his stride when he inherited the Batman franchise and made his Dark Knight trilogy (which I will cover later in this series). However, he always had a knack for taking original content such as the magician-focused novel The Prestige or creating his own original ideas.

This is where Inception comes in. How many films can you say have been made about the subconscious of the human mind? And how many of those got the budget of Inception? Nolan is ambitious, I'll give him that. Thankfully, he uses his ambition and passion together, making what seems as one pet project after another. His devotion to his craft is rare in today's industry. Inception evidences this beautifully: Nolan wrote his own script and, as is typical for his films, never allowed second unit filming, directing every single shot himself. He is also very particular about his effects, opting for practical, real stunts and visuals instead of generating them on a computer. Inception has less CG shots than even Batman Begins, which is quite obviously mostly real in its effects. This grounds his films in reality and makes them more fun to watch.

Speaking of visuals, let's talk about Inception's aesthetic. Most of Nolan's films are worked on by cinematographer Wally Pfister, and while he has done excellent work in all of his Nolan collaborations, this is his best. The way he changes the color palette through each layer of the dream is quite subtle but very effective, helping us keep track of where we are throughout the complicated climax. Other scenes, particularly in the lowest dream level, show us an excellent knowledge of scale and scope on Pfister's part. The best parts, however, are when he uses high-speed cameras to slow down the film to reflect the time changes between the levels. It ties everything together beautifully and helps us understand how that process works.

That moves us right on to the best aspect of Inception: the story. I can't really go into detail here without spoilers because this is one of the more complex plots I've ever seen. Just know this: repeat viewings are almost required. This is not for comprehension, but rather to pick up on all the nuances that are here. There is so much to this plot that I am still picking up nuances upon watching Inception for the ninth time and enjoying the film even more. In case you can't tell, this is not a movie where you can turn your brain off and slip mindlessly into another world. You have to pay attention or you will lose track of what's happening.

To keep this short, I'll say only one thing about the score and then move on: Hans Zimmer is the best film composer today. This film gave him that title.

Inception's cast is almost as big as I've seen in any film. Leonardo DiCaprio is the top-billed star, but that is incredibly misleading as this film is a true ensemble piece. He also doesn't steal the show in Inception like he usually does, leaving others a lot of room to work. The one thing that is starting to get to me about DiCaprio is that, as good as he is, all of his characters seem the same. They all struggle with their inner demons extensively throughout the course of the film, and Cobb is no different. Outside of DiCaprio, the acting is equally stellar, with Tom Hardy and Cillian Murphy stealing the show. Hardy plays Eames, a forger for Cobb's job who is one of the very few characters with any kind of comic relief. He really shows his range here and proves that he can help carry a film. Murphy plays the subject of the final job, Robert Fischer. I feel that he best embodies how we react to ideas in our subconscious and really made Inception relatable to the audience.

Inception is a masterpiece, and an original one at that, from the man responsible for some of the best films of this century to date. Christopher Nolan really knows how to bring all the elements of a film together into one coherent vision, from the story to the casting to the aesthetic to the score. Every part of this film contributes to the overall vision. Inception is one of my favorite films because it challenges the mind and makes it think. In a world of escapist entertainment, this film makes us explore our minds and our ideas in a way I've never seen before.

Well, that was exhilarating.

Honestly, Mad Max: Fury Road might be the most fun I've had at the movies in quite some time. I spent the last couple weeks catching myself up on George Miller's action franchise after seeing how well Fury Road was doing critically. Long story short, the original films are now some of my favorite action movies.

Flash forward thirty years, and Miller is back at it again, making the fourth Mad Max film. Without Mel Gibson. Skeptical?

Don't be. If there's one thing George Miller knows how to do, it's direct an action film. Save for ten minutes in Beyond Thunderdome, he made three action films that centered around the action. In today's world, most action films try to go for emotional depth and complex scenarios only to drag themselves down with unnecessary clutter. While Fury Road does add narrative heft and some emotional backstory, it augments the action and doesn't distract from it.

The one complaint I have with Miller's approach in doing this is that it can leave the viewer somewhat confused about who people are, what they are doing, and why they are doing it. This is a hallmark of the Mad Max franchise, for better or for worse. The most prominent example I can think of in Fury Road is the main villain. I loved his look, I loved his voice, and I loved the character all around, but I can't for the life of me remember the guy's name!

Speaking of the villain, let's talk about the look of this film. Miller's franchise has gone from understated and simple with the first film to progressively more grotesque and strange as the budgets have increased. The third of the original films, Beyond Thunderdome, had a budget of approximately $20 million with today's US dollar value. Fury Road has a budget over nine times that. Needless to say, it is by far the most glamorous of the franchise. It largely retains the aesthetic present in the first three films while adding a lot of new, cool stuff possible with modern technology. The CG present is really well done; however, the practical stunt effects are what steal the show. Miller himself said that 90% of the effects were practical. This adds a realism and heightens the suspense during the absolutely jaw-dropping stunt sequences. My favorite part of Miller's direction is how he manipulates the frame rates to make the action remain coherent or seem slightly less so. That single thing made the film incredibly unique and quite fun to watch.

Moving to the acting, Tom Hardy is an excellent replacement for Mel Gibson. Most people say that acting doesn't really matter in action films. That's garbage. When someone as talented as Tom Hardy does any role, it's noticed. He really embodies the chaos going on inside Max's head and also that stark coldness that Gibson brought to the character. Charlize Theron is also a good choice for Furiosa, as she shows the more caring nature that her character brought to the film.

Overall, Mad Max: Fury Road is the breath of fresh air that action films need in 2015. Most in the genre are either old, worn out franchises (Live Free or Die Hard, Terminator Genisys, etc.) or featuring old, worn out actors (The Expendables). George Miller expertly crafts a film that looks both back and forward at the same time, retaining the unique aesthetic of the original films while also integrating new technology that makes the stunts that much more exciting. Fury Road is a non-stop thrill ride that will entertain almost any moviegoer with its intensity and technicality.