Stephen Hawking and his "Theory of Everything"

"There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I'd read that book by that wheelchair guy."  

So said Homer Simpson back in 1995.  When "The Simpsons" were the most cutting-edge show on television, this was a very sophisticated and obscure reference for primetime network TV.  Who exactly is Homer referring to and what do we know about him?  That wheelchair guy is the subject of a fascinating, and unexpectedly romantic biography now in theaters.
 

The Theory of Everything stars Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking, the brilliant physics professor and best-selling author of A Brief History of Time.  The movie begins in 1963 when Stephen meets Jane Wilde and the two form a deep bond that demonstrates the true power of love.  Played by Felicity Jones, Jane is the center of Stephen's universe, and also the author of the movie's source material:  her memoir "Traveling to Infinity:  My Life with Stephen."

The first thirty minutes are filled with nostalgic, romantic images of the young couple meeting, courting, dancing, and following their hearts.  Tragedy quickly strikes as Stephen is diagnosed with ALS and is given only two years to live.  Jane doesn't run away; quite the opposite.  Her devotion grows stronger.  They marry, have children, and fight every obstacle together.

As Stephen gains professional notoriety, his body deteriorates, and he is not only confined to a wheelchair but can no longer speak.  The pressures of such an arrangement begin to wear on Jane, and her devotion is tested when she meets the handsome choir director of her local church.  The movie explores the various stages of love, from passion to family to marriage, and is at it's strongest when it probes deep into the nature of personal relationships.

At times, however, the drama seems contrived as Jane runs out of things to do.  As much as I like Felicity Jones, I could definitely see her acting too hard during the middle stretches of the film where life with Stephen is difficult, and she has nothing to do but frown and look upset.

The movie has several inspired moments where Stephen gets an idea from looking at a fire, or simply staring at a coffee cup and imagining the reversal of time.  These cinematic flourishes are too few and far between, and the end result is a conventional biography. 

Eddie Redmayne is excellent as Stephen, and he plays the challenging character with guts and sympathy.  It's one of the better performances of the year, and certainly the best of this young Brit's brief career.  He joins such great performers as Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot, Javier Bardem in The Sea Inside, and Mathieu Amalric in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.  All played immobile characters who can move only part of their body and must rely on their face to tell the story.  All are exceptional accomplishments and Eddie Redmayne is too.

2014: A Space Odyssey - "Interstellar"

What to make of this Christopher Nolan fellow?  His epic movies are made with minimal CGI, shot on film, and feature old-fashioned sentimentality.  Yet critics embrace him, audiences flock to see his films, A-list actors want to work for him, and the online community seems to worship everything he does.  His new sci-fi spectacle Interstellar is banking on his popularity, as the previews for this big-budget extravaganza lack any explosions, battles, or anything else resembling the Star Wars/Star Trek realm.  The question is what will history make of Mr. Nolan's movies?  Inception got rave reviews and made a ton of money, but I found it a boring and incoherent mess of silliness.  And take away Heath Ledger's Joker from The Dark Knight and you have one dull Batman movie.  Ever aiming for the stars, Mr. Nolan now takes on even bigger, more important issues about man, his future, and the universe.

Interstellar tries really, really hard to be 2001:  A Space Odyssey but it falls short.  It's not even Robert Zemeckis's Contact.  Imagine 2001 with every scene explained in detailed, repetitive dialogue.  Then have astronaut Dave saying how much he misses his family and can't wait to get home.  In every scene.  And imagine if 2001 was stealing shots, images, and ideas from a 40 year old movie.  But that wasn't the case, which is why 2001 is a ground-breaking masterpiece, and Interstellar is not.  So what is it?

 
Interstellar is a technically impressive, philosophical drama about one man's need to save his family.  I emphasize the drama, as the action is few and far between.  When it does happen, it almost seems out of place.  Matthew McConaughey plays the family man in charge of saving mankind, as drought and other natural disasters have taken a toll on Earth.  When a wormhole is discovered just outside of Saturn, Astronaut McConaughey says "Alright, Alright" and hops on a rocket.

Half of the movie takes place on Earth, grounded in real world problems such as family, parenting, love and loss.  And the other half takes place in space.  Some of the space travel is exciting, but most of it is not all that original or imaginative.  Most of Interstellar is like The Dark Knight waiting for the Joker to appear.

And the more I've had time to ponder the movie, the more I dislike it.  Too many plot holes and head-scratchers.  Such as who actually put the wormhole out near Saturn and why all the way out there?  Perhaps I missed something.  I do know that within the first hour much time is spent on plot points that never go anywhere, such as Captain McConaughey's quest to capture the lost drone.  That sure was important.

The movie suffers from a major lack of conflict.  Much like the screenplay to Inception, this is a script that if an unknown writer submitted it to a studio it would be rejected.  In this instance, the lack of solid drama with too much exposition would turn most people away.  Interstellar has no antagonist, and most of the plight that the future Earthlings encounter happens off-screen and out of sight.  Every time I thought something bad would happen, it didn't.  

Another problem is this movie is not about what it is about.  Meaning mankind's interstellar search for a new earth-like home and the possibility of extraterrestrial life.  Those are the issues that set the wheels in motion, but eventually it's all dropped and the movie becomes a father-daughter drama.  That cool water-world we've seen in the previews?  Never explored, never given a second thought.  That really big wave?  We'll never know if it was some evil alien or a really fascinating deity.  It's just a stormy day, now it's time to take off because I miss my kids.  In the end, I can't help but feeling ripped off.  I was expecting (and hoping) for a movie that's groundbreaking, new and imaginative.  Instead, it's a fairly routine story with some intense Hans Zimmer music. 

Like M. Night Shyamalan, Christopher Nolan is a talented director with several bad ideas and delusions of grandeur (interesting note:  they were born seven days apart).  What bothers me is that IMDB has six (soon to be seven) of Mr. Nolan's movies listed in the 100 top-rated movies of all time.  A little pre-mature.  Has anybody ever quoted Inception to you?  Will they in 50 years?  Yet Inception is rated higher than Goodfellas, Star Wars, Casablanca, and Citizen Kane.

Now we have Interstellar - a decent time at the movies, especially when projected in 70mm film.  But better than The Godfather?  It's not even Topher Grace's best movie. 

You filming me? Are you filming me? - "Nightcrawler" movie review

Jake Gyllenhaal redefines creepy as Lou Bloom, a modern day Travis Bickle adrift in Los Angeles.  Like Taxi Driver forty years ago, Nightcrawler follows a rogue square peg unable to fit into the contemporary black hole of society.  Filmed almost entirely at night, Nightcrawler is a gorgeous-looking, yet brutal dissection of 21st Century morals, and how they're influenced by local news.

If anyone remembers the coyote wandering the urban streets in Michael Mann's Collateral, then imagine an entire movie about that coyote.  Jake Gyllenhaal plays the coyote as a fierce, instinctual scavenger who feeds on other people's garbage and scares anyone who gets close.  It's a phenomenal performance, and Mr. Gyllenhaal has never been better - or scarier.

His character begins as an out of work, petty thief, but soon decides that a career as a nighttime videographer of accidents and crime is his calling.  It's fascinating to watch him learn the bare minimum and quickly transform into a success.  Of course, success is a relative term.  He also lacks any sense of right and wrong, and doesn't care much for the law.  Like many recent movies, Nightcrawler features a protagonist that is an unlikeable sinner.  Unlike Taxi Driver or other past anti-hero portraits, Nightcrawler does not highlight any hero qualities, and Lou Bloom never does the right thing.  This results in an unsettling experience for the audience, and ultimately I'm not sure what to think.  Actually, I know what to think but it's a frightening thought about how to succeed in America.  In that sense, echoes of There Will Be Blood rattle throughout this modern parallel.

To help battle his demons, Lou confronts two outstanding co-stars.  First is the local news director played by Rene Russo.  Leading the city's least watched news broadcast, her character's professional ethics are also a blurry signal.  She enables Lou's career by encouraging his work and stroking his personal ego.  She gives him the only lesson he needs when she sums up her industry with the movie's best rallying cry:  "Think about our newscast as a screaming woman running down the street with her throat cut."

Lou recruits a partner-in-crime:  a nearly homeless, uneducated young man played by Riz Ahmed.  An excellent young actor who was the best part of last year's Reluctant Fundamentalist, Mr. Ahmed brings heart and spirit to a man also seeking his American dream, but with a clearer moral judgment.  It's captivating to watch him spar with Lou, as the bullshit is slung, and the two have-nots fight for power. 

The movie is a scathing portrait of local news, reminiscent of such classic films as Network and Broadcast News.  But this is more about the individual.  Who's feeding who?  Who needs who?  It's a compelling debate, and Nightcrawler does an excellent job moderating the discussion. 

"Birdman" - Michael Keaton and the Rhythm of Life

To many fans, Michael Keaton disappeared after wearing the cape in 1992's Batman Returns.  The everyman star of such '80s classics as Mr. Mom and Beetlejuice turned down superhero action roles after the two Tim Burton-directed Batman movies and never again achieved such popular exposure.  In reality, he consistently appeared in many dramatic and supporting roles of his own choosing throughout the last two decades.  He's now back front and center in Birdman - one of the year's most original and entertaining movies.

Mr. Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, a middle-aged actor famous for playing the superhero Birdman 20 years ago.  Divorced, broke, and slightly crazy, Riggan is attempting a high profile comeback by writing, directing, and starring in a Broadway play.  Exhausted and terrified, Riggan rehearses, but is continually distracted as he confronts his past and his own mortality.

He fights with his twenty-something daughter (Emma Stone) over his failures as a father, and how to be relevant in a 21st century social media obsessed world.  He argues with his best friend/lawyer/producer (Zach Galifanakis), who tries to keep the ship afloat as the play teeters on bankruptcy.  And Riggan literally brawls with his co-star (Edward Norton) who is a respected theater actor who tells Riggan the harsh truths about being a movie-star.  Riggan also suffers from superhero delusions as he argues with the voice of the Birdman in his head all while believing he can fly.

 Mr. Keaton at his best makes acting look easy.  Even in his old movies he appeared as if he wasn't acting but playing a version of himself.  All the great actors make the audience believe this, but the truth is we never really know the real person, but we as the audience think we know.  "Birdman" works so well because we really see Michael Keaton up on screen fighting for his career in 2014.  Although Mr. Keaton certainly drew upon his own experiences, his Riggan is a fictional character very different from the real person, profiled here in a recent New York Times story.

His best scenes are opposite the many fantastic actors sharing the screen.  Chief among them is Edward Norton (also a one-time superhero in 2008's "Incredible Hulk").  Their scenes together are acting magic, especially since they are actually talking about acting.  Like Mr. Keaton, Mr. Norton is an outstanding talent who has been relatively out of sight lately.  After bursting on the scene in the late '90s, he's carefully chosen several memorable supporting roles including the last two Wes Anderson movies.  Speaking many of the movie's best lines, Mr. Norton is "Birdman's" explosive catalyst, and his gestures are so expressive and moving that I would have sat through a whole movie based on his character. 

"Birdman" covers many topics, from celebrity culture, to Hollywood's superhero obsession, all the way to second chances and redemption.  It's a big canvas, and not all the themes are fully explored.  The trouble with Michael Keaton the actor being similar to Riggan Thomson the character is that audiences will confuse the two, and read more into Riggan than what's actually there.  As a result, Riggan's character is not fully fleshed out.  For example, his ex-wife says that she can't remember why they got divorced.  And the audience really won't know either until an event is described.  Otherwise we only see glimpses and hints at the true character.  The filmmakers may want us to believe that he's simply crazy, but then it's never explained why.  Because clearly he was sane for the first half of his life - what set him off?   I was left wanting more, but that's often the problem with really good movies.  Like amazing dessert we all want a little more.

"Birdman" is one of the most technically perfect movies of the year.  Everything from the music, editing, production design, and cinematography are exceptional.  The film is assembled to appear like everything happens in one long continuous take.  The camera follows Riggan backstage, down narrow hallways, and even onto the streets of New York City.  It's a bold framework that succeeds in making the audience see Riggan's fractured world through his own eyes.  The cinematographer was Emmanuel Lubezki, who just won an Academy Award last year for his groundbreaking work on "Gravity."  Once again he employs a seamless technique that makes the overall movie rise about the ordinary.

Credit for envisioning this world and sculpting it together is co-writer and director Alejandro González Iñárritu.  Birdman is his fifth feature film, after storming out of the gates with Amores Perros in 2000, yet faltering recently with 2010's Biutiful.  His new film is a deep philosophical work with multiple surrealist flourishes to make it funny, entertaining and one of the year's best.

Rushmore Day - Bill Murray in "St. Vincent"

Fans of Bill Murray will be delighted with his new movie "St. Vincent" as it combines all the traits the actor has perfected over the last four decades.  In the title role of Vincent, he's a witty curmudgeon with a heart of gold.  He speaks his mind, lives by his own rules, and people love him.  Written and directed by first timer Theodore Melfi, "St. Vincent" is a funny, though not very original, independent movie.

Vincent lives alone in Brooklyn, content in his routine of drinking, smoking, and engaging in a weekly visit from a pregnant Russian dancer prostitute (Naomi Watts).  A decorated Vietnam veteran, Vincent doesn't work but lives off his reverse mortgage which is quickly running out.  When Maggie (Melissa McCarthy) and her young son Oliver move next door to Vincent, the young boy forms an unlikely bond with the cranky neighbor.

Vincent teaches Oliver how to fight, how to bet on horses, and introduces him to the term "lady of the night."  Little by little, layer by layer, Vincent reveals a sensitive character worthy of sainthood.  One of the movie's more touching moments occurs when Vincent visits his Alzheimer-suffering wife in a nursing home.  Vincent's true pain shows through, and Murray the actor shines brightest.

Is Vincent a bad influence, or is he the missing father figure?  Oliver and Vincent need each other, especially when they suffer a couple major setbacks.  "St. Vincent" works best when Vincent and Oliver cut loose, each teaching the other about life, laughter, and love.

The film does an excellent job showing the everyday struggles of working Americans.  Each character fights to just barely make it, and I really enjoyed seeing these fine actors embody these very real characters.  I especially appreciated the scenes set in familiar settings - yet updated to their post-recession reality.  For example, a daytime trip to Belmont Park is not a sunny day at the races, but a two-thirds empty depressing vision of gamblers and lowlifes.  Oliver's Catholic elementary school class is neither a cheap jab at religion, nor an optimistic "Boys Town," but a modern melting pot of multiple ethnicities and every faith imaginable.

If the story sounds predictable, and maybe even familiar, it is.  "St. Vincent" is not the freshest film this season, as it follows a formula of redemption for the unlikely saint.  Vincent's rough edges are never too sharp, and Bill Murray is just too likeable for anyone to hold grudges.

Still, it's a fun little film, and credit goes to Theodore Melfi for writing the story and bringing it to life.  His behind-the-scenes story of how he landed Bill Murray in the role is a priceless revelation told here.  A fun anecdote that all writer-directors should read.