Rating: 
Summary: AGAIN, THERE IS **NO** FLAW!!!
Review: Listen up, all detractors and naysayers: THERE IS NO FLAW. Look closer, please.That's it. I can't take it. I've already reviewed this movie AND this limited edition, but apparently I need to clear the air about this, since nobody else is. THERE IS NO FLAW. The "flaw(s)" I am referring to is Leonard's remembering things like (1) his condition,
(2) Burt's name "You don't have to be that honest, Burt," in reference to finding out he is booked in two rooms,
(3) how many facts are listed on his body without looking (last scene, writes on card the fact number # without looking and then writes the license of Teddy's car),
(4) from a sequential perspective, after Leonard finds that Teddy tricked him and is confronted with the truth, he becomes distrustful of Teddy. Note his behavior towards Teddy BEFORE he looks at "Don't believe his lies." Leonard goes from being very trusting of "Officer Gamel" (in the black and white sequences) to being entirely distrustful of "Teddy" (for example, in the tatoo parlor, or in the Jaguar "who the f--- are you?!?). ... If you will so much as just LISTEN to the director's commentary, he'll tell you as much! He flat-out tells us that the POINT of the movie is the DIFFERENT WAYS we remember things, apart from just our brain! The point is that we remember with MORE than just the part of the brain that Leonard had damaged; further, we remember with more than our brains. Let's think this through, shall we? Assuming Teddy's honesty, which Nolan verifies on one of the audio tracks at the end, we can deduce several truths: (1) What happenned to Sammy Jankis and his wife is actually Leonard's situation. Thus,
a. Leonard's condition was something that his wife could not cope with
b. Leonard's wife tricked him into overdosing her on insulin; she goes into a coma and dies
c. Leonard is incapable of understanding her situation and is put in an institution (2) Teddy, the police officer assigned to his case, busts him out somehow (for info on this, go to otnemem.com). (3) Leonard at some point in this process begins to CONDITION himself to recount the facts of his life differently. This includes:
a. He convinces himself that his wife died during the attack.
b. He convinces himself that his wife was not diabetic.
c. He transposes all these facts and guilt as belonging to Sammy Jankis (listen closely to his guilt over the whole thing ...there is a level of self-involvement the Leonard of the flashbacks would never have). (4) Leonard has CONDITIONED himself to react to his murder and beatings of others in a way that hides the truth from him.
a. Leonard and Teddy have been working for a year or so, going from town to town and killing the "John G.'s" that Teddy sets up for his own reasons.
b. Notice Leonard's instinct and automatic behavior during a physical confrontation. Compare his actions during the murder of Jimmy Grants and his actions after beating Dodd unconscious. He moved quickly, methodically.
c. After murder, he assumes the clothes and identity of the person killed in order to hide his true actions from himself. Further, after beating someone, he automatically immobilizes them and calls Teddy. (5) THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IS THAT LEONARD IS HIDING THE TRUTH FROM HIMSELF, HE IS "USING" HIMSELF FAR MORE THAN ANY PERSONS HE ENCOUNTERS. HE IS "USED" BY THEM BECAUSE ON SOME LEVEL HE WANTS TO BE. Thus, Teddy died, not because he used Leonard, but because he was a threat to Leonard's systemized method of lies and truth-hiding. There, that's it. Have a different point of view or see a flaw in my reasoning, feel free to email me with it AFTER YOU RESEARCH THE WEBSITE *AND* LISTEN TO THE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTARY. I suppose that is that.
Rating: 
Summary: One of those films
Review: This movie is enjoyable up till the ending. The ending is horrible, though! It destroys the character's believability. There are other movies like this: _Primal Fear_ comes to mind. The filmmaker just can't resist sticking in his gimmicky little "surprise twist" ending, even if it ruins the film. Lots of people disagree with my opinion on this, and I don't know what to say to them: if Guy Pierce's character doesn't strike you as a totally unacceptable portrait of a human being, you don't really know our species that well. But up until that phony ending, it's a real nice movie. The backwards narration forces you to give your full attention, and the result is that you become deeply involved in what's going on. It's quite an experience, and I guess ultimately I recommend this movie for that reason.
Rating:
Summary: Memento
Review: Christopher Nolan's superbly-constructed mystery has the advantage over average thrillers with a startingly- original plot. The whole "backwards" premise works amazingly well, and is one of the best ideas ever devised for a film, reminiscant of PULP FICTION. Guy Ritchie is Sammy, a man who loses his short term memory when his wife is murdered and he gets attacked. Joe Pantiliano (THE MATRIX) is Lenny, a guy who may, or may not be Sammy's friend. The search for the elusive "John. G" provides for some chilling moments. Sammy's condition forces him to tattoo himself with notes like "Never answer the phone", which racks up the tension and pushes the limits of audience's cerebral limitations. One of those films which you have to watch two or three times to fully understand it and get the whole idea, it's endless in it's creative concepts, leaving the viewer surprised and somewhat confused. Director Nolan does the best with the inventive tricks and piecing together the plot machinations. And extra kudos for the editor, not to mention the brooding score throughout the film's running time. In short, it's a fantastic film, and deserves to be placed high in the great "Film Noir" masterpieces.
Rating: 
Summary: Intelligent but annoying uneven thriller
Review: Playing in reverse, an ex-insurance investigator (Guy Pearce) with a case of short-term memory loss tries to find the man who raped and murdered his wife, using bizarre tattoos on his body as guide of his progress. Well made and highly original semi-film noir, but don't pay too much attention to the story otherwise the plot holes really show and there are at least three conclusions. Though it was one of the most popular movies of the year. Theatrical debut for writer/director Nolan who made the 16mm black and white film THE FOLLOWING.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie, but HATE the Menu's
Review: This movie is still one of the most creative movies I've ever seen and the DVD is great to own. I just wish the menus were not so damn misleading and confusing. Sure, they might be fun the first time but not after that. If you liked the movie you really need to own this version of it!
Rating:
Summary: Compulsive and Compulsory Viewing
Review: A film that runs backwards...a film noir that runs backwards...a film in which everyone's up to something but it's almost impossible to work out what. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea in terms of premise of film, but "Memento" is far and away the most inventive crime/thriller film of recent years. The plot revolves around Leonard ("don't call me Lenny") Shelby and his attempts at finding his wife's killer. To make life slightly harder, the attack which killed his wife also robbed Shelby of his ability to make new memories - thus, he writes copious notes everywhere and records clues in his hunt by tattooing them on himself or taking polaroid photos of them. Naturally, the standout feature of this film is the reverse-telling. The opening moments actually run backwards as a bullet explodes back into a gun, but the rest of the film is divided into sections of between 5 and 10 minutes which are simply re-ordered to go backwards. On the first viewing this is quite disorienting, but eventually the mind catches up with what's going on and the viewer will say things to himself such as "so this scene needs to get Leonard to the hotel room" to keep up with the narrative. There are also a series of black-and-white scenes which appear in between the backwards scenes and it is the constant puzzle over where these fit in and exactly what is going on which keeps the viewer engaged. In short, this is not a movie to sit back and relax in unless you want to be left behind very rapidly. The two male leads receive the bulk of the screen time, with Australia's Guy Pearce handling Leonard Shelby in a particularly strong manner. Pearce's only major Hollywood role prior to this one had been opposite Russell Crowe in "LA Confidential", and it had been a mystery among Australian film buffs why Crowe had gone on to bigger and better things while Pearce had not. This performance certainly reaffirms his position as one of the better actors of today. Joe Pantoliano (of "Matrix" fame) is also superb as the shady Teddy, a man who clearly knows much more than he is letting on. Pantoliano is charming enough in the early scenes to set himself up as the good guy, but (and this is far from revealing the plot) is also capable of presenting a very dark side to his character. Shelby, who often tells the story in an internal monologue (a definite nod to the noir classics), is a mordantly funny character. One of the great moments of the film - spread over nearly half an hour of cuts - involves his fight with a man named Dodd. At one point, we see the two men running parallel to each other through a trailer park; as the scene begins, Shelby's voice asks "what am I doing? That's right, I'm running. Am I chasing someone?" Having seen Dodd, he comments "That's right, I'm chasing him." Dodd shoots at him as Shelby calmly corrects himself "Nope, he's chasing me". Later, Shelby is sitting in a bathroom with a bottle in his hand waiting to attack the owner of the hotel room; one scene features him looking down at the bottle and thinking "strange, I don't feel drunk..." Realistically, there is no way in which viewing this film could be done in a passive way. The viewer is constantly asking questions about where certain objects are, why some writing is obscured, what role various characters (especially Shelby's possible love interest) have in the plot and so on. The story of Sammy Jenkis, slowly revealed in the black-and-white scenes, only adds to these layers which need to be waded through. A film like this has to be seen on many occasions and preferably with a group of people, as each one will notice different details and clues about what might actually have been going on. As the credits roll at the end (or beginning, depending on how you wish to think about it), there will generally be more questions than there are answers - that, after all, is the mark of success of a film noir. Is Leonard successful? In the end, that is really up the viewer to decide. This film has no drawbacks at all, and should be viewed by anyone interested in challenging their perceptions of the world. It is also a particularly effective lesson in telling a story in an unconventional manner. If you enjoy cheering for the good guy or the bad guy, this film is probably not for you. If you enjoy trying to work out who the good guy or the bad guy is so you can cheer for him, this is definitely for you.
Rating:
Summary: F'd up movie
Review: Simply, this movie is good, but it confuses you so many times, ive seen this movie at least 5 or 6 times, and i thought that i knew what was all going on, but i still dont.
Rating:
Summary: Memento reminds us of our primal needs!
Review: A brilliant work of storytelling which immerses the viewer into the life of a man with a severe memory problem, called anterograde memory loss. He cannot make any new memories since the accident which left his wife dead, and he can only remember 15 minutes at a time.
The Nolan team creates a world which allows the viewer to sympathize with the difficulties of the man, not only living with a memory problem, but also with the unrealized revenge of his wife's murder.
The disorientating method of the presentation of the movie sequences allows the viewer to experience first hand the challenges he faces. It also ingeniously places the viewer into the mind of the the main character, because the viewer only learns the plot at 15 fifteen minute intervals. Not only does the viewer feel disorientated in fifteen minute parcels, the movie moves from the end backwards to the beginning. I have never seen a movie that has been capable of showing the end and then worked its way backward to the beginning without giving away the plot until the very end.
This is a truly ingenious movie with rich characters, superb acting, and directorial excellence. I recommend it to anyone with high expectations for a movie.
Rating:
Summary: The more you think about it, the worse this movie gets
Review: This was a great movie the first time I watched, it kept me intreged well after it had ended but the more I thought about it, the more I realized how badly it was writen.
...This is the sequence of events.
1. Sammy has no long term memory and Leonard, an insurance agent determines that Sammy is faking his condition. Sammy is also a drug dealer on the verge of a very big deal. The only hint of this in the movie is right before Sammy's wife kills herself when she gets off the phone and says, "What have you done?"
2. The drug dealers break into Leonard's house to find if he an accomplise of Sammy's and trying to hide the drugs Sammy was supposed to have. After all, Leonard says Sammy is faking. If so, Leonard might be the one with the drugs or working with Sammy to steal from the dealers. Leonard's wife is killed before his eyes right when he is shot in the head and loses his memory just like Sammy.
3. Teddy, a crooked cop and a lier, uses Leonard to find the man doing the drug deal (who is a John G) and kill him for the drug money. No doubt Teddy gave Leonard the name John G. to prompt Leonard to kill the guy. When John G is dead, Teddy shows up to get the drug money but Leonard takes it instead and steals John's car before Teddy can get it from him. At this point Teddy makes up several lies to get the money, including the one about Leonard being a self-induced murderer. note: Leonard places the drug money in the trunk of the car he steals and forgets it. Also, Teddy all but says he is the man who killed Leonard's wife. Leonard then writes down Teddy's License plate number and goes and tattoes it on himself then forgets it all.
4. Natalie is John G's girlfriend, who Leonard killed and she is torturing Leonard and misleading him to get even. During this time Teddy keeps showing up and sending anonymous messages to Leonard to mislead him. Also another guy shows up looking for the money whom Leonard captures and beats up, then lets go. You are led to beleave this is Natalie's boyfriend; it isn't.
5. Natalie identifies the license plate number as Teddy's and gives it to Leonard. Leonard then kills Teddy and takes a picture so he wont forget that he finnaly killed the right John G. Right before Leonard kills him, Teddy once again all but admits he is the guy. Note: Leonard is NOT on a rampage to kill John Gs. With each tattoo he narrows his suspects down. The finnal clue is the license plate number. Leonard will never find another John G with that license plate. At the end of the film, Leonard is onl contemplating the lie Teddy told him, it is not the truth... ... no where in the film was any direct conclusion drawn to any evidense. This movie keeps you guessing and no matter how many times you watch it, you will never get any concrete evidense to whats going on. Everything I have said earlier is drawn off conclusions that explain the sequence of the plot. I could think of no other way this film would make sense... I give this movie three stars because it was intellegently done and very thought provoking. Few movies today require any conscious thinking to watch. I liked this movie because it intrigued me. Even though I thought it was bad, it took me a long time to draw that conclusion... It loses one star for the crappy DVD menus and another for the poor writing, otherwise a good movie to watch to get your brain working.
Rating:
Summary: Not a movie you'll forget
Review: Saw this DVD recently - a few friends of mine had hated it, but the reviews here on Amazon encouraged me to give it a try, and i must say i'm not disappointed. This is not a movie to be watched if you want an escape, laughs or tender moments. However, if you'd like to see a movie that demands your full attention to work out what might be going on, then this is a good choice. I found the idea of coping with a condition where one has no short-term memory quite intriguing. I felt that Guy Pierce did a really good job of playing a complex role, and Carrie Ann Moss & Joe Pantiliano were pretty good too. Christopher Nolan does a great job of intelligently directing what must have been quite a challeging movie to make. The editing, central to this movie, was quite smartly done. I don't mind watching this movie once more, perhaps even backwards !! That having been said, this is the kind of movie that you'd either like to watch again & again, or else regret having seen even once.
| 
