Real Housewives--ALL Series

From a technical standpoint, these shows are actually quite accomplished--they look great, the editing is slick, the graphics fit the theme, the sound is top-notch and if it isn't, there's helpful subtitles.

The producers offer sly winks of commentary on the verbal vapidity displayed by the shows' stars; one of the housewives unselfconsciously proclaims how hard it is to be a mom with an entire staff of nannies, organizers, and cooks? Cut to a shot of that same housewife relaxing by the pool with a mai tai while her kids run rampant, nannies playing catch up.

But the content--which is comprised of over-privileged, over-indulged women prattling on about imagined slights and other sub-high-school-level arguments and bouts of drama, can not be easily digested unless you're willing to allow yourself to enjoy digging into serious personality defects and silly misunderstandings. If you can get something out of that, these are the shows for you. If you can't, write blog posts while it's on in the background!

There's not much else on anyway.

"Inception" Review: A Multilayered Masterpiece?

INCEPTION (PG-13)

Cast & Credits

Cobb Leonardo DiCaprio
Saito Ken Watanabe
Arthur Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Mal Marion Cotillard
Ariadne Ellen Page
Eames Tom Hardy
Robert Fischer Jr. Cillian Murphy
Browning Tom Berenger
Miles Michael Caine
Yusuf Dileep Rao
Maurice Fischer Pete Postlethwaite

Warner Brothers presents a film written and directed by Christopher Nolan. Running time: 148 minutes. MPAA rating: PG-13 (for sequences of violence and action throughout).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I were asked to describe Christopher Nolan's masterfully crafted timepiece of a movie, "Inception", in one word, it would be: "intricate".

It's difficult to talk about the plot of the movie without giving away some of its intimate details, so dependent are those details on secrets and revelations and learning the film's unique logic and specific rules as it unfurls, but in a nutshell: Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) leads a team of, essentially, idea thieves, who infiltrate a subject's dreams in order to steal their secrets and choice ideas for powerful, immensely wealthy clients. They accept an almost-impossible job: to enter the dreams of an heir to an energy corporation (Cillian Murphy) and plant an idea not his own--this is what's known in the film as "inception", and it's nearly impossible to do. They must enter and create dreams within dreams within dreams, and each successive dream level is more unstable than the last. Things are complicated by the fact that Cobb has some serious, serious baggage that tends to get in the way of their heists in the form of his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard).

It's a testament to the film's intense hold on nearly every corner of your brain that you don't notice how all the other characters are essentially window dressing to the plot, to Cobb's tortured quest to see his kids again, to getting the job done. This is an action movie, where everyone is working towards a single goal by getting into gunfights and chases and fights, but it's an action movie of the mind. You're kept on the edge of your seat, but not necessarily because of the car chases and gunfights--you're constantly kept unstable and leaping from one newly uncovered detail to the next, like the loops of a phone cord, everything leading to a new twist, then another, then another. You're excited because you’re learning, not just because you're titillated, and that's absolutely a unique experience for this moviegoer.

For a movie that deals so much with the dream world and the subconscious and the nature of perception vs. reality, one would expect to walk away from the film with big ideas regarding these subjects; intriguing tidbits to discuss with friends afterward, kernels of ideas that can be picked over and applied to your own dreams and memories, perhaps. Instead, I found myself (and friends or colleagues who saw the film as well concur) left with nothing more than the details of the film itself--its story intricacies and layers and moving parts and how well they do or do not fit into each other take up so much of the film's time and your attention that you're left with an excellent experience in mental derring-do and little else.

This is not to detract from the film's expertly-displayed craft; this is one of the best action movies ever conceived. It just doesn't quite rise above being anything other than an action movie with a heist plot. An incredibly complex, multi-layered heist involving the logic of dreams and ending enigmatically with what could or could not be a major, mind-screwing twist, but an action heist film nonetheless.

The parts that make up this machine-like whole are absolutely top-of-the-line: the special effects are flawless, the acting is not going to win anyone any awards but is totally acceptable and non-distracting (a rarity for most summer blockbusters), the music is propulsive and relatively unobtrusive, and you are completely immersed in the world of the story via the filmmakers' phenomenal attention to detail.

I hold the film in high regard because it's an experience like I've never had at the movies before--an ingenious action movie with a beating heart of emotion as the protagonist's goal using the very nature of dreams and moviegoing as its visual language, propelling you along with the strength of its narrative details rather than its visual gimmicks. That sort of thing doesn't come along often, after all. But it leaves one feeling unfulfilled, teased at being hurled into the world of dreams and leaps in logic and questions leading to questions that don't ultimately add to your understanding of those subjects any more than when you started. It has you using your mind in ways you don't ordinarily just to understand the movie's own plot and multifaceted connections. It's as if you're using the same mechanisms you usually use to learn in order to be entertained, and when you haven't learned anything besides the movie's story at the end, you feel a bit cheated.

Still, I'll take a movie that is daring and complex enough to bring the viewer down paths they don't ordinarily go--especially in an action thriller context--over a movie that is interested in mindlessly titillating you with explosions and little else any day. If more action blockbusters attempted to do what "Inception" does so well, we'd be in very good shape as moviegoers, with plenty to look forward to and celebrate. It might not be perfect, but it comes very, very close.

"Robin Hood" (2010) Review

ROBIN HOOD

Universal Pictures presents a film
directed by Ridley Scott. Written by Brian Helgeland. Running time: 131 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for violence, including intense sequences of
warfare, and some sexual content).

Robin Hood is a very, very competent film. It is clearly executed by some of the world's premiere filmmakers, from the production designers to the cinematographer to, I'm sure, the beekeepers that kept Friar Tuck's bees on set. And it's clearly in competent directorial hands--you never for a moment doubt that you are in 11th Century England, and that these characters are caught up in all of the woes and struggles the jam-packed story throws at them. It's also the kind of movie that makes one want to write descriptions about it in Capital Letters, since Serious Things require descriptions in Capital Letters, and this movie has many, many Serious Things. But is this Robin Hood? Is this the legend we've all grown up with, or something else all together?

If you were expecting something along the lines of Errol Flynn's buoyant rendition of a merry green-clad prankster causing no end of trouble for the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham and the detestable King John, look somewhere else. This is a Serious Rendition, remember, almost scholarly in its approach. I forgot, at times, that this is entirely fiction. Ridley Scott treats his subject matter with the same attention to detail and accuracy that one might reasonably expect from a BBC Historical Reenactment--one begins to wonder if Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Maid Marian would satisfy her ancestors with its authenticity. But of course, Robin Hood is a legend, a tale writ large of a well-meaning thief who stole from the greedy rich to give to the needy poor. There isn't much of that in this movie--in fact, there is all of one scene of Robin Hood and his Merry Men robbing the rich and giving to the poor. The rest is political intrigue, and portents of war, and Noble Men doing Noble Things and sword battles aplenty.

The Robin Hood in Ridley Scott's version is a Saxon Gladiator; a slightly (VERY slightly) more light-hearted version of the Maximus that led Scott and new 'Hood Russell Crowe to Oscar glory. Like Gladiator, this is the tale of a soldier caught up in royal shenanigans far beyond his scope or means; Robin Longstride is not a general, but he essentially becomes one, so that by the end of the movie he's delivering regal speeches about freedom and working with King John to end tyranny. It's true to the NATURE of the Robin Hood legend, if not to the letter. I won't bog everyone down with plot details--and there are many--but I will say that the story could use some trimming, especially in the tacked-on-feeling flashbacks to young Robin's forgotten youth and the search for the father he never knew. He finds him--not in the way he expected--and what should be a big moment of revelation for the character (and the audience) merely comes across as another reason to consider Robin Hood a noble, brooding soldier. At that point, we've received plenty of notice, thanks.

And that points to the film's main weakness: its length. This is an epic, to be sure, and it feels like one. If you're not prepared to sit through every last possible detail regarding what makes Robin Hood Robin Hood, then perhaps you should sit this one out. It's odd, then, that after all the exacting detail and all the elaborate, Gladiator-sized battle scenes, we're still left with a vague image of what the Robin Hood legend is. Robin Hood the man? Sure, he's the noble, honest, strong man King Richard the Lion Hearted finds in a well-played scene near the beginning of the film. And he's exactly the same noble, honest strong man at the end of the film. It's all handled very well, and very realistically; it just doesn't necessarily do anything beyond that.

If you're in the mood for an 11th Century European swords and arrows epic, you can do far worse than commit your time to Robin Hood. The production design is absolutely top notch, and you will genuinely feel like you've spent some time in the idyllic villages of England and the forests of France, with characters who thoroughly understand Medieval Warfare and Politics. If you're looking for a fun, light-hearted Robin Hood retelling, there's always the Erroll Flynn version.

Welcome To ScreensSeen!

We live in a world dominated by screens of one kind or another. They’re EVERYwhere. In our homes:

In our cars:

At work:

Even in our pockets:

And on each and every one of those screens, there’s content vying for our attention—attention that becomes more and more valuable with each passing day and with every new form of ‘Look At Me’ programming, advertising, and games. We only have so many hours in a day, after all.

That’s where Screens Seen comes in.

This blog will take a look at a smattering of what’s offered on every screen we can get our hands on—Movie, TV, Computer, Mobile, and “Out-Of-Home” screens (those screens you might see at gas stations and supermarkets, for instance), and tell you what’s worth your valuable time and attention and what simply isn’t.

We’ll not only review what we see, we’ll also try to explain some tricks-of-the-trade fundamentals you might not be aware of along the way to increase your awareness and get the most out of what you’re seeing.

This blog is intended as a place to read reviews you can use to form a learned opinion (well maybe not LEARNED, but certainly better-informed-so-you-can-feel-like-you’re-not-dismissing-something-off-hand-or-feel-like-you’re-crazy-because-someone-else-sees-something-in-a-movie-you-totally-missed kind of opinion), AND find out interesting facts and tidbits about what goes into making, say, a movie you love or a TV show you hate. You’ll be better able to pinpoint exactly why you like something or exactly why you don’t.

So check back here for our periodic insights into anything and everything we deem “See-able” on any screen we see.

There’s a lot of media out there—let’s make sure it’s as good as it can be, shall we?