“Ant-Man” Movie Review – A Family Story

Year: 2015

Director: Peyton Reed

Writer: Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, Adam McKay, Paul Rudd

Stars: Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Michael Douglas, Corey Stoll, Michael Peña,

               

With a warm heart, lots of funny moments and inventive action sequences that take full advantage of the weird superhero powers, “Ant-Man” is one of the more contained Marvel movies and easily one of the best MCU titles.

Granted, if “Ant-Man” was completed by Edgar Wright, it might have been a much more distinctive film, but it’s surprising how well it turned out after all the tribulations in production. The main characters are well rounded, although the villain (despite Corey Stoll doing a great job) could have been a bit better developed.

Still, Peyton Reed provided us with a solid story that although being quite wacky has the family theme in its core, particularly the relationship between fathers and daughters, and sons. Most importantly, the film consistently sticks to it. The screenwriters of “Ant-Man” are presenting us to complex characters with believable relationships. Even the standard setup of the hero, trying to win back the acceptance of his family, has some small twists and surprises. And Scott Lang’s daughter isn’t just a plot device, she actually has some of the coolest lines and was really adorable. The other daughter in the story, Hope, is probably the best female character Marvel has introduced so far. Some actually think that she was the secret hero of the movie. She’s a strong character, arguably stronger than Scott, but also complex and emotional. And in contrast to Black Widow – not sexualized. So, needless to say, Evangeline Lilly’s performance was completely befitting.

A pleasant surprise is the big presence of Michael Douglas’ character in the movie and it’s visible that he put passion and effort in his portrayal of Dr. Hank Pym. He and Evangeline Lilly have great and sometimes emotional scenes together, which sufficiently help us understand their motivations, weaknesses and desires. Thus, the main focus of the movie is actually the importance of the relationship between parents and kids.

“Ant-man’’ is one of the funniest Marvel movies. A few jokes didn’t exactly work for me, but there are a few laugh-out-loud moments as well. Of course, Paul Rudd handles the comedy well and thankfully, he fills in the superhero shoes just as well. He clearly has enough charisma to be a leading man in the crazy Marvel Universe.

What I find to be the best utilized aspect of the film is the actual shrinking technology and the creative ways, in which it’s used to get the characters out of various situations. It is really something fresh that we haven’t seen and Marvel made it look really cool on the big screen. With great macro-photography with real ants shot for reference (they even had ant wrangler on set), the shrinking scenes can actually make you dizzy, putting you right there with Scott and the ants, where you can feel the epic scale of the surroundings. Speaking of ants, they manage to be rather adorable characters, too.

The macro-photography is a technique often used for bug documentaries and here it’s combined with motion capture, which inserts the actors into these magnified real-life environments. Of course, they use some CGI and there’s a wonderful sequence toward the end that delves deeper (literally) into the science behind the costume and represents some theories in Physics quite excitingly.  

The tie-ins to the other Marvel movies were also surprising, because they felt better explained and organic, unlike what we saw in “Avengers: Age of Ultron”. And the end-credit sequences were not just cool glimpses in the future, but actually provided some essential information.

The movie has 7,9 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478970/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

8,1 from users and 64 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/ant-man

95% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/antman/

“Ex Machina” Movie Review

Year: 2015

Director: Alex Garland

Writer: Alex Garland

Stars: Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac

Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is a young programmer working at a search giant (an obvious jab at Google), who is selected to spend a week at the private estate of the company’s CEO, Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac). When Caleb arrives, he finds out that Nathan has chosen him to participate in a special Turing Test to assess the human capabilities and level of self-awareness possessed by Nathan’s latest A.I. creation. The A.I. that Nathan created has the body of a beautiful female, called Ava (Alicia Vikander), who quickly еlicits Caleb’s sympathies. Not a completely originaly concept, but the plot isn’t the most important element of the film. It’s the ideas. “Ex Machina” is not an action-based, or filled with flashy effects, story. It’s a quieter, smarter science fiction, that’s best when the characters just talk to each other, discussing what is intelligence and humanity.

A first-time director, Alex Garland, has previously written the scripts for Danny Boyle’s “Sunshine” and “28 Days Later.” Besides a solid script, he gets really good performances out of his actors and manages to add tension and fluidity to the dialogue. After hearing a lot of praises on the look of the movie, I wasn’t particularly amazed. Actually, besides a few cooler shots in the beginning, it soon becomes pretty boring cinematically. The soundtrack isn’t particularly impressive either, but it’s sufficient.

“Ex Machina” isn’t something really new to the genre, but it’s fresh and thoughtful film among all the summer blockbusters. A big plus is that most of its science is based fundamentally on technologies that already exist. Thus, it’s warning us that huge corporations with great amounts of private information, acquired via social media and internet searches, are probably just as scary as having to deal with an android having a convincing human conversation. After all, the robot in “Ex Machina” can freely draw all the information for people from the web, especially having access to all of the search engine’s data.

In fact, the conversations in the first part of the movie, is what intrigues the most: how can the Turing test be optimized to truly prove an A.I., or even the “feelings” of a machine? And on the other side of that coin lies the question – what is it to be human, how intelligent is humanity itself, if it’s so dependent on its own weaknesses? Maybe we can’t even truly test A.I. if our senses and emotions are so easy to manipulate. Furthermore, we can see how flawed are actually the humans in the movie. Caleb is way too easily influenced by his emotions and from the very beginning, we can tell that Nathan is slightly off the rails. He’s actually the drunk creator, who had to, at least partially, sacrifice his own humanity to create a self-aware  intelligent being. There’s an interesting discussion between the characters about A.I. having sexuality, since it defines the evolution of all living things. It also justifies some of Nathan’s weirder traits, and some fan service in the film, characteristic of the B-movie sci-fi.

“Ex Machina“’s plot offers some delightful twists and turns. However, towards the end things become rather predictable and really not as exciting as they are in the first part, when the audience is still trying to figure out what’s going on. A rather enjoyable and intriguing watch, “Ex Machina” is not a waste of time, but it’s been really over-hyped, it’s nowhere close to a new classic, let alone the “Blade Runner” or “2001” of our time.

The movie has 8,1 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_2

7,9 from users and 78 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/ex-machina

91% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ex_machina/?search=ex%20m

Trailer:

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” Movie Review

Year: 2015

Director: Joss Whedon

Writer: Joss Whedon, Stan Lee & Jack Kirby (comic book)

Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany

One of the most anticipated films of 2015, “Avengers: Age of Ultron” has finally come to Europe and it lives up to the expectations, mostly. Although not perfect, and arguably not quite as good as the first one, it is not really a disappointment either. Overall, I really liked it, but I wish it was a bit more than a good comic book movie. And that’s only because I have faith in Joss Whedon, who’s capable of great things. But the fact is that “Avengers” is not just his movie, it’s a Marvel property before anything else. It still worked out very well, having in mind how many characters and plot elements Whedon had to juggle. The film also touches on some interesting themes, facilitated by Tony Stark’s ego and willingness to take any risk in order to ensure world peace.

Just like the first “Avengers” the best thing about the film is the interaction between the characters. That said, for me, some of these scenes didn’t work as well as others. The jokes are more than what you’d expect from the trailer and even Ultron has a dark sense of humor. Besides that humor, the most thrilling characters are possibly Ultron himself and Vision. Ultron was put together a bit too fast and I wish more of his motivations were clarified.  Still, he is one of the best Marvel villains, if not the best. Vision, although having even less screen time, is absolutely magnificent. I guess we owe that to a great performance from Paul Bettany and the fact that he wasn’t CGI-ed, but relied entirely on make-up. As for the main Avengers team, the focus this time is mainly on Hawkeye, Black Widow and Banner. I did find some of the revelations for Hawk Eye a bit stereotypical though. Unfortunately, with so much going on, you wind up wanting more from most of the heroes. The story and motivations of the twins seemed a bit forced into the overall arc, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s accent just takes the audience out of the movie. And his acting as a whole – I just couldn’t buy it. Both siblings could have been used better, but I found Scarlet Witch much more interesting than Quick Silver, who, essentially has two lines of dialogue.

I didn’t expect obvious product placement as well, but it was there. Then, there’s the “epic” moment when I was just thinking how all comic movies are just trying too hard to top each other. And although the movie is a bit darker and the stakes are higher, when some of the most dramatic moments happen, they aren’t really that effective, mostly because some characters aren’t so well developed. And although the threat to civilians is addressed, we only see the ones that are rescued. Besides, normal people get shot at with huge lasers and survive.

I don’t think that the visual effects were that spectacular as well, especially with the 3D. The big fighting sequences sometimes looked blurry or just kind of fake. I’m sure that in 2D will be much easier to tell what’s going on the screen. For comparison, in “Guardians of the Galaxy” the 3D was more efficiently used and looked better. The same goes for the effects. Probably, of all action scenes, the first is the best, especially considering that it is an intricately composed long tracking shot.

As all Marvel movies, “Avengers” also has to set up the following films and some of the scenes dedicated to this task aren’t very organic to the plot and feel just like thrown here and there. For example, there’s a rather irrelevant Thor scene that seems out of place. For the most part, the weaker parts are balanced out by the humor and character interactions. So, “Avengers: Age of Ultron” remains an enjoyable movie-going experience. I am also looking forward to the release of the director’s cut that will supposedly have an alternate ending and a lot more extra footage that could deliver on some of the lacking character development and motivations.

The movie has 8,4 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395427/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4

Still no results from users and 72 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/avengers-age-of-ultron

80% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avengers_age_of_ultron/

Trailer:

“Calvary” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: John Michael McDonagh

Writer: John Michael McDonagh

Stars: Brendan Gleeson, Chris O'Dowd, Kelly Reilly, Aidan Gillen, Dylan Moran, Isaach De Bankolé, M. Emmet Walsh, Marie-Josée Croze, Domhnall Gleeson, David Wilmot

“Calvary” is John Michael McDonagh’s second film after “The Guard” and also starring Brendon Gleeson, but this time as a priest. The story takes place in Ireland, after the child-abuse scandal, when the church is openly despised and mocked, accused of cynicism or simply seen as irrelevant in a time when corporations rule the country.

As a film about a priest, “Calvary” doesn’t come off as the typical movie about religion and it doesn’t feel preachy. As someone who’s not a fan of the church in any way, I didn’t feel like watching a religious film, it is simply a striking film about human relations, life and death, morality and stoicism. It explores fate as a path towards finding forgiveness and staying true to your ideals and mission.

Set in a world where there’s no justice for the guilty, “Calvary” looks at the sacrifice of the good. From the very beginning of the film, we hear the death threat against the priest that will drive the story: “There’s no point in killing a bad priest. But a good one… that would be a shock.” After this “confession” Father James (Brendon Gleeson) has one week to prepare himself and to make a decision whether to run away, to turn in the man who threatened him or to stay. During that time we’re trying to figure out who made the threat. However, it is not the typical whodunit story. “Calvary” consists mainly of various conversations with all the parishioners, which are cleverly written and include a surprising amount of dark humor.

Father James is a flawed man, but a good priest that genuinely tries to help and understand his “flock” without judging them. He is witty and sometimes unorthodox; has a humble home, but also a convertible car. He has his own troubled past and just as troubled daughter, which give him more depth. Father James doesn’t pretend to know all the answers and simply tries to give some sensible advice. He doesn’t mind discussing possible situations when killing could be justified or suggesting pornography as an outlet for frustration.

In contrast to James is Father Leary, who seems to be much more innocent and kind, but he’s naïve, ignorant and “has no integrity.” He has no experience and he didn’t make the mistakes James made in the past, thus being far less unprepared to be a good priest.

“Calvary” has a big ensemble cast with a lot of great performances, but Brendon Gleeson is definitely the heart of the film. His acting is grounded, but warm and poignant. He has no problems convincing us that he is this flawed, but ultimately good and stoic priest. And by the end of the story, after he talks to all these people, you learn a lot not only about the world around him, but about his own fears and virtues. With such great performances, no wonder the last act of the film is so hitting.

“Calvary” can be seen as a bit more “theatrical”, heightened movie, full with extraordinary, bigger-than-life characters. However, it is extremely well written, engaging and believable. The nature in the movie has this indifferent and overpowering presence, with the Knocknarea hill looking like a monolith, placed by the gods to remind us of the cruel randomness of the world. Similarly, the horrible sentence doesn’t seem to have any logic or sense of justice behind it: “I’m going to kill you, because you’re innocent.” What if Father James chooses to reach his limits to help his parishioners and become the innocent one to pay for the others? Is it possible for his virtues to endure? You have to see (and decide) for yourself.

The movie has 7,5 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234003/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

7,6 from users and 77 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/calvary

89% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/calvary_2013/?search=calva

Trailer:

“Wild Tales” ("Relatos Salvajes") Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: Damián Szifrón

Writer: Damián Szifrón

Stars: Ricardo Darín, Erica Rivas, Darío Grandinetti, María Marull, Leonardo Sbaraglia, Julieta Zylberberg, Oscar Martínez, Diego Gentile

“Wild Tales” is nothing short of amazing, simultaneously hilarious and dark thrill ride. Actually, the less you know about the film, the better it is. When I saw it with a friend, we knew absolutely nothing about it, besides the fact that it’s Oscar-nominated and “fun.” So, when we sat down in the cinema, we were absolutely surprised, electrified and by the end of the movie – thoroughly entertained. I didn’t even know that it consists of six different stories.

“Wild Tales” is a black comedy, filled with violence and action that will keep you at the edge of your seat. It effortlessly combines action and tension with the comedy; it does the same with with drama, romance and thriller. The introductory story even takes the type of situation that we would usually see in cartoons and excitingly ushers us headfirst into the crazy world of the movie.

Damián Szifrón, who has been directing and writing primarily for TV up to this point, takes full advantage of his experience with the short form. In fact, the film originally included a seventh tale called “Bonus Track” and the order of the stories was different. Remarkably, every unique story is enough fascinating and exciting by itself, but there are still common themes and style between all “tales.” With hot-headed characters that are driven in one way or another to their breaking point and often to a quite animalistic state, “Wild Tales” makes you question the inherent humanity of our species. In relation to that the movie has great opening credits, in which each actor is represented by the image of a wild animal. The director himself chose a fox, because he has red hair and his father had a fondness of the animal.

“Wild Tales” is considered an Argentine-Spanish production with the notable involvement of Pedro Almodovar as one of the producers. The movie looks great cinematically and also sounds great. Gustavo Alfredo Santaolalla, a two-time Oscar winner composed the soundtrack.

“Wild Tales” was among the Oscar nominated foreign-language films for 2014 and probably the most unexpected one, since it’s very fast-paced, filled with action and violence. It is also the seventh film from Argentina nominated for the award. The movie quickly became the most seen film in Argentina for 2014 and was shown in 275 cinemas throughout the country. Consequently, by the end of the it became the most seen film from Argentine of all-time. “Wild Tales” was also celebrated at the 2014 Cannes Film Festival, where it reportedly received a standing ovation for about 10 minutes. The film was also in the competition for the Palme d'Or at the Festival.

The movie has 8,2 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3011894/

8,9 from users and 77 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/wild-tales

95% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wild_tales

Trailer:

Classic Movies: “Akira”

From Wikipedia

Year: 1988

Director: Katsuhiro Otomo

Writer: Katsuhiro Otomo, Izo Hashimoto

Stars: Mitsuo Iwata, Nozomu Sasaki, Mami Koyama, Tessho Genda

“Akira” is a gritty dystopian sci-fi thriller that depicts the city of Neo-Tokyo in 2019, 31 years after World War III. The futuristic city is in chaos with violent riots on the streets and warring teenage gangs on motorcycles. The plot of the film focuses on the gang leader Kaneda and his younger friend Tetsuo. Accidentally they get involved with a dissident group, that’s trying to unveil a secret government project. The film is based on Katsuhiro Otomo's manga of the same name and explores mainly the first half of the story.

“Akira” is considered by many to be the first movie that brought Japanese animation to the attention of western audiences. It also showed Hollywood that animation can be efficiently used for gritty and adult topics. It is certainly one of the most influential films in the genres of animation and sci-fi at the least. And just a reminder: “Akira” isn’t a family film, it’s an R-rated feature with some graphic and disturbing scenes.

Since the manga of “Akira” is over 2000 pages long and the story is very complex, don’t expect to necessarily get all the answers by the end of the movie. “Akira” gives all the basics, but doesn’t hold your hand, saving you from big chunks of exposition and awkward scientific explanations by the characters. Even without clarifying everything, the movie manages to explore (at least partially) various ambitious themes, mainly focusing on the dichotomy destruction – creation, also evolution – dehumanization, politics, friendship etc. Here I must admit that after seeing “Akira” two times I’m still not completely confident in these conclusions. It’s such an electrifying ride and there’s so much going on, it may leave you wanting more and I’m sure there’s plenty to learn from the manga. Having in mind the dense and dynamic nature of the film, I was happy with the story. Although not completely rounded, it’s more than what most big sci-fi action movies will give you. There’s also an argument that the main heroes could benefit from some more character development and I could understand that – it would be nice, only if the film was longer, but I couldn’t say that they were underdeveloped either. While I was watching it I didn’t really need anything more. Sure, I would spend some more time with them, but not because I didn’t like them – on the contrary. I might just get the manga.

“Akira” exceeds in what very few films manage to do. It creates its own unique world that’s so vast, yet extremely dense: you can almost feel the weight of the buildings and hear the roar of bikes and angry protesters around every corner. It has an outstanding style achieved with 160 000 single images, which is 2/3 times more than usual. It also set another record for animated film by utilizing 327 colors, 50 of which were specifically manufactured for the movie. That’s due to the fact that most of “Akira” takes place at night, a setting which animators usually shun away from, because of increased color requirements. “Akira” is also one of the first Japanese films with the voices recorded before the animation. Unlike American productions, in Japan the animation is normally created first. All these innovations cost about ¥1.1 billion ($11 million) - a record for Japanese animated film at the time.

When movies create fictional worlds I often find that an entire animated universe is much more fascinating and convincing than bunch of CGI effects mixed with real images. The attention to detail, the stylistic quality of “Akira” is great example of how this can be achieved. If I have to make a comparison I’d say that the look of Neo Tokyo and its atmosphere is closest to that of “Blade Runner”, but still distinctive and maybe even more breathtaking (while I acknowledge the disadvantages of “real” movies). I can’t even start thinking about how the thousands of buildings and miniscule windows were painted by hand.

Much of the unique “Akira” feel is due to the soundtrack, too. With emphasis on drums and the use of big choir the music feels very tribal and visceral, but still futuristic. And it hasn’t aged in any way. The music is the sound of the city, its gangs and its desperate, enraged citizens, as well as its “mystical” secrets. At times it may sound a bit too “visible” for some, but Japanese film-makers don’t like hiding a great soundtrack as many western directors and composers often do. The use of silence is also integrated to a great effect in “Akira”.

Look out for the famous toys scene, the music for which is nice and simple at first glance, but also incredibly creepy and haunting. It wouldn’t be as legendary if it wasn’t for the great use of sound and silence. This composition can be just as unsettling as any of the classic horror soundtracks. And unbelievably Tsutomu Ohashi (under the pseudonym Shoji Yamashiro) wrote it before seeing a single scene or script for the movie. It was only partially edited to fit the scenes afterwards. In one fighting episode the vocals are structured as a sequence of gasps and it may sound absurd on paper, but it’s amazingly fitting and invigorating when you hear it in the scene. And this is just one of the things that you can find only in “Akira”, along with other jaw-dropping moments and particularly dream sequences. Even the movie poster itself is a cult image. Thus, “Akira” successfully demonstrates how animated films can surpass the live-action ones in creativity and rich cinematic techniques. Not accidentally, in 1999 Roger Ebert wrote an essay titled “Japanese animation unleashes the mind”.

P.S.       Watch it with subtitles! The English dub isn’t in any way better than the original, the characters don’t even sound like angry teenagers, but like kids from Disney movies and most importantly – it just doesn’t make sense, the story and the characters are fundamentally Japanese. On that note: Although being delayed for many years, Warner Bros’ live-action “Akira” remake unfortunately hasn’t been completely shut down. But let’s pray it does, because this PG-13 project with grown-up American cast set in Manhattan and helmed by an average director that hates the source material, would turn out very much like this:

The movie has 8,1 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094625/

87% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/akira/

Opening scene (sorry for the bits of French subs, but other clips and trailers I found reveal too much):

“The Theory Of Everything” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: James Marsh

Writer: Anthony McCarten (screenplay), Jane Hawking (book)

Stars: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Tom Prior

If you thought that “The theory of everything” will concentrate on the achievements of Stephen Hawking or the way the terrible sickness affected his mind and scientific approach, you will be highly disappointed. As many reviewers pointed out – it is, before anything else, a love story, which is not a bad thing in any way, but I would personally choose the science. Knowing that the movie is a more personal look at the story, based on the book “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen” by Hawking’s first wife Jane, I was still a bit surprised to see how much of it is focused on their relationship. Many parts of the film actually feel like her biopic rather than his, which could seem a bit manipulative and disappointing, but at least Felicity Jones’ brilliant performance made it intriguing and more watchable than expected. Still, did we really need so much of the Jonathan story, because the first five, ten minutes of their interaction was pretty much enough to show us where things are going?

Most people compare the film with the other Oscar contender “The imitation game” and although it also had problems and was quite conventional, I enjoyed it more as a cinematic experience. Because of the way the story in “The imitation game” is constructed, it had a bit more tension to it and felt more quickly paced. “The theory” seems like a much longer movie, although it’s just about 10 minutes longer. Its advantage seems to be the screenplay, which is a bit more subtle than the “Imitation game” one, that constantly reminded us how important is to embrace being weird.

Just as “The imitation game”, “The theory of everything” is not a game changer, except for the performances, it is quite by-the-numbers romantic drama with a few cute jokes. In the begging we witness the greatly worn out first date montage, where you just wait for the characters to quote the next poetry verse or scientific principle, while standing in front of beautiful backgrounds. It is also one of a few sequences in the movie that feel like a music video. The cinematography is just all over the place. The last “musical” sequence is probably the best example, although the idea behind it is cute. It is also the only scene with good music in it, although it’s not actually written for the movie, it’s a popular instrumental piece by The Cinematic Orchestra and it felt, at least for me, kind of cheap and inconsistent, even more as a video clip. However, I’m sure it plays out fine, if you haven’t heard it. The rest of the score is just horribly melodramatic, obviously manipulative and conventional to the point it makes you feel as if you’re watching at least 60-year-old romantic Hollywood drama. It goes up to eleven whenever something sad happens, in case you haven’t noticed and you don’t know how to react.

Besides that I can’t really say that the movie is bad, because it has good intentions and it’s after all, dedicated to one of the greatest scientists alive. There are a lot of enjoyable moments. For a person that cries a lot at movies, this just made me tear up a few times and mostly because of the performances, which are definitely worth it.

The best reason to see “The theory of everything” remains the acting. And not just for Eddie Redmayne, but for Felicity Jones that was just as amazing. In a way her performance is the emotional center of the film, because the physical restrictions of Hawking as portrayed by Redmayne, although absolutely greatly done, also reduce his expressiveness. However, what really saved the movie for me was a really small thing, that would make any film lover very happy. It’s the “Daisy, daisy” moment – if you have to, just google it.

The movie has 7,8 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980516/?ref_=nv_sr_1

7,4 from users and 72 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-theory-of-everything

79% on RottenTomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_theory_of_everything_2014

Trailer: