Tag: extraction

Extraction


Extraction (2020)
★★★ / ★★★★

First-time director Sam Hargrave helms an action-thriller so kinetic and breathless, clichés and tired tropes are overshadowed by sheer entertainment value. The premise is familiar: A group of mercenaries is hired by an imprisoned drug lord’s right-hand man (Randeep Hooda) to rescue the drug lord’s teenage son (Rudraksh Jaiswal) from a rival crime boss (Priyanshu Painyuli). But there is a catch: the former drug lord’s assets are actually frozen and so it is impossible to pay the mercenaries in full. Former Special Forces Tyler Rake (Chris Hemsworth) finds his team dropping like flies just when the mission is about to be completed. The action doesn’t stop from here—which will impress those looking for adrenaline-fueled shootouts and hand-to-hand combat.

Most impressive sequence involves an extended tracking shot—beginning from the streets of Dhaka and ending under a bridge. Multiple techniques are employed to create an illusion of an unbroken shot and it is convincing enough. As men pummel one another to deliver jaw-breaking violence, it becomes clear that a lot of thought is put into how to make the action both realistic and beautiful. I enjoyed how there is a certain rhythm when the action must change from trading bullets to using fists, vice-versa. It never makes the mistake of communicating that violence is just all for fun. In fact, there are a number of shots that underline how painful it is to be hit by the buttstock of a rifle, to be choked to death, to receive a bullet in the shoulder. It shows, too, that it is not pleasurable to use your own fists to break someone’s face. Although the action entertains on the surface, the seemingly cartoonish violence is not without consequences.

A sense of humor is not absent either. Crowded streets and tenements contain hundreds of extras—look closely and notice how excited they are to be in a movie. There is a joke about running people over. How supposedly powerful drug lords glare intensely, so far away from the action, when things do not go his way. No one is forced to wink or smile at the camera simply to create low-hanging humor. No buddy jokes despite the ex-soldier having to hang out with a teenager for about half the picture. It is one of those films that you feel the filmmakers having a good time in making their movie, so they needn’t try so hard for a sense of goodness to come through. This is a quality I don’t see often in action films. It just wishes to create a good time and there’s nothing with that.

There are moments of deeper meaning which I wished screenwriter Joe Russo delved into a bit more. While in short-lived shelter, Tyler and the boy, Ovi, get a chance to talk to another. Naturally, the teenager is curious about his rescuer. Ovi’s questions revolve around Tyler’s lifestyle—not how exciting or thrilling it is but how lonely and soul-crushing it must be. Despite all the complex action sequences, a conversation between man and boy is actually the center of the film. And rightfully so. When we meet Tyler, he hides a sadness, guilt, possibly even anger. His animalistic rage is revealed at times when he is pushed to a corner by men who wish to kill him. In this critical scene—a silent scene—between Tyler and Ovi, much is revealed about our protagonist—and the beautiful details do not require words. It is without question there is a heart and brain in “Extraction.”

Those who wish to focus on the big picture—and only the big picture—will claim that the film is composed merely of a series of stunts. I just showed above how this assertion is inaccurate. But taking this type of criticism as is, I then ask, “So what?” It doesn’t require special glasses to realize that these stunts are well done. There are stakes to the action unfolding. And we get to see another part of the world that’s not Chicago, or New York City, or Los Angeles, or (insert European city here)—a place that big action blockbusters seldom visit.

Inception


Inception (2010)
★★★★ / ★★★★

The film started off like a spy film: the glamorous and exotic locale, fashionable suits, femme fatales. But unlike typical espionage pictures, the first half of the characters’ goal was not to steal a valuable object but an idea located deep inside a target’s dreams. The second (and more difficult) half was to get away with it by allowing the target to wake and continue living his life as if nothing had been taken away from him. This simplified two-step process was known as “extraction,” in which Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) was a leading expert. Cobb was not allowed to return to the United States to see his children so Kaito (Ken Watanabe) made an offer that Cobb simply could not refuse: to plant an idea in a future corporate leader’s mind (Cillian Murphy), known as “inception,” which had rarely been done before. If this last massion was successful, it would lead to Cobb’s freedom. In order to accomplish the mission, Cobb had to assemble a team (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Dileep Rao) with very special talents and they had to dive in the target’s subconscious while navigating their way through defenses set up by the mind and the secrets Cobb kept from his unsuspecting team.

When the movie started, I barely had any idea what was happening. I knew something exciting was happening on screen because of the intricate action sequences and splendid visuals but as far as the story went, it was still nondescript. However, that was not at all a problem because the film eventually established the elementary elements required so that we could have an understanding of what was about to happen. Despite its two-and-a-half-hour running time, I was impressed with its pacing. There was an assigned time for getting to know the lead character in terms of his career, his past, and his inner demons. Once I had a somewhat clear idea of his motivations, I immediately felt that there was something wrong with the way he saw the world and the specifics were eventually revealed in an elegant, sometimes emotional, and often mind-bending manner. Their missions were often sabotaged by Mal (Marion Cotillard), Cobb’s projection of his wife who had passed away, due to an unsolved guilt that he constantly pushed away. Throughout the course of the film, that guilt, like Mal, became more powerful and became a hindrance that the main character and his team could no longer set aside. Anyone with a background in Psychology will truly appreciate the film’s level of intelligence in terms of Sigmund Freud’s revolutionary idea involving the subconscious manifesting in our every day lives and maintaining our mental homeostasis. But what impressed me even more was the minute details in the script such as the characters mentioning topics such as positive and negative emotions interacting and which side had more power over the other, one’s sense of reality while being in a dream… within a dream, and even questions like “If we die in our dreams, do we die in real life?” were acknowledged. That’s one of the things I loved about the film: it was able to present ideas we are aware of but it just had enough dark twist to create something original.

As with most movies with grand ambitions, I had some questions left unanswered. What about those instances when we are aware that we are dreaming and we can control what will happen in our dreams? I have experienced such a phenomenon time and again (and I’m sure others have as well) and I was curious if and how the movie could explain such a strange occurrence. And what about those moments when we sleep but we are not yet dreaming? What if our dreams are interrupted? Sure, the team injected chemicals in their bodies to stabilize the feeling of reality in dreams but, as the movie perfectly illustrated, nothing completely goes according to plan. Perhaps I’m just being more analytical than I should be thanks to the fascinating sleep studies I encountered in Neurobiology and Psychology courses. But I believe a mark of a great film is open to question, interpretation and debate. I say we question because we have embraced the material and we are hungry for more. That’s how I know I’m emotionally and intellectually invested in a film. That absolute killer final shot and the audiences’ collective sigh of anticipation for the clear-cut answer as the screen cut to black was simply icing on the cake.

“Inception,” written and directed by Christopher Nolan, was certainly worth over a year’s wait since it was still in pre-production. I remember trying look for more information about it during my midterm study breaks (and getting so caught up in it) so I am completely elated that it was finally released and it turned out to be one of the finest and most rewarding movies of 2010. It may not have been its goal but “Inception” certainly adds a much needed positive reputation to mainstream movies, especially in a season full of sequels and spoon-fed entertainment. I was optimistic early 2010 in terms of the quality of movies about to be released in theaters, especially when Martin Scorsese’s “Shutter Island” came out, but now I am more than convinced that the film industry is experiencing a drought of refreshing and daring ideas. Some critics may compare “Inception” to “The Matrix” (both great movies) but I think “Inception” functions on a higher level overall and it has an identity of its own. Perhaps an injection of new blood that is “Inception” will inspire movie studios to take more risks in terms of which movies they green light. There is no doubt that mindless, swashbuckling popcorn adventures or even extremely diluted romantic comedies have their place in the market. But with the critical and mass success of “Inception,” it shows that audiences are always ready to be inspired by new ideas and to dream a little bigger.