The Science of Sleep (2006)

This was a very pleasantly surprising movie.  The premise is there is a young man whose vivid imagination and dreams interferes with his real life.  The production design brings his imagination to fruition, with lots of moving cutout pieces and arts and crafts supplies making up the scenery.  It is very creative and incredibly executed.  Perhaps the most interesting depiction is of the protagonist's mind.  In a sort of "Inside Out" kind of way, the audience is taken inside his brain.  His brain is padded with packing materials like an impromptu asylum and a cooking show ensues. Mini-Stephane looks through cardboard flaps that are Stephane's eyes.

The writing is charming and funny (sometimes in an awkward way).  Gael Garcia Bernal and Charlotte Gainsbourg have great chemistry, and their banter is smile-inducing.  But there is one major downside to this movie.  I was entirely unsatisfied by the unresolved ending.  In the same way that "Interstellar" was so brilliant until the last 15 minutes when the conclusion kind of disappointed, this film also drops the ball in the final scene.  I would dare say that it does not offer an ending at all.  It is so creative and brilliant until the last minute, when it doesn't even really leave open an interpretive ending but just leaves you saying "what is this--this can't be all?" But despite this setback, the movie was definitely worth watching.

Top Gun (1986)

I do not often re-watch movies but some classics are classic for a reason.  This is just a fun movie.  I would say the best part of the movie is the classic soundtrack featuring "Danger Zone" and the Oscar-winning "Take My Breath Away," whose theme recurs several times. That feeling of being inside a fighter jet in a dogfight is so niche that it shouldn't connect with audiences, but it is a unique experience that is exciting, and a little claustrophobic, and always adrenaline-pumping.  These action scenes are just so well done.  Then of course there is the theme of masculinity and macho-ness that pervades the movie.  This is perhaps one of Tom Cruise's most iconic roles, and I would guess that it is because of this movie that he has such an image of being a manly man.  And then there's the love interest, so the movie is not just pure testosterone, but its overwhelmingly close to just that. So in conclusion, this is probably the ultimate guys' movie.

Me and Earl and the Dying Girl (2015)

I thoroughly enjoyed this latest winner to come out of Sundance.  It will undoubtedly draw comparisons to "The Fault in Our Stars," as a coming-of-age story featuring a young girl diagnosed with cancer. What this movie does so well is it is humorous (more so than you'd expect from a movie revolving around cancer), charming, quirky, emotional and beautifully written.  You become emotionally invested in the characters, feeling all the pressures that the high schoolers face.  It is at times deadpan funny, reminiscent of Wes Anderson's style.  There's an air of Anderson in the cinematography and design too, especially with all the miniature models.

The best part of the movie is the love letter to the movies.  The protagonist and his partner make amateur parodies of classic films, and the audience gets to see titles and clips that are downright brilliant and hilarious.  Some of them are cheesy and hokey and ridiculous, but you can't help but smile.  

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes really stepped up the storytelling in this latest installment of the classic franchise.  It is thoughtful and intelligent and it sustains this level of brilliance throughout the two hours. The apes are complex in their emotions and their rationales. The human element of these apes is actually quite moving.  The audience really comes to care about these characters.  This all leads to a wholly satisfying ending that is perhaps not the happy one that you want, but the rational one that makes sense for the warring tribes of humans and apes.  This is a summer blockbuster that was not just pure action (though the culminating battle sequence is excellent).

The visual effects are stunning as usual.  Andy Serkis as Caesar is simply captivating.  It is a joy to just watch his expressions, which is an impressive feat itself.  He gives some brilliant speeches with genuine ideas about leadership that may apply to humans or apes.  That is what is so great about the genre of science fiction.  The premise may be so impossible, but the application to our own world is apparent and striking.  

Steve Jobs (2015)

This biopic is excellent, thanks to an incredible vision by Danny Boyle, a great script by Aaron Sorkin, and some phenomenal acting from Kate Winslet, as well as Michael Fassbender and Seth Rogen.  This movie shines where the other Jobs biopic from a couple years ago failed.  Danny Boyle made a movie that is the Apple of biopics--it is sleek and gorgeous.

The structure of the film is brilliant.  The biopic is not over ambitious, it does not seek to cover an entire life.  Rather it focuses on just three major product launches in 1984 (Macintosh), 1988 (NeXT) and 1998 (iMac), the ones that Steve Jobs was so famous for.  But what is so brilliant is the pacing of the movie.  It is not about the launch itself, but actually the half hour before each launch when Jobs was preparing for his presentations.  Anticipation and excitement builds until the point we've all been waiting for as if we were at these product launches, and then Danny Boyle skips the presentation itself. This allows for a huge release, letting the audience take a deep breath to prepare for two more product launches.

Each product launch is split into four parts.  At each launch, Jobs has encounters with his daughter Lisa, co-founder Steve Wozniak, CEO of Apple John Sculley and Andy Hertzfeld from the original Mac team.  Lisa gives us a window into Jobs's personal life outside of work at three points in his life.  And the film actually ends with Lisa, humanizing Steve Jobs as a person with a family, not just the visionary businessman.  Jobs's confrontations with Wozniak highlight the interesting dynamics of one of the most important partnerships of the twentieth century.  Through Jobs's conversations with Sculley, we learn about Jobs's background as an adopted child and Jobs at Apple.  The film opens with Hertzfeld being berated by Jobs in an excellent scene dictated by an exhilarating rhythmic beat moving in the background.  And throughout the film, Kate Winslet's Joanna Hoffman is always there at his side with a leading-amount of screen time and she is phenomenal. 

Boyle does not shy away from painting a portrait of a controversial albeit legendary figure, who was allegedly very difficult to work with.  Boyle mentions (with some snark) all of the criticisms of Apple computers as Jobs's doing.  While it was clear that Jobs did not have the spirit of an engineer, he was a businessman and an artist.  Perhaps the most direct criticism came from Wozniak who says "What do you do?"  Wozniak was the tech genius but Jobs had the vision, he was the "conductor."

I got to see an advanced screening of this movie at the AMC Lincoln Square!

Inside Out (2015)

Much like emotions themselves, this movie is quite complex. Perhaps a little too complex for children, but if you think the target audience is children, then you don't know Pixar, which has consistently made high quality animated films that resonate best with adults who might accompany children to the theater.  Pixar adds to its canon of masterpieces, and perhaps outdoes itself once and for all with this brilliant return to form after a year off.  As always, Pixar finds the right balance between comedy, drama and pure emotion, never failing to illicit a tearful response or two or .several from the audience.

The premise is so novel and creative and clever. It is pure genius.  It is at once a story about growing up, about memories and dreams, and about learning to grapple with our feelings, our emotions and personalities.  And it does so literally from the inside out, telling stories from inside Riley's mind.  It is a story that only the world of animation could bring to life.  It is very beautifully animated.  It uses imagination to envision what imagination looks like.  It envisions an expansive library of memories sitting in storage.

The characters are extreme caricatures, all cast perfectly.  Amy Poehler plays Joy, a hyped up version of Leslie Knope.  Likewise, Lewis Black plays Anger, an extreme version of his own persona.  But it is the character of Sadness voiced by Phyllis Smith that shares the spotlight with Joy, or stands in the shadow of Joy's aura.  I really appreciated Pete Docter's attention to sadness, an emotion for which the child-minded Joy sees no use; but our emotions are complex and sadness is not an inherently bad thing, and the real heart of the film is this interplay between these two characters learning what it means to be sad and learning to embrace it.

I also think that it is great that the main character is a little girl (a la Brave).  Perhaps girls are a little more in touch with their emotions at a young age. But in any case, it is important for girls to see themselves portrayed on screen, and in Pixar's fifteen productions, this is only the second to feature a female protagonist.  And she plays hockey!  Take that, gender stereotypes.

PS. Did you catch the reference to Chinatown? "Forget it, Jake. It's Cloudtown"
PPS. Did you see the film poster at Dream Productions referencing Vertigo?