I'm quite proud of that title and have been singing the song all day, and since everyone is describing Inception as "action sci-fi" and Toy Story has some aliens, I'm sticking with it. Even if it's not quite accurate. (Inception is not science fiction.)
I saw them both yesterday (lucky me). Some thoughts:
Toy Story 3: Like a lot of people I loved the first two Toy Story films. I can still remember leaving the cinema after seeing Toy Story 1 and thinking that something had changed in the world of movie making. I wasn't sure what, exactly, but I knew that Toy Story was something quite special. My memories of Toy Story 2 are more hazy but I *think* I was mainly relieved that I enjoyed it as much as I did, and was impressed that they had pulled it off. After all, sequels are hard to do, and sometimes they are downright awful (yes, Grease 2, I'm looking at you).
There lies the problem. Pixar created something amazing with the first Toy Story movie, and then proved they could do it all over again with the second. Where did that leave them to go next? If sequels are hard, then third-in-a-series films (is there a word for this? Treacles?) are near impossible.
Without wanting to give too much away, Toy Story 3 is set ten years after the last one; the storyline is propelled by the fact that Andy, now 17 and off to college, has outgrown his toys. Buzz, Woody and friends still take centre stage, but giving the humans a pivotal role as well makes it a different type of story. Not necessarily worse, certainly not better, just......different.
There were lots of new characters: if you thought they'd already brought every toy you remember from childhood to life in the first two films, think again; there are some old favourites making their debut here. There were some nice twists on the old ones (one in particular) as well, which I won't describe because that would definitely spoil things. You'll know it when you see it.
I liked Toy Story 3. Perhaps it lacked the "wow" factor of the first two, but it was still a lot of fun, very sweet and incredibly funny (I laughed out loud within the first three minutes). For a treacle (see? that term is starting to stick already) it was as good as it could have been.
You will notice that I haven't mentioned anything about having seen it in 3D. (Question: is it possible to see Toy Story 3 NOT in 3D in London? It wasn't an option in the cinema I went to.) The fact that I haven't even mentioned it shows you how much this film needed to be in 3D. It didn't. I'm starting to think 3D is pretty stupid. Rant over.
Inception: By the end of this film, I felt like my brain had just run the marathon. You probably already know, since it's been all over everything, that it is Christopher Nolan's latest project; he also wrote and directed Memento which remains one of my favourite films ever. (If you have not seen Memento, stop reading NOW and go and get your hands on a copy IMMEDIATELY. It is ace.) I didn't know much about Inception before I went to see it, and that turned out to be a good thing.
I do think you need to know a tiny bit about it before going in though; mainly because an old colleague of mine hated Memento (which I will stop banging on about in a minute, I promise) because she went to see it one Sunday evening when she was looking for a sit-back-give-your-mind-a-rest movie experience. Memento, with a storyline which works backwards in 10-20 minute chunks (which is the thing you need to know before you start watching and which my colleague didn't realise for about half of the film), is definitely not that kind of movie.
Inception isn't that kind of movie either. I really, really don't want to give anything away here but it does help to know before you see it that it's to do with dreams, and you'll need to be on your toes (not literally, unless you want to make other cinema-goers cross) to keep track of which dream you're in and who is dreaming it*. That is all the information you need, and probably all the information you should take into the cinema with you.
Half the fun is working out what the hell is going on; there are a couple of key things it's possible to work out a split second or two before they are revealed on screen, which is particularly satisfying, and will make you feel all clever and smug. It is very long though, which is my only criticism (and even that's not a real criticism because there's no way I could point to any bits which could be cut out). I had a worrying moment about two thirds of the way in, when I could feel my brain going into meltdown and I was worried I'd lose track of everything completely, which would have been immensely frustrating after investing so much in the story until that point. This didn't happen though; just when I thought I was on the brink of collapse things began to fall into place again. Coincidence? Maybe, but I suspect it was more a case of clever film making.
It's an incredibly good film. Visually stunning in parts (and just think! It's not even in stupid 3D!) but what I loved the most was the storytelling. For me, plot is the hardest thing to get my head around when writing; I have my hands full just trying to cope with basic, linear narrative structure. Christopher Nolan's ability to play around with this - turn it back to front, add extra layers and dimensions then switch effortlessly between them - while still making the story accessible (unlike, say, David Lynch, who messes with it so much you haven't a clue what is going on and end up just not caring) completely astounds me.
* if you've seen the film, and ONLY IF YOU'VE SEEN IT , there's an interesting visual representation of all that here. Seriously, I mean it; don't click that link unless you've already watched the film. You will thank me for this advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment