“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:

 

“The Grand Budapest Hotel”

As A Discussion About The Power Of Art

Year: 2014

Director: Wes Anderson

Writers: Stefan Zweig (inspired by his writings), Wes Anderson, Hugo Guinness

Stars: Ralph Fiennes, F. Murray Abraham, Mathieu Amalric, Tony Revolori, Adrien Brody, Jeff Goldblum, Jude Law, Edward Norton, Saoirse Ronan, Tilda Swinton

Great painters tell stories not only with their sheer talent and thematic sensibilities, but by creating their own unique color pallet, by meticulously composing everything in the scene and even picking the frames for the paintings. With masterful technique in composition, stunning colors, magical soundtracks and unforgettable faces, Wes Anderson does the same with his films.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” is the perfect example for that and while some consider Anderson’s film-making superficial, isn't it what the movie is all about – the “faint glimmers of civilization left in this barbaric slaughterhouse that was once known as humanity”? It’s about the “glimmers” that barely survive trapped between the beautiful, but surfacy colors of the hotel. It’s about Monsieur Gustave H., who’s trying to sustain the illusion of refined, cultured world with the use of immaculate speech (poetry is extremely important here), looks and, of course, lots of “L'air de Panache” that mask the darkest realities of the modern world, as well as his own flaws. A great example for this is the scene after the prison break when Monsieur Gustav shows his own prejudices, because there’s no “L'air de Panache” to hide his unpleasant smell – literally and metaphorically. And just like any painter trying to capture all the beauty and vibrancy of the world, even Wes Anderson has to step back and drain the screen of its colors when the heroes are finally confronted with the monstrous reality of the war in the last train scene. Sadly, that’s what the Reich wanted – a very white world.

This really reminded me of a song, so here it is. From another “flamboyant” man questioning some modern values.

With the use of colors (or none in the train scene), with the deliberate change of the aspect ratio according to the time period, with the transforming appearance of the hotel, even the contrast between the two paintings in the film, the director seems to emphasize on the fragility of culture, on the ever-changing understanding and significance of art, which sometimes loses the battle to make the world a better place. What art seemingly does is to mirror reality and to transform along with it - just with a little bit more colors and… “panache”.

And in a way Monsieur Gustav is the artist in the story – the extravagant dreamer that awakens the bright colors in the world of “The Grand Budapest” making it more like an art album than a history book. Most of the time he simply prefers to ignore the changing world - at one point he’s given a newspaper and completely dismisses the news of the war starting. When we are introduced to the author he also seems a bit detached from society - he talks about his loneliness, treating it like a disease. Because of that he needs to visit the hotel in attempt to find something that's missing from his world. And yet, as we can see in the most recent time period, he transcends the harsh realities of history, becoming a national treasure.

This shows that despite often having just decorative purposes, art has the power to help us survive. Although the inheritance of the old lady is split just as the war is shattering Europe into pieces, the drama is still focused on the stolen art. And while the war ushers the world into a new era - the old priceless masterpiece is replaced by a piece by the modern painter Schiele. It's quickly destroyed, probably because before the war Schiele was seen more as an art criminal, rather than a modern master.

However, the work's not actually a Schiele masterpiece - it's a painting by Rich Pellegrino, commissioned specifically for the movie. Wes Anderson wanted it to look like a painting by Schiele, just as he wanted "Boy with apple" to resemble Flemish mannerist painters from the XVI century. This one was commissioned to Michael Taylor. So, both paintings are in fact fakes that emulate a certain artistic aesthetic, just as the "The Grand Budapest Hotel" as a film immerses us into different historical periods, re-imagined with Anderson's distinctive paintbrush. Even the characters in the movie are “fake” in a way. They are not historical figures, but both the author and Monsieur Gustav are loosely based on Stefan Zweig, who had the reputation of passionate idealist. And while The Grand Budapest is still standing it will remind the world that no matter how “fake” and ethereal art is by its nature, it is necessary in order to make us human.

The movie has 8,1 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2278388/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

8,3 from users and 88 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-grand-budapest-hotel

92% on RottenTomatoes - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_grand_budapest_hotel/?search=the%20gra

Trailer:

Winter Story 2

Does the cold sometimes blur your mind?
Or maybe the warmth at home,  all the baking,
the fireplace leaking smoke out,
some cat fur floating around...

However, before all that you need to actually get there.
First you need to remember the way to your family
And buy a ticket for the dirty train ride.

Then you should assess how lonely you are for the holidays,
Especially in comparison to all the other people on the train
- It's a long ride.

At least outside it's colder.
But cleaner, definately.

And how cold is it at home?
How blurred will be the windows there?
I wish I could change it.
I hope they like my presents. And the cards.
And it won't be quiet.

It's not the windows actually.
There are ghosts outside.
They are playing in the puffy snow or fighting maybe.
Some of them are chasing after the train.
Some of them don't even notice it.
I don't know if they are happy fluffy ghosts or sad.
There's so much snow glued to them. 

Winter Stories 1

As it gets dark the colors sink gently into the ground.
Our minds are blurred, but the shadows sharp.

The sun beams are sent off by the icy stars and the glistening moon.

Sometimes our fingers shatter from the cold
- ringing red cubes dance on the frozen floor.
And the blacker the night,
the warmer your white breath.

10 Favorite Movies Of 2014 in GIFs

1. Nightcrawler

2. Whiplash

3. Frank

4. Calvary

5. Gone Girl

6. The Grand Budapest Hotel

7. Under The Skin

8. Boyhood

9. Force Majeure

10. The Tale Of Princess Kaguya 

“Whiplash” Movie Review

Year: 2014

Director: Damien Chazelle

Writer: Damien Chazelle

Stars: Miles Teller, J. K. Simmons, Paul Reiser, Melissa Benoist, Austin Stowell, Nate Lang

“Whiplash” follows the story of the young and promising jazz drummer Andrew (Miles Teller), who attends a prestigious music school and manages to get into the class of the most feared and respected professor - Fletcher (portrayed by J. K. Simmons), who easily becomes abusive when it comes to getting the best performances out of his students. Although Andrew is constantly tormented by Fletcher, they at least share the love for the music and throughout the film the two develop a kind of love-hate relationship that revolves around the pursuit of greatness and perfection.

“Whiplash” is pretty much straightforward and to the point, but here that approach is effective and electrifying. It might be hard to believe, but “Whiplash” is the first feature film by Damien Chazelle and it’s based on his own experience as a competitive drummer in high school. The movie was first realized as a successful short film that attracted investors for the production of the feature version.

As a result, we can observe the collision between two fascinating characters reaching for the limits of human abilities and willing to go as far as possible. It’s a dialogue about talent, determination, ambition and where do you draw the line between hard work and insanity, between true talent and mediocrity. “Whipwash” also greatly incorporates comedy and it has more tension and excitement than most thrillers and action movies, because of its immediacy and raw emotion. It achieves that with concise script, great editing and cinematography (including a lot of close-ups, especially of J.K. Simmons’ face) and two breathtaking performances. And while everybody is losing their minds over J.K. Simmons, can we talk about Miles Teller? He is just as amazing in his portrait of ambition, perseverance, struggle, at times desperation, even arrogance and physical pain. Still, J.K. Simmons is instantly magnetic, although at first it looks like he’s just building on R. Lee Ermey’s performance as Sgt. Hartman in “Full Metal Jacket”.

This film literally shows the blood and the sweat one must offer in order to achieve greatness.  And if you think about the plot, there’s a slightly unrealistic succession of events, especially towards the end of the movie, used to heighten the tension and drama. And although you know why it’s there by the end you are so entranced and drawn into this hectic, thrilling world that you go with it. I guess, because of that, although essentially realistic, the movie is also stylized, beautifully enhanced to immerse you in its world and the turmoil of the characters.

What I also like about “Whiplash” is that it doesn’t shy away from the arrogance of Andrew, often something very common among the great or just ambitious artists. So, there’s a tiny bit of “Amadeus” feel to it. Of course, there’s the “Black Swan” comparison and although definitely less fantastical and more straightforward, “Whiplash” describes just as well the struggles and obsessions of a young performer that happens to be in one of the most cutthroat arts.  

Also, there’s a hell lot of actual drumming (a big part of it performed by Teller himself) and I love it. I think that many directors would shy away from that, but Chazelle definitely made the best decision, because every second is absolutely enthralling and brings the audience closer to the drama and the characters. The ending of the movie is stunning and (for me) makes “Whipwash” one of the very best films this year.

The movie has 8,8 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582802/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

8,4 from users and 87 from critics on MetaCritic -  http://www.metacritic.com/movie/whiplash

95% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/whiplash_2014

Trailer (but the less you know the more exciting):

A small interview with Teller:

“Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)” Movie Review Or How To Become A Shakespearean Superhero

Year: 2014

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu

Writers: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Armando Bo

Stars: Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan

“Birdman” is essentially the story of a washed-up superhero movie star, who’s trying to find meaning in his life, torn between the allure of the Hollywood blockbusters he was once a part of and the pure artistic success he could find by making “real” art on Broadway. To what extend Michael Keaton plays himself is a matter of speculation, but casting the man who was the first famous live-action Batman back in 1989 (also an awesome Beetlejuice) was more than perfect. And not just because it’s “meta”: admittedly older than the average superhero, with no cape or mask and at some point only in his tighty whities, just like Bryan Cranston, Keaton relies only on his great acting skills and probably delivers the role of his career. But I suspect that we will get much more from him.

I must say that, despite Keaton (Riggan in the film) being the star, the movie actually feels like an ensemble piece with amazing performances from Emma Stone (his daughter Sam), Zach Galifianakis (his producer and friend Jake), Naomi Watts as the actress Lesley and Edward Norton as the genius on stage Mike. And probably because of that I often felt more interested in these supporting characters. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton particularly stood out for me, giving intense and emotional performances. Lesley’s desire to get on Broadway and Mike’s struggle to be himself in real life, rather than on stage, are even more touching than Riggan’s “virtue of ignorance” and vanity that allow him to often disregard his family and loved ones.

 And although not everyone wants to be an actor or a writer, everybody reaches that point when they ask themselves “what do I amount to?” So, it’s safe to say that film is rather relatable, but I personally wasn’t as stirred or touched as much as I was watching other movies in 2014. But I still don’t think the movie actually tries to get the Spielberg effect and make the audience sob in unison.

“Birdman” explores its themes with a lot of humour, unconventional camera work and even some fantastical imagery. The camera floats throughout the theater, interestingly, almost like a bird and bounces from one character to another. As a result in a very beautiful, almost dreamlike manner the camera movement, along with the seamless editing (digitally improved), colour pallet and the occasional winking at the audience (like cutting off the music, the changing location of the drummer) accentuate the amazing craft of movie-making and remind us of the very fact that we are in a film. That’s why I don’t think that the very cinematic “Birdman” simply sides with Broadway, while completely destroying summer blockbusters.

So, obviously, the most amazing thing about the movie is the cinematography and editing. It is really gorgeous and entertaining on purely visual level, if that makes sense. And no wonder – the film is handled by some of the best, also Oscar-winners: Emmanuel Lubezki (“Gravity”, “Children of men”, “The tree of life”, “Sleepy Hollow”) is the director of photography and the editing is managed by Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione ("Good Night, and Good Luck.", "Ocean's Eleven", "21 Grams").

The beautiful and fluid cinematography that makes the film look like it’s just one continuous shot takes you behind the Broadway scene and inside the world of the actors. And although it has its particular flavor in this movie, it must be noted that the one-take movie has been done some times before with projects like “Russian Ark” by Aleksandr Sokurov or “Silent House” by Gustavo Hernandez and there are also numerous movies with just a few takes like Gaspar Noe’s “Irreversible” (I give this example, because we also have the floating camera here). But most important is Hitchcock’s “Rope” from 1948 that also looks like one take (it was actually shot in 10 segments, but only because the film magazine for the camera is about 10 minutes long and must be replaced). And despite setting the film in just two rooms, Hitchcock basically achieved the same effect that “Birdman” has, but with no digital assistance.

Going back to the content - the humour in the film is really, really great. I actually didn’t know that the movie has a strong comedic side and was pleasantly surprised. The dialogue is intriguing and snappy; Michael Keaton and Edward Norton are explosive. Still, I have a few tiny, not really complaints… things I’ve noticed: There are a few monologues (the speech that Riggan gives to the critic and especially his daughter’s rant) that basically tell us in too many words things that we’ve already understood quite well from the movie. To me these sounded a little bit redundant and fake, despite the fact that the movie is quite fantastical. I just don’t like over-explaining in movies, but who knows – may be the idea of these scenes was to represent the classic stage monologue. Thus, the movie feels a little bit self-important at times, constantly trying to remind us how important and philosophical it is, especially with these “Tree of life”-type of images thrown in the editing. For example, I think that another movie from 2014 “Frank” deals with similar themes more subtly and laconically.

And while I’m comparing - there was one point in “Birdman” when I had the realization that it is very similar to “Back Swan”. If you saw it you know, which scene I’m talking about. However, “Birdman” had a delightful and surprising turn that proved me wrong. Still, there are many similarities with the theme of ambition and perfectionism, as well as the dream-like, hallucinogenic elements that the two films share.

What I really liked about “Birdman” is that it bashes quite a lot the superhero movies, while somewhat ironically turning its protagonist into a kind of superhero (because of his abilities, imagined or not, and… his looks towards the end). I can’t get into more details because - spoilers. This is also a bit of a spoiler: By the end of the film Riggan manages to achieve both the popularity as celebrity he once lost (via social media and viral videos) and the critical acclaim for his artistic work in the theater. And however you decide to interpret the very ending, I think it’s still going to be an appropriate conclusion to the story of a man on the edge of sanity, fighting for his work and for his right not to be forgotten.

The movie currently has 8,7 on IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2562232/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

8,0 from users and 89 from critics on MetaCritic - http://www.metacritic.com/movie/birdman-or-the-unexpected-virtue-of-ignorance

94% on RottenTomatoes -  http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/birdman_2014/

Trailer: