Theory of Everything

       Bias alert:  I’m not a big fan of Oscar baiting bioptic pictures.  I usually find them over blown and more focused on some actor trying to prove their acting brilliance than having an engaging story line.  Of course there are exceptions, but ‘Theory of Everything’ is not one of them.  Based on the book by Stephen Hawking’s ex-wife Jane Hawking, the story is told in bland milquetoast detail providing all the insight that could have been found in five paragraphs of Wikipedia. This was a uniquely unsatisfying film about a man whose story should have been much more developed.  It was not the actors fault as they all turned in superb, ‘Oscar’ level performances, but the storyline execution kept them from greatness.

The film starts off following the blossoming academic career of Stephen Hawking (played exceptionally well by Eddie Redmayne) meeting his future wife Jane (Felicity Jones) while trying to find a subject of his doctoral paper.  The events that lead to Stephan searching for the universal equation that explains everything and finally settling join Time are some of the most engaging pats of the film and areas that I wish they would have developed more fully, but this was secondary to the love story.  Actually, I would have been fine with this, but as I mentioned, this was story was written by Stephen’s ex-wife.  While I commend her for trying to put the best spin on the story, it came across as glossed over and ultimately unsatisfying in understanding them as people.  The film follows Stephen and his wife through the milestones of childbirths, fame, and marital issues, none of which are fully realized or explained.

The bringing of another man into their marriage as well as Stephen ultimately leaving his wife for his caretaker were unsatisfyingly explored.  It was treated as if this were the most normal and natural thing in the world instead of a fascinating human story to be explored.  As far as their separation being amicable, I think that is great, but I would like to have a bit more understanding of the dynamic other than ‘It just happened’.  The poetic music and flowery photography tried to add a dimension of beauty to the story, but I felt it just distracted from the essence of the story, which was the brilliance of a man who battled great obstacles and odds, but still retained his fundamental humanity, with all the weaknesses and triumphs we all face.  

Of course, most people know the tragedy of Stephen Hawking’s condition, so there was really only a sense of dread as we see him deteriorate.  We saw much of his physical obstacles, but not enough of how he emotionally coped with them.  Nor was enough explored about how he had children while in this condition or the rumors about the children’s actual paternity. The author, Jane Hawking, states she wanted to keep that private, but that is a significant omission of the story she wanted to tell.  If you are not going to uniquely focus on his scientific contributions, rather their marriage, then tell the whole story or don’t tell it at all.

Overall, the orchestral music and artistic imagery were overdone in an attempt to make this an Oscar worthy film.  Eddie Redmayne proved himself an exceptional actor playing Stephen Hawking (I wouldn’t b upset if he were nominated) during various stages of his disease, but it was not enough to make this film an engaging or comprehensive examination of one of the great minds of the 20th and 21st centuries.  Big disappointment, but I blame that more on the source material rather the film making skill.  They did the best they could with what they had to work with which was an incomplete and surface examination of the topic.

  I give this film ** stars out of four

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980516/?ref_=nv_sr_2

Interstallar

Bias alert!  Christopher Nolan can do no wrong in my book.  He has created  incredible films that have never failed to leave me amazed.  Everything from the ‘Dark Knight’ trilogy, to ‘Inception’, to ‘Memento’.  His latest film, ‘Interstellar’ is no different and is probably his most ambitious film to date.  Taking obvious inspiration from ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, Nolan uses his trademark style of soaring music scores (always heavy in bass for maximum effect) and complex, overlapping, and brain turning plots to take us on a journey trying to capture concepts we are unable to understand in our three dimensional world.  You don’t have to be a physicist to enjoy this ride, but the movie doesn’t try to dumb down the science and it stretches our ability to understand things we aren’t meant to understand.

The film starts in the near future focusing on the life of Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a farmer living a farmer’s life, well past his glory years as a pilot for NASA.  The world is in its’ final stages of being able to support human life.  Year after year, people are able to harvest less and less crops and dust storms have become the norm for weather.  Everyone instinctively knows they are only a generation or so away from extinction, but they still try to carry on as best they can.  Cooper sits on his porch nightly with his father-in-law Donald (John Lithgow) and remembers the days when humans had purpose.  When they dared to explore instead of merely survive.  Cooper sees that same spark in his daughter Murphy (MacKenzie Foy/Jessica Chastain), but knows she lives in a world where that is no longer valued.

Murphy amuses her father with stories of poltergeists in her room, that is until Cooper starts to see things he can’t explain.  Patterns in the dust and oddly arranged books on the book case in Murphy’s room arises his scientific curiosity and eventually leads him to see patterns.  The patterns lead to coordinates which lead him to a secret scientific base in the desert.  He discovers a group of scientists lead by Prof Brand (played by Nolan favorite Michael Caine) and his daughter (played by new Nolan favorite Anne Hathaway).  Prof Brand confirms that the human race will indeed not likely survive his daughter’s generation and since the discovery of a wormhole (a tear in space) by Saturn, they have been working for decades to find another inhabitable world.  For years, they have been sending secret expeditions to the far side of the universe with promising data of inhabitable planets coming back.  Unfortunately, not one of the astronauts have returned.  Cooper is selected to lead a crew to find salvation for the human race.

The effects in this film are stunning and riveting, yet at it’s core, this film focuses on Cooper’s family and the choices he makes.  Nolan’s artistry is that he can make the dynamic of Cooper’s family seem as majestic as a trip through interstellar space.  In fact, the two are interconnected as they progress through the wormhole and find a black hole on the other side.  On the far side of the universe, near the black hole, time, space, and gravity are no longer constant and Nolan challenges our minds to understand the ramifications of actions in five dimensions, when our minds are wired for three.  Again, you don’t have to be a science buff to enjoy this.  Sometimes the ride is enough (or as Nolan puts it, you don’t have to know how a motor works to drive a car).  

Small Spoiler Alert:  Towards the climax of the film, it is obvious Nolan tries to capture the magic of Stanley Kubrick’s “acid trip” finale in ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ without all the druggie incoherence.  In fact, Nolan seems eager to try to show coherence in the incomprehensible.  I enjoyed it immensely, even if my suspension of disbelief faltered. Nolan's thumping soundtrack and overlapping plot lines builds to a crescendo as we see all the pieces start to fall together.  There may not be comprehension, but one leaves with a feeling of resolution.  

Whatever one thinks of this film, this is one of McConaughey’s most intense and emotional performances (and that’s saying a lot).  His ability to portray a father torn from his family and struggling with the choices he made is incredible to watch.  Nolan’s story telling abilities mixed with incredible special effects further cements his reputation as one of the best film makers of his generation.  Solid performances all around by Nolan’s troupe of favorite actors as well as an uncredited appearance by an A-list actor that turns into more than just a cameo. 

As I stated in the beginning: Christopher Nolan and his writer brother Jonathon, can do no wrong in my book.  A fantastic, awe-inspiring, and thought provoking film.  Science fiction usually doesn’t get too much respect come Oscar time, but McConaughey deserves another one this year for this performance.

I give this film **** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2284039193?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_6

John Wick

       Some movies I go to, I really want to like just because I like the premise or the actor starring in it.  ‘John Wick’ is a film that i really wanted to hate.  Watching the trailer, this looked like a generic action flick, starring an aging movie star, with a cheesy revenge premise.  I am not sure why I even decided upon this one, but truth be told, I was pleasantly surprised.  While everything I listed above is true, ‘John Wick’ turned out to be a slick, hip, and stylish action flick that makes no apologies for the genre it tries to exploit.  I can’t say this was a ‘good’ movie, but it was beautifully shot with grey and blue camera filters, and with video game action sequences which somehow never became tired.  This is just a fun time at the movies.

Keanu Reeves plays retired Hitman John Wick.  Against the odds, he has managed to leave his life of violence behind and start to lead a normal life with his beautiful wife.  Life has other plans and John suffers the loss of his wife to cancer.  Her dying gift to John is a puppy to help cope with his grief.  While devastated, John is able to get by with the help of the puppy who gives his life purpose and a reason to get out of bed every morning.  This delicate balance is destroyed when a young Russian mobster named Iosef takes a shine to John’s muscle car and brings his crew to break into his house and steal his car.  John is beaten and his dog is callously killed.  I always find it interesting that the audience can take massive amounts of people killing people in film, but the second the dog gets it, all gloves are off.  

When Iosef tries to take the car to a chop shop to clean all the ID markings, he soon discovers that the name John Wick is a name whispered only in reverence in the underworld.  Even Iosef’s Kingpin father seems beyond anger when he learns what his son has done and is more or less resigned to his and his son’s fate.  His gesture to send everyone he has after John Wick seems more of a ritual of what he has to do than having any hope of success.  The next 2 hours is an orgy of video game mayhem and violence that even the most jaded movie goer would have a hard time not getting a thrill from.  The gun play mixed with martial arts achieves an almost ‘Matrix’ level of coolness as John Wick shoots his way through the underworld in search of Iosef.

Following John Wick on his path, glimpses into his past are revealed and there are interesting explorations of the fraternity of Hitmen.  Particularly cool, was the Hitman hotel, which is basically a hidden sanctuary for people in the trade where they can stay without fear of violence.  Each member of the hotel staff knows how to professionally deal with issues unique only to Hitmen. I especially like the touch of the cleaning crew for hire that cleans up the mess after each massacre. Wherever John Wick goes, he is recognized by people in or associated with the fraternity and is given the awe like respect that his past seems to have earned him.  At some points, we almost feel sorry for Iosef, despite being a thug, because we know that his fate is sealed and its just a matter of time. John Wick is on a mission and any hope he had for returning to a normal life have been shattered

As I said in the beginning, the plot of this film is eye rolling generic and cheesy. The genre is tired. However, it is the execution of this film that is impressive.  Beautiful photography and riveting action pacing.  Keanu Reeves plays an aging Hitman with just the right amount of disciplined reserve and explosive action. Even John Wick’s mentor/friend Marcus (Willem Dafoe) is played with just the right amount of sinister creepiness and professionalism to make the relationship work.  Overall, just a great, fun time at the movies if you are in the mood for a shoot ‘em up.  I can’t in good conscience give this film a high rating, but I do highly recommend it for fun’s sake.  Prepare to say ‘cool’ often.

                                                              I give this film ** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi884911897?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_6

Birdman

‘Birdman (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)’ is the type of film I love to see and write about.  That doesn’t mean I thought it was a great film, but Director Alejandro González Iñárritu paints a unique and daring vision and that is always something that I respect immensely.  I also enjoy seeing actors leave their comfort zones and explore different genres of film.  “Birdman’ dissects the world of acting and it’s over blown self importance while at the same time embracing its’ passion and need to create.

Riggan (Michael Keaton) is a washed up actor who, at the height of his career, played the superhero Birdman in a series of blockbuster movies in the 90’s.  He left the franchise right before Birdman 3 for artistic reason, but was never able to recapture that level of glory again (an uncomfortably autobiographical role for Michael Keaton to be playing).  Broke and awash in family issues, Riggan decides to write, produce, direct, and star in a Broadway play in a last ditch attempt to show the world his artistic abilities.  To add to the pressure, Riggen must deal with Mike (Edward Norton), a temperamental Broadway star, and his estranged daughter Sam (Emma Stone).  Both drive him to the edge, but he must work with each in order to make his play work and save what’s left of his family life.

The film is often abstract and even though it flows in a linear fashion, it does not always flow coherently.  Scenes often dissolve from one to the next with no discernible transition and leaves the viewer momentarily disoriented.  The camera work is interesting, even if it is taxing at times.  It feels as if the camera is mounted on a person’s shoulder as it follows the action through the backstage halls.  A first person view point that gives the feeling of eavesdropping in on their lives. One plot device that was particularly hard to reconcile with the rest of the story was the evil voice inside Riggan’s head.  It’s a bitter and angry version of his Birdman character that reminds Riggan of his past glory and spurs him, almost Satanically, to create his Broadway show.  To further blur the lines of reality, when Riggan hears this voice in his moments of solitude he possesses super powers.  Whether it’s flight, super strength, or telekinesis, these schizophrenic episodes weave in seamlessly with the reality around him making it all the more confusing.  

Riggan’s lawyer/agent Jake (played surprisingly well by Zach Galifianakas) is the only one fully in Riggan’s corner and his only point of reality and sanity.  While a steadfast friend, Jake still has his eye on the ball and wants desperately to help keep things together so he can be part of Riggan’s glorious return.  Other character relationships are interesting, whether it’s the awkward romance that develops between Ed Norton and Emma Stone’s characters or the lesbian romance between Riggan’s girlfriend and Mike’s soon-to-be ex-girlfriend.  While these are all compelling, the true star is Michael Keaton. His portrayal of Riggan may be uncomfortable given how closely it mirrors his real life, but it is definitely an Oscar caliber performance and I hope he is not over looked come Oscar time. 

I don’t think this film merits all the praise it has been receiving.  I think the fact that it is so unique and also lays bare the vapidness of the acting community strikes a chord with critics as it is not something you see on screen very often.  One scene that particularly resonated with me was when Riggan confronted a ruthless theater critic.  He states that despite the inherent inaneness of acting, being a critic costs nothing.  Artists put everything on the line to create something for the public.  They put their livelihoods, their fortunes, even who they are as people on the line just to create something they hope people will enjoy, whereas critics risk nothing.  They just sit back and judge and their are no personal consequence to their actions.  Something I keep in mind when I write.

I recommend this film for its’ uniqueness and to see well known actors in a different light. I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1378069529?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

Gone Girl

I dedicate this post to my father who passed away recently.  He rarely saw movies, but always had a constructive comment on how my posts were written.  He let me know if I was hitting the mark with my comments or if i talked him out of seeing a film because of what I wrote. 

“Gone Girl”

So, during the slow movie months of September and October, a truly exciting film that I can only call a Thriller comes out.  Starring Ben Affleck and Rosemund Pike as Nick and Amy Dunne, this is the story of a seemingly idyllic couple whose marriage is thrown into the media spotlight after the mysterious and suspicious disappearance of Nick’s beautiful wife Amy.  The film plays into and almost lampoons the conclusions we jump to immediately and the mob mentality that seizes our modern society as a result of a ratings obsessed media.

Director David Fincher builds an elaborate base from which we think we know what happened because the clues are so obvious, but at the same time allows us to doubt what we feel for the very same reason of how obvious the clues are.  Ben Affleck is perfectly cast as the handsome, yet suspicious husband channeling the Scott Peterson case from the early 2000s.  Through police interrogations, Fincher tells the picture perfect storybook tale of how Nick and Amy met and came to be married. They were two people destined to be with each other.  As the story progresses, we begin to see the cracks in the fairy tale, and as our suspicions increase about Nick, so do our doubts about whether he actually did it.

As much as I enjoyed Ben Affleck’s performance, Rosemund Pike’s performance as the missing wife was the true standout for me.  Not only am I impressed when the English can do a flawless American accent, but she has the mannerisms down to perfection too.  She portrays the perfect victim, but at the same time has a sinister and dangerous edge that keeps us guessing.  As her dark side is slowly revealed (actually, quite suddenly at one point in the film), she becomes a source of fear and distrust that rivals, if not exceeds, what we feel for her husband Nick.  I can’t go into much more of a synopsis without giving away key plot points, so I will just say that there are very few innocents in this film and Fincher has a way of making everyone sympathetic and deplorable at the same time.

David Fincher has an impressive track record of creating thrilling film noir.  Having achieved almost perfection in the film ‘Seven’, he has used this type of film making over the years even in his lighter faire such as ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons’.  Watching ‘Gone Girl’ makes me realize how truly absent the art form of the Thriller has become in the modern movie landscape.  Films that take their time building tension and demand our attention to even the minutest plot points have become increasingly rare.  Today’s audiences seem to have lost the appetite for storytelling and nuance opting for instant gratification action sequences that appeal to our attention deficit.  

While one can just enjoy the whodunnit storyline of this film, it is also an effective social commentary of our media culture as well.  It lays bare the hunger that the media has for sensationalism over truth.  They look for the angle that gets the most people into a frenzy, no matter who it hurts.  In a small, but pivotal role, Tyler Perry plays the spotlight-hogging, sleazy defense attorney, yet ends up being one of the more virtuous characters in the story.  His understanding of how the media ‘system’ works is something that Nick clings to during his most trying times.

I highly recommend this film.  It’s a great fall movie night film that leaves you talking about it long after the credits roll.  See it with a date, but it might give you second thoughts about getting married.

I give this film *** 1/2 stars out of four

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1541712921?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

The Skeleton Twins

        I really enjoy when actors leave their comfort zone, even if it is on a small scale.  Former Saturday Night Live stars and, up until now, strictly comedic movie actors Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader team up as a pair of estranged siblings who reunite after failed suicide attempts coincidentally on the same day.  It’s a look into their lives and past that is both humorous and somber.  Emotionally impactful, if at times depressing, this film rises above self pity and explores two siblings reconnecting after being scarred by both childhood and life.  Kristen Wiig as Maggie is always charming whether playing comedic or dramatic, but it’s Bill Hader’s performance as her gay brother Milo that steals almost every scene in this movie.  It’s a toned down version of his SNL character ‘Stefan’, but he is definitely channeling him throughout the film.  He is able to contain the excesses just enough to make it a masterful performance.  I’m going out on a limb and say that this will be a nominated performance come Oscar time.

After a failed suicide attempt by her brother Milo, Maggie travels to L.A. to bring her brother back home to the East coast.  Milo’s dream of making it big in Hollywood never materialized and after a breakup with his boyfriend, Milo is lost.  Maggie’s dream of suburban bliss did not turn out as satisfying as she expected.  Despite having an ideal, albeit clueless husband, (played just goofy enough by Luke Wilson), Maggie is depressed to the point of suicide herself and consoles herself in a string of extramarital affairs.  Despite the 10 year absence and tension between the two, their chemistry is apparent and their connection is strong.  Despite their fragile states, each strengthens the other with their presence.

The film unfolds slowly and takes its’ time examining the two.  Whether through flashbacks or conversational revelations, their history begins to take shape and we begin to understand what has brought them to this point in their lives.  I go back to Hader’s performance that could have been played over the top, but was instead right on the mark.  A delicate person trying to deal with the trauma of his life the best he can and come to grips with his past.  His confrontation with his ex teacher/first love Rich (Ty Burell playing to almost the same level of performance perfection as Hader) could have been overly dramatic, but Hader conveys both hurt and hopefulness simultaneously.  It’s a pleasure to watch subtleness of performance and complexity of feeling instead of being hit over the head with whatever is trendy or politically correct.  The writer walks a tightrope of a teacher who betrayed a student’s trust yet sincerely cared for him as well as wrestling with his own identity. 

Kristen Wiig also is able to create a character we care about despite not being satisfied with a life most people strive for.  Maggie wanted the suburban dream after being denied it as a child, but is in turmoil when she discovers that it is not fulfilling.  With a fragmented and estranged family, she feels lost and alone despite having everything she could want.  Only Milo can understand, if not sympathize.  The understanding is emotional and, despite their history, each is there for the other, even when it appears they are not.  

It’s difficult to say what this film is ‘about’ or what message it trys to convey.  It merely examines the lives of ordinary people in a way that allows us to care for everyone involved instead of choosing sides.  Life and our decisions aren’t as black and white as we try to make them.  The bond of family is what supports us even when they are not present.  Once again, I’ll say I enjoyed seeing the dramatic side of these two comedic actors even if there were many comedic moments in the film.  While I can’t say that this film had a fulfilling message or tidy resolutions, it is a satisfying character study.  Fingers crossed for Hader at Oscar time.

I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1200598041?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

Frank

      I so wanted to like this film.  Not only does it star one of my favorite actors; Michael Fassbender, but it has been getting a lot of good buzz on the Indie circuit, including Sundance.  I have a particular fondness for Indie films, so I was excited to see this unique story about an Indie rock band fronted by a man named Frank.  A man who never takes a mascot size head off whether on stage or not.  As hard as I tried to like it, this dark comedy was neither amusing nor were the dramatic turns particularly affecting.  This was a film that tried to impress itself with its’ eccentric ‘humor’ and tried to say something profound about mental illness, although I could never figure out what.

I will say, the film started off promising focusing on Jon (played by Irish up and comer Dohmnall Gleesan). A cubicle worker desperate to find an outlet for his creative expression, Jon one day stumbles across a small Indie band who has a sudden need for a keyboard player.  Deciding to take a leap at his dream, he drops everything and agrees to tour with the band.  Immediately meeting Frank, he is confused by this eccentric frontman, whom everyone worships as a creative genius, but no one can ever remember seeing him without his mascot head.  I know this sounds weird and it is, but somehow, this part of the movie works.  Once you settle in and realize that the head is on for the duration, you buy into the premise.  I do applaud Fassbender as his ego is in check enough not to have his face shown throughout the film.

Jon senses trouble and disillusionment when the band sets up in a lake side cottage instead of going on tour.  The manager says they must spend time laying down tracks and coming up with an album before they go on tour.  It’s at this point I think the film loses it’s way.  Being the only ‘normal’ one, Jon has trouble fitting in with the group.  It’s only through Frank’s fascination with Jon that the group allows him to stay.  Even so, I felt that Frank’s interest in Jon was more due the kitsch factor of his normality.  From here, every scene seemed to be trying to have each band member’s quirks out do the others.  I found none of them particularly engaging, especially Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Clara, who is threatened by Frank’s diverted attention to Jon.  

Hints at mental illness among all the band members begin to emerge and instead of being humorous as the film intended, I found it more sad than anything else.  As the months pass and supplies begin to run low, Jon feels he has had a creative epiphany from all his isolated suffering and goes into overdrive.  Unfortunately, his work is mediocre and considered mundane by the rest of the band.  Regardless, Jon soon sees Frank as the creative genius that everyone else sees him as and he uses his skill with social media to start lining up performances for the band.  The most high profile is a music festival in Texas.  Despite Clara’s concern that this type of thing could unbalance Frank, she is overruled and they are off to America to find their fame and fortune.

The film, having already gone wrong in my opinion, dives deeper down the wrong direction and soon all pretense of comedy is dropped and the film just become a series of psychotic episodes among the band members.  We begin to question Jon’s own mental balance as his obsession with becoming a famous musician overcomes his own common sense.  The cameras rests slowly and uncomfortably long on scenes of Frank’s despair with no real reason or epiphanies. We begin to learn Frank’s secrets, but instead of revealing they are just depressing and disappointing.  

I’m not going to continue with criticizing this film as I admire independent films and their creative process.  I’ll just say that I thought this one missed the mark and I have no idea what the critics are seeing in this.  Sometimes I think critics will say they like things that they think are thoughtful and edgy just to appear to be thoughtful and edgy themselves.  Michael Fassbender is still at the top of my list of modern actors and I enjoy he enjoys doing low profile and unique films, but I just couldn’t connect with this film.

I give this film * 1/2 star

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4288654361