Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010) & Shrek Forever After (Mike Mitchell, 2010)

Well since no-one asked...

OH, *SPOILER ALERT*

Inception centres around Leonardo DiCaprio's character something Cobb (which is hilarious as a last name) and his struggle to get back to his kids in America. In the film's universe, there is a new type of theft, known as extraction where the thief enters the victim's mind during a chemically-induced dream, and steals information from their mind. It's based on the idea of lucid-dreaming, according to Nolan. Looks more like a drug-fuelled trip to me.

Anyway Cobb has to get back to his kids and so he takes on a mission from the guy whose mind he just raped (because essentially that's what it is - entering without permission, perhaps trespassing). The mission is to plant an idea in a Corporate rival's mind, a feat known as 'inception', a notoriously difficult thing. Anyway he does it and there is a lot of confusion and levels. They go into different levels in the dream state (a dream inside a dream inside a dream etc.) Cobb goes into limbo to find a chap who died in a dream a level up, because if you die in a severely sedated dream state your mind goes into limbo and you eventually wake up with a melted brain because every level amplifies the time spent in the dream world by like 5x or something. Anyway you spend ages in limbo for like a 5 minute dream or something.

They all have little totems, which are things they can check to see if they're dreaming or not, and cobb has a spinning top which stays spinning if he's dreaming, and when he gets out at the end when he sees his kids he spins it and it begins to wobble then it cuts to black and that really annoyed me cos it's the most cheesy, cheap ending I could think of 'oh yeah he was dreaming all along, or was he?' It was just stupid Nolan, you tool.

Also, it was hilarious when one of the bad guys got hit by the van in Yusuf's level of the inception. Just saying.




Shrek was better than the 3rd one, but worse than the first and second. The whole busted up Far Far Away thing with the war between the Ogres and the Witches was cool, but most of it was cliché and uninventive. The Pied Piper was awesome though. And the Witches looked like a clone army of The Hob Goblin.
Anyway I can't be bothered anymore.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (Mike Newell, 2010)

So I finally saw Prince of Persia - or should I say Prince of England during the Crusades or something. I know nothing about the history of Persia, I don't profess to, I can however say with almost certainty that Persians did not speak in British accents. 'But Tim! It's to make it more accessible to English speaking people!' I hear you hark, and while I agree with you, I would have preferred it to be in the native tongue of ancient Persia (whatever that is), That at least would have stopped Jake Gyllenhaal from joining the project.

Another thing I will say is this. You can put lanky, greasy hair and Middle-Eastern looking battle clothes on anyone but it doesn't make them look Persian! Gemma Arterton's duck lips didn't help either. Aside from this, the action was ok at times, I wouldn't say good because from what the film is based on (awesome flippy jumpy games) they could've gotten a better physical lead and had him jumping all over the shop instead of someone who would just bring in audiences.

Also, making the dirty desert-dwelling people cockneys was just a fabulous idea. Cos they're the common ones you see, they bet, and take hostages, and send the scantily-clad women out with drinks and just oggle them from afar.

Gemma Arterton was an annoying Princess who annoyed throughout even when she was being nice to our plucky hero. The most likeable character was that Black knife-throwing chap. He was a true hero. Not an arrogant street urchin turned 'man-of-the-people' prince whose selfish theft creates an earth-threatening catastrophe.

The film is silly. Too hardcore for children and too stupid for adults.