The Theory of Everything (2014)

Almost since the beginning of conscious thought, humans have looked up to the sky and asked themselves one question, what is the meaning of it all? Over time we as a species have come up with thousands of solutions and millions of answers, but none that have ever been concrete enough to convince even a majority that any one answer is true. Many great scientists in time have contributed their most valiant efforts in an attempt to find the answer, and their results, while not providing an overall answer brought us farther than we ever believed possible. Men like Einstein, Newton, and the latest great mind of our generation, Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking may have brought us even closer than he can even know, for Hawking has provided us with the best hope for a solution that we’ve ever had; he’s given us an almost sure bet, now we just have to figure out what it is. For now, all we really know is the one thing Hawking and so many others, scientists and non-scientists alike, are completely obsessed with, time. What exactly that means is unclear, but one thing is clear; if you can find the one equation that can allow us to completely understand time and how it works, we can figure out the one equation that explains our entire universe, or so goes the theory of everything.

Surprisingly, the film The Theory of Everything doesn’t go into great detail on Hawking’s scientific exploits although it does devote a satisfying portion of the film to it it’s certainly not about it. On the contrary, The Theory of Everything is a love story, and it’s as equally heart-warming as it is heart-breaking. When we’re introduced to Hawking, he’s a gangly, awkward, nerdy fellow, with a sheepish grin and a shy slump. I can’t explain why exactly but he’s immediately likable and even though he’s a bit strange I can fully understand the future Mrs. Hawking’s attraction. It’s clear that she’s immediately taken by him and you can only wonder what their life would have been like had tragedy not struck them both.

I would hope by now everyone knows of the infamous Lou Gehrig’s disease that has afflicted Stephen Hawking, so I won’t say spoilers here; the film doesn’t waste any time getting there and hints of his debilitating health are sprinkled in early and often. Here I have to take a moment and really commend Eddie Redmayne and the amazing job he does of bringing Stephen Hawking to life. It’s fascinating to watch as he goes through each progressive stage of the disease and its clear Redmayne really dedicated himself to learning exactly how the disease affects the human body. What he’s done here with his physical performance alone is incredible and he definitely deserves at least a nomination for best actor.

The real story (and mystery) is the relationship between Stephen and Jane Hawking, and this is what truly makes the story beautiful and tragic. Hawking learned of his disease at an early age, right after he and Jane began dating, and was told he had only two years to live (doctors, am I right?). Despite being told she was picking a losing battle, Jane swears to stay with Hawking and love him until the disease takes him from her. There’s only one problem, he doesn’t die in two years, or in ten, or in twenty. Stephen Hawking continues to live on and even though he can barely manage a few words a minute, he continues to contribute his brilliant theories to the world of science, as his brain is now his one and only thing he can still hold dear. Unfortunately, his brain is about the only thing that he can still properly use, and this makes life incredibly difficult for his loving wife.

Certainly, Jane Hawking is commendable for the challenge she willingly took upon herself and she tries (and to a point succeeds) her very best at creating a normal family with him, and she stays with him to the very end, fiercely if almost reluctantly loyal. However, the wear and tear of the disease affects not only her husband, and it is clear that she seems sad and depressed throughout most of the film. Still her faithfulness to her husband is admirable, even when she is faced with the grave temptation of her husband’s volunteer care-taker, the director of the church choir. Their chemistry together is obvious and it seems even Stephen Hawking can’t ignore it, but we can tell he understands, although it saddens him.

This is what makes the film so endearing though, studying Jane and Stephen’s relationship. They shouldn’t work for so many reasons and a lot of times they don’t, but when they do, it all makes sense in the most beautiful way. They have so many differences, Jane is a devoted Christian, Stephen doesn’t believe in God, however, we can tell that Jane respects his genius and in the same way, Stephen respects and is also amused by her faith. He can almost never admit it, but in a way I think he is almost jealous of how sure she is that her faith and her answer for life is right, something that a true scientist can never allow himself to have.

The ending of the film is one of the better resolutions I’ve seen; I won’t spoil it but it goes hand in hand with Hawking’s original theory on how time and the universe operates. This isn’t an incredibly detailed documentary film on Hawking’s life; rather it is a poetic overall synopsis of his life and his legacy, and it certainly does him justice. It’s good to see one of the more brilliant minds of our time get a biopic he deserves, even if Steve Jobs can’t seem to get one.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 8.75

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980516/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Nightcrawler (2014)

Nightcrawler is definitely one of the more interesting films out this year, and this is in large part thanks to Jake Gyllenhaal. Looking extra skinny here, (which is all the more impressive when you see how bulked up he got to film the upcoming movie, Southpaw, almost immediately after) Jake Gyllenhaal turns in one of his most impressive performances in a role that really challenges the likability factor of its main character.

That’s really the thing about Gyllenhaal’s character, too, he’s not supposed to be likeable, in fact he barely even seems human. In one scene he talks about “people” almost as if he isn’t one of them and mentions how much he despises them, and he treats others as a means to an end and nothing else. However, his disregard for others and human life in general is played in a most intriguing way. We get the sense that Louis (Gyllenhaal) is fragile, despite all of his conniving ways and we get to see the ugliness inside come out when things really don’t go his way.

More of a character study than anything else, Nightcrawler has a rather simple story, but that doesn’t make it any less engrossing. Louis begins the film clearly searching for his passion; he is almost chameleon-like in the way he approaches others and attempts to absorb every bit of knowledge they possess. He gleans the internet for information and effectively teaches himself anything he wishes to know. Before long, he discovers his passion, filming the gruesome on scene footage for the TV news.

Although he starts out as a real amateur, it’s fascinating watching him learn from others and effectively step over them to the top. His character is a user and once he’s done using people he tosses them to the side like garbage, but he does it with a unique style.

What really stands out in this film, though, is Gyllenhaal’s acting. He truly embodies this creep of a character and his mere actions and expressions inspired gasps throughout the audience at the theater I was in. If anything, I would recommend this film for his performance alone as it’s a real treat to watch him dive into the role.

The movie comes to a rather crazy conclusion and when it’s all said and done, the ending is perfect for this film, in my opinion. It may not wrap up quite like most movies, but I appreciated the climax and the way it blended with the overall tone of the film. If you’re looking for a fascinating story that provides a different feel than your average movie, you can’t go wrong with Nightcrawler, just don’t be surprised if you find yourself begrudgingly rooting for Louis, even when he’s being an awful person. Then again, that’s the fun of Nightcrawler.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 9

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872718/?ref_=nv_sr_1

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 (2014)

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 is the third movie in a franchise of movies based of off Suzanne Collins’ trilogy of the same name, but even though it is the third film in a “trilogy” it won’t be the last movie in this series. On the contrary, there will be a fourth film, the second movie based on the way-too-short-to-be-two-films-book Mockinjay, in which the Hunger Games saga finally reaches its conclusion. Lionsgate will not be the first studio to turn their YA adult novel-based franchise finale into a two-parter (that honor belongs to Harry Potter) and I’m sure it won’t be the last, but it should be.

I understand the appeal to the studio, why not make the last movie into two movies and make twice as much money? Of course, they don’t want to just appear to be sellouts, so they argue that it’s all in the interest of being as faithful as possible to the book; in the case of Harry Potter the last book is so huge, they just claimed they wanted to get it all on film, and maybe that was the case, but this just simply isn’t true with Mockingjay, which isn’t a long book by any stretch of the imagination. I can’t speak for Twilight, as I haven’t watched or read those, but I imagine it didn’t need a two-part finale either.

Now, some might not be bothered by this, the more of their favorite franchise the better, right? Here’s my problem with it, this technique completely wrecks the flow of the story and robs the series of momentum. Nowhere is this more apparent than with Mockingjay part 1. The Hunger Games series made a strong, bold start, but I wasn’t a huge fan of the first one; the camera work was shaky and awful and the effects looked cheap, but I could see there was promise. Then the franchise really hit a home run with Catching Fire; the cinematography was on point this time and the dark tone really set up the next movie well, only for all of its momentum to be wasted on a film where nothing happens.

Those of you have seen the film may think this is a harsh assessment, but really think about it, what truly happens in this film? Is any real progress made? Does Katniss develop at all? Does anyone really develop? The answer is not enough for this to feel like a complete movie and once again we’re left with half a story and a cliffhanger that wasn’t originally written as one. It’s not as bad as the ending of The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug (you’re really going to end before the dragon finally does something? Really?) it still leaves the audience feeling underwhelmed.

The real shame here is that the movie is actually pretty well done, and in terms of an adaptation it betters the book in every way, much the same way the previous two movies have; as such, those who have read the books will probably enjoy this one a lot more than those who haven’t. This exposes another problem with the two-part finale strategy; it leaves those who haven’t read the novels out to dry. How many people who haven’t read the books, but have enjoyed the first two films came out excited to watch the third movie, only to find that it’s mainly all set up for the next movie? For those who don’t know what happens in the finale that’s highly disappointing and it’s probably the reason for the overall lower enthusiasm for this film compared to the first two movies.

The good news is that there is another movie coming next year, and at the very least it seems fully “set up” now to be a good one. Let’s just hope that this finale actually delivers on its promise and feels like a complete story, because I’m growing tired of all of these extra parts in what used to be trilogies, and I don’t think I’m the only one.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 6.5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Dumb and Dumber To (2014)

There’s a new craze in Hollywood, spawning sequels, prequels and reboots like mad; it targets the young and old alike and it’s any Hollywood executive’s best friend, and that friend is a little thing called nostalgia. Nostalgia can be a great thing, when in its proper place, like watching an old Disney movie or reminiscing over family photos, but it has now become a tool for movie studios; one they use to trick people into seeing movies they normally wouldn’t watch (prime example: Ninja Turtles). While not all of this is bad (nostalgia is a great feeling after all, even if it’s being exploited) it seems apparent that it won’t be long before this fad is driven into the ground like sparkly vampires and other past trends. From this craze has come the latest in nostalgia trips, the Dumb and Dumber sequel, exactly two decades after the original.

The thing about this sequel is that it’s actually not half bad. It’s definitely not as fresh as the original, but the directors’ decision to keep close to the original spirit of the first film works for them more than against. One key difference is that Harry and Lloyd seem a lot meaner than I remember (and I just recently re-watched the original), sometimes this comes off as pretty harsh (especially some of the tricks they play on the poor blind kid), but I will admit that I personally enjoyed the morbid humor. However, some of the off color humor is a little too crude (at one point Harry and Lloyd yell at a poor young doctor to “show us your tits!”) I personally thought some of this humor crossed the line of likability and the characters walk a fine line throughout the film as well.

Of course, all of the dumb humor that people loved in the original is back in full force, and there is more than a few solid laughs in this film, most of them coming from Jim Carrey. Jeff Daniels does a decent job of reassuming his old role, but it’s Jim Carrey who really shines here; you can tell he’s positively hamming it up, and as an old fan it was nice to see him in a familiar role again (there’s that nostalgia working again).

The plot isn’t nearly as simple as the first movie, but it’s certainly not hard to follow and just as with the original it’s more about the relationship between Harry and Lloyd than anything. If you thought these two had learned from the last movie to think of anyone other than themselves, you’d be wrong; they’re just as selfish if not more so. Harry tries to track down his daughter he’s never met so he can swindle her out of a kidney; and Lloyd only agrees to go because once again he has an alarmingly creepy fantasy, this time involving Harry’s daughter.

For Dumb and Dumber fans, this sequel is definitely not a travesty (in my own humble opinion), rather it’s a solid tribute and when it’s bringing the laughs you manage to forget what horrible people Harry and Lloyd actually are. I wouldn’t recommend this movie to everyone, there’s quite a bit of awfully crude humor and if that’s not your style Dumb and Dumber To is not something you’re going to enjoy. However, if crude humor and dumb jokes are heavily amusing to you (as they are to me) this movie has plenty of laughs. Then again, that could just be the nostalgia talking, but for just this once, I’ll play along.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 7.5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2096672/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Interstellar (2014)

Interstellar may be the hardest movie of the year to review, and not for any one tangible reason. It’s hard to explain unless you’ve seen it, but there’s something about this epic tale; is it perfect? Not by a long shot, and I don’t think I would call it a masterpiece, but one can’t deny that it is one of the most epic cinematic journeys in years. The sheer effort that goes into this movie is astounding, and regardless of who says what about this film, you should definitely see this one in theaters, however, don’t expect the flawless work of art that many may have expected from Christopher Nolan’s latest non-Batman film; what you can expect, is a long, entertaining journey across the universe and back, one quite unlike anything you’ve ever seen.

At its core, Interstellar is really a very simple movie; humanity is dying and we have to find a way to save Earth… or leave it. Of course, Alfred… er, Michael Caine insists that the only way to save humankind is to find a new home, and of course Matthew McConaughey is the only man fit to do the job; that job being leaving Earth behind and finding a new planet for humanity to flee to. This sets up a rather heartbreaking scene where McConaughey is forced to leave his family behind, possibly forever; it’s moments like these where Interstellar is strong. The acting is superb (McConaughey’s drawl can be distracting sometimes, but it really fits the character in this movie I think) and the effects are all breathtaking, it’s in other areas where Interstellar falls short.

As this film is all about the existence of humanity, there is a lot of philosophical logic being thrown around at certain points; this is where things start to get ridiculous at times. The film seems to be grasping at something over its head, at one point Anne Hathaway talks about love as a quantifiable force (with a totally straight face) attempting to make a point about love perhaps being another dimension or part of evolution or something ridiculous; keep in mind this woman is a serious scientist (and I don’t think they brought any space weed so we can rule that out), or so we thought, so this all seems a bit ridiculous, especially because the film seems to validate that theory near the end.

While there’s certainly some shaky science in this film, there’s plenty of interesting theories being thrown around. At one point (probably one of the best moments of the film) the team lands on a planet near a black hole, which throws off time on the planet, meaning that every hour they stay there is seven years on Earth. There are several other breathtaking moments on the journey, like traveling through wormhole, or encountering waves taller than skyscrapers, and this is definitely the main attraction in this movie.

Towards the end of the film things really gets crazy and there’s a moment where you have to decide whether or not you’re going to accept the film’s logic as it leaves all realms of scientific reality. I don’t want to spoil it, but you will either hate it or love it, or perhaps you just won’t know what to think (like myself), however, I can’t deny the journey to get there is well worth it.

At its core, Interstellar is about humanity and when it focuses on this it strives; there’s some really great moments (like McConaughey telling his daughter that he can’t “be your ghost right now”) and we see both the good and bad that survival mode can bring out in humanity. Unfortunately, when the film reaches for broader, less concrete ideas, it can’t quite adequately explain or sell the idea, and it comes across as half-baked, at least it did for me. That doesn’t take away from epic journey that this film is, but it does prevent it from being the masterpiece that I was expecting.

 Even though it wasn’t another 2001: A Space Odyssey, it still manages to be highly entertaining and I was on the edge of my seat for most of the film, and while it may sound like I’m being mostly negative about it, that’s more of a reflection on how hyped up the film was; it’s still a terrific movie and I highly recommend it. Regardless, go see this film (and see it in actual film because that’s how Nolan would want it) because you may never see another spectacle like this for some time.

One last note: I liked certain parts of the score, but someone needs to tell Hans Zimmer that sometimes less is more. The music blared on for most of the movie, and there were times when I couldn’t even hear the lines because the score was so loud. I get it, this part’s supposed to be exciting and have suspenseful music and all that, but I’d really like to hear what the actors are saying too.

An additional final note: I don’t understand how any planet near a black hole is considered inhabitable; honestly, I’d rather die on Earth.

I promise this is the last last note: There's a lot of talk about gravity in this movie (talk that doesn't make any sense of course) maybe this film should have been titled Gravity instead.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 8.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/?ref_=nv_sr_1

John Wick (2014) Or, a defense of action films

I have to admit, when it comes to action films, I used to be a bit of a sucker. Anytime a movie came out, if it had a high body count, multiple massive explosions, and a plethora of bullets, I was definitely down; I mean, I was a fan of Transformers for crying out loud. As time went on, however, I began to see that these movies had no substance, and as someone who loved films and dreamed of writing them, I believed that I had to grow past my inclination to turn my brain off and enjoy these completely meaningless action flicks. Thus began my indie phase, where I strived to watch only meaningful movies, mostly ones that the average movie audience would never have heard of, possibly something by Jim Jarmusch or maybe Terrence Malick. The action movie was dead to me, and as Hollywood had seemingly become intent on churning and re-churning out crap such as G.I. Joe, I saw no reason to return to them.

Now, every now and then (especially with friends) I would cave and watch something purely about action, and of course I would act like I hated it, because it has no substance right? Fast Five is a ridiculous movie, do you really expect me to believe that two cars can drag a giant safe through a city like that? And please don’t even get me started on anything from Michael Bay. Of course, some action movies are just plain bad (the Bay-produced TMNT anyone?) but others (like the Fast and Furious franchise) were starting to get real acclaim, and I felt like that went against everything I had held dear as cinephile, a real, quality cinephile, or so I thought.

Then came a movie called the Raid. It remains one of the best action movies I’ve ever seen. What happens in it? One guy kicks entire building’s worth of ass. Not exactly full of substance; they attempt to add a whole he has a wife and kids thing, but it’s pretty forgettable. So why does this movie work? Why does the Fast and Furious franchise work? (I’ll admit, I’m pretty obsessed with Fast and Furious, always have been even when I tried to resist the urge, now I embrace it).

Let’s move on to John Wick. Keanu Reeve’s latest flick is another action movie that sets itself apart from the Michael Bay extravaganza that are most major Hollywood action films today and along with films like Fast Five, the Raid, Snowpiercer and others it has taught me to love action again. John Wick’s storyline isn’t complicated; a mobster’s dumb, spoiled brat of a son steals Wick’s car and brutally kills his puppy (his puppy damn him, and it was a last gift from his dead wife) so of course, John Wick (being an ex-hit man, the best one ever, by the way) decides to kill all of them. What this movie lacks for in substance, it more than makes up for in style. To focus on the script, plot and dialogue in a movie like this would be a mistake, that’s not what it’s made for. John Wick revels in the action and the choreography of that action. Wick looks extremely impressive when taking out baddies, and that’s mostly what this briskly-paced film is, John Wick taking out baddies, and you know what, that’s ok.

Unlike other Hollywood action films, which weigh the film down with infuriatingly irrelevant subplots, annoying sidekicks, and underwhelming final showdowns, John Wick and other movies like it have avoided these stereotypes and just dedicated the entire runtime to kicking ass. Of course it isn’t realistic (I’m pretty sure Wick should have been dead at least three separate times) but if it’s done just right, it’s awfully fun, like the equivalent of a thrill ride at an amusement park.

That’s what movies like the Fast and the Furious have done for the action movie genre, they’ve made it fun again. This franchise know it isn’t realistic in the slightest and it pushes the bar of realism with glee, just look at the latest trailer where Dom and the gang drop out of a plane in cars with parachutes, I’m sorry that’s just plain awesome, it is and there’s nothing wrong with admitting that. Honestly, some of the stunts they come up with in John Wick are just as creative as a great line in an indie film (and secretly more entertaining, don’t tell anyone I said that though).

In the end, that’s the ultimate conclusion I’ve had, and why I’ve fallen for action films all over again. Because there’s nothing wrong with simply enjoying a movie for the ride, and with films like John Wick, it’s all about the ride; so just sit back and enjoy a movie for two hours, I promise it won’t kill too many brain cells.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 8

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2911666/?ref_=nv_sr_1

The Equalizer (2014)

The Equalizer is yet another in a recent line of films where Denzel Washington embodies the saintly bad ass; other films such as The Book of Eli, Man on Fire, and Safe House, to name a few, have all starred the reliable action star in similar roles, but none of them have quite worshipped Denzel’s prowess the way this film does. Although all of those films mentioned previously are mostly about style over substance, The Equalizer embraces its style to a fault, to the point where all substance is completely overshadowed.

From the beginning, we can tell that Denzel’s character is a man that can do no wrong. He helps the overweight kid at his job lose weight and get fit for a security guard test, he’s beloved by all his co-workers and he reads books for crying out loud (of course it’s because his wife died, the wife always has to be dead doesn’t she?); but what we quickly find out is that not only can Denzel do no wrong, apparently he can just do whatever he wants, because he’s Denzel.

Several times Denzel encounters what seem to be insurmountable odds, and he just simply sets his watch (he times everything he does, from washing the dishes to killing several people at a time) and deals with them rather matter-of-factly. At first, I personally was content to go along with this, but I have my limits and I think I reached my limit right around the Denzel-walks-away-from-explosion-in-extreme-slow-motion scene, where any human in their right mind would quickly run to a safe distance (or at least set a decent timer), but not Denzel, he’s content to just slowly walk through the plumes of flame and smoke… and be totally fine.

What’s frustrating is that Denzel’s character initially seems to be rather unique and interesting; he’s a former secret agent or something like that, who has noticeable OCD. He’s constantly adjusting things on the table and making sure the binding of his book is lined up to the edge and stuff like that, and his obsessive timing could also be interesting, but in the last half of the film he turns into some saint who for unknown reasons must take it upon himself to kill all of the Russian mafia because they totally beat up this girl (prostitute) that he talked to occasionally at a diner. If this seems like shaky motivation for Denzel to release the beast (after mentioning that he promised his dying wife that he would never kill again) then I would have to agree with you. This weakness in the movie plagues the story, and serves to make the ending all the more ridiculous.

(SPOILERS) This is a movie with an end so ridiculous I just have to mention it. After taking out the main baddie sent to stop him here in America, Denzel is left bleeding and bruised (I had hope that maybe he would die a hero’s death, but alas not in this movie, Denzel is too good to die) one might think the movie would stop here, but of course it doesn’t. Realizing that simply killing the guys who work for the mafia isn’t good enough, Denzel decides he must “cut off the head of the snake.” That’s right, Denzel travels all the way to Moscow, tracks down the head of the RUSSIAN MAFIA, and then kills him using simple electronic household appliances (his use of gardening tools as weapons earlier in the film is impressive as well). He then walks out of this house (passing several corpses on the way, more of Denzel’s handiwork) and just flies back to America, his mission now complete. Now as ridiculous as this whole ending is, its made all the more ridiculous by the way the film acts as if the conflict is just suddenly resolved now. I can’t imagine Denzel just killed every Russian in Russia (although in this movie universe I’m sure he’s capable of it) so logic follows that someone will succeed the now deceases head of the Russian mafia, and I’m sure whoever that is will be looking for revenge. Then again, maybe they’re saving that for the sequel. (END SPOILERS)

The Equalizer could easily have been a passable action movie, or even a good one, something along the lines of Safe House or one of Denzel’s earlier efforts, but the movie is so obsessed with style and portraying Denzel as the ultimate bad ass with a conscience that it just becomes distracting. When the credits finally hit the screen (this movie is about twenty minutes too long) I was bewildered by what I’d just seen and not in a good way.  A tip for the next director who takes on a Denzel movie, give him at least one real fault, it makes the character a thousand times more interesting.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 6.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455944/