Tag Archives: 2015;

The Imitation Game

Genre: Drama

Director: Morten Tyldum

Screenplay: Graham Moore, based on the book “Alan Turing: The Enigma” by Andrew Hodges

Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, Allen Leech, Matthew Beard, Charles Dance, Mark Strong

Running Length: 114 minutes

Synopsis: Famously leading a motley group of scholars, linguists, chess champions and intelligence officers, Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) was credited with cracking the so-called unbreakable codes of Germany’s World War II Enigma machine. An intense and haunting portrayal of a brilliant, complicated man, The Imitation Game follows a genius who under nail-biting pressure helped to shorten the war and, in turn, save thousands of lives.

Review: Although The Imitation Game is thematically similar to The Theory of Everything, it ranks as the better biopic. The Imitation Game is more willing to show the darker side of things, occasionally dips its toes into thriller category, and boasts equally strong lead performances, which makes it a better cinematic experience overall. While Eddie Redmayne astonishes with his physical transformation, Benedict Cumberbatch impresses with superior thespian skills.

Intertwining three periods in Turing’s life, The Imitation Game begins in 1952, with Alan Turing being investigated and arrested for “gross indecency” – as homosexuality was still illegal back in the 50s – and using the police interrogation as the launching point of a recounting of his exploits in World War II at Bletchley Park. Turing was instrumental in cracking the German Enigma machine, which helped decode German radio messages and led to an earlier conclusion of the War, but he sadly committed suicide at the young age of 41, one year after he was found guilty and chose chemical castration over prison time. There are also earlier flashbacks to the 1920s, when Turing was a schoolboy who is just discovering his sexuality and experiencing his first crush.

The decision to focus on just three periods in Turing’s life is an astute one. By going deep instead of going wide, Tyldum and Moore have managed to create a multidimensional portrait of Turing, aided of course by the superlative performance of Benedict Cumberbatch. Cumberbatch manages to capture the essence of Turing, from his complete social awkwardness to his laser-like focus on solving Enigma, from his brilliance to his isolation. It is a pitch-perfect performance, and firmly establishes Cumberbatch as one of the top talents in the industry.

Special mention must also go to Alex Lawther playing the younger Alan Turing, who also manages to capture the nuances required to realistically portray a conflicted teenager coming to terms with his love for a fellow schoolboy. Keira Knightley once again shows that she is best in unconventional roles and not as a wide-eyed ingénue, though she isn’t given that much to do in the film.

Opting to eschew the more technical aspects of how Enigma was solved, certain scenes in The Imitation Game do stretch plausibility somewhat, though they do add more excitement to what’s essentially a very academic activity. Solving Enigma takes place around the midpoint of the film, but it’s really what unfolds after that makes the film an engrossing one. In the end, Turing’s brilliance and his contributions to ending the war is undermined by a society that condemned his sexuality, resulting in a life that ended way before it should have. The Imitation Game does not shy away from the ugly truth, making it an engrossing if dark movie to watch.

Rating: * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

The Theory of Everything

Genre: Drama

Director: James Marsh

Screenplay: Anthony McCarten, based on the book “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen” by Jane Hawking

Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Charlie Cox, Emily Watson, Simon McBurney, David Thewlis, Maxine Peake

Running Length: 123 minutes

Synopsis: The Theory of Everything tells the story of one of the world’s greatest living minds, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne), and his marriage to Jane Hawking (Felicity Jones), and their eventual separation.

Review: There’s an inherent difficulty, presumably, when making a biopic of someone who is still alive, and in The Theory of Everything, this is exacerbated since it is about one of the most brilliant minds of our time. There is a reverence in James Marsh’s direction, a restraint in portraying the more negative aspects between Stephen Hawking’s marriage to his first wife, Jane, that makes the film feel detached and a little neutered. Fortunately, Eddie Redmayne’s performance is a spectacular one, so much so that it manages to make the flaws of the film a lot easier to bear.

The Theory of Everything is a well-made film – production values are good and the cast’s performances are all fine, but it all comes across as feeling very safe and conventional. Perhaps due to covering such an extended time period, there are only superficial looks into Hawking’s life and loves, providing as much insight into Hawking as skimming through his Wikipedia entry.

Eddie Redmayne’s portrayal of Hawking is a revelation, rising head and shoulders above the rather mediocre script. An actor with a relatively short CV, there’s nothing in his career prior to The Theory of Everything that suggested his acting capabilities being able to pull off something of this magnitude. And yet he does, not just in his ability to mimic the real Hawking, trapped in a wheelchair and his body contorted and ravaged by motor neurone disease, but in the scenes leading up to the disease becoming full-blown, where little movements suggest the eventual onset of the disease.

Redmayne completely disappears into character and it’s one of those physical transformations that Hollywood loves (in the Oscar wars, he seems to be shaping up to be the one to beat, despite an extremely stacked nominations list this year). When eventually Redmayne has to play the entirely incapacitated Hawking (who has also by then lost his ability to speak), he is essentially acting with just his eyes and is akin to Mathieu Amalric’s seminal performance  in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Felicity Jones put forth a spirited performance as Jane Hawking, but no one else really manages to come close to him.

Although the film is based on Jane Hawking’s second memoir about her life with Stephen, the speed at which the narrative goes through the years means that there’s actually very little meaningful conflict between the leads, resulting in a pretty flat narrative tone. This is particularly noticeable in the final reels, when Stephen and Jane’s marriage is on the rocks, because everyone still remains unyieldingly nice and civil towards each other. Treating the subject matter with kid gloves neuters it, rendering some of the scenes less powerful than they should have been. As it stands, while it’s a good, well-made biopic, it probably wouldn’t stand the test of time as being a definitive biopic of Stephen (or Jane) Hawking.

Rating: * * * (out of four stars)

Standard

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Genre: Drama, Comedy

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Screenplay: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Armando Bo

Cast: Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, Emma Stone, Amy Ryan, Zach Galiafianakis, Lindsay Duncan

Running Length: 120 minutes

Synopsis: Birdman is a black comedy that tells the story of an actor, Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton) – famous for portraying an iconic superhero – as he struggles to mount a Broadway play. In the days leading up to opening night, he battles his ego and attempts to recover his family, his career, and himself.

Review: If I had to pick just one word to describe Birdman, it would have to be “dazzling”. Not only is the film breathtaking in its technical achievements, it also happens to be an excellent ensemble film, with superlative performances coming from almost everyone in the cast, and boasts an entertaining plot to boot. This is one of the best cinematic experiences I have had in quite some time, and even this early into 2015, I would imagine it to be pretty difficult for any movie to trump Birdman for pole position for the rest of the year.

Although Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu has had a pretty impressive CV to date (his four previous feature films – Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel and Biutiful – have all received critical acclaim), they have uniformly been pretty serious, “downer” films. Birdman seems to be the first time the director is having fun, and the result is a film that is a joy to sit through from start to finish, and is so intricately layered that it would be wise to plan ahead and avoid any toilet breaks throughout the 2-hour running time.

It almost seems like an impossible task, but Inarritu, together with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (fresh off his Oscar win for Gravity last year), has managed to create an illusion of a film that is composed of a single, uninterrupted take. Yes, it is essentially a one trick pony, but when the trick is so visually impressive it’s hard to criticize the endeavour. The long and immaculately choreographed tracking shots are incredible to observe, and although not entirely seamless, is an exhilarating cinematic accomplishment. As expected, Lubezki has secured an Oscar nomination and I cannot see any more deserving winner this year.

Michael Keaton gives a career-best performance as Riggan Thompson, and because the role of Riggan Thompson seems to mirror Keaton’s real life career (Keaton walked away from the Batman franchise almost 20 years ago, after a successful two-movie run), the lines between make-believe and reality are blurred to the benefit of the film’s narrative. Equally on form is Edward Norton, perfectly cast as the equally talented and egotistic Mike Shiner, again seemingly lampooning Norton’s real-life method acting quirks. The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent, with special mention going to Emma Stone, who knocks it out of the park playing the damaged, fresh out of rehab daughter of Thompson (and sets the screen alight with the crackling chemistry between her and Norton in a few short, but key sequences).

In this era of tired sequels, endless remakes and big budget Hollywood blockbusters, gems like Birdman come few and far between. That it is both technically accomplished and still an eminently entertaining film is the cherry on top. It feels fresh despite treading familiar tropes, and much like its jazz soundtrack, is reminiscent of improv of the highest caliber. I cannot recommend this enough, and anyone who professes a love for cinema needs to watch Birdman at least once.

Rating: * * * * (out of four stars)

Standard

Into the Woods

Genre: Musical

Director: Rob Marshall

Screenplay: James Lapine, based on the musical by Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine

Cast: Anna Kendrick, Daniel Huttlestone, James Corden, Emily Blunt, Christine Baranski, Tammy Blanchard, Lucy Punch, Tracey Ullman, Lilla Crawford, Meryl Streep, Simon Ruddell Beale, Joanna Riding, Johnny Depp, Billy Magnussen, Mackenzie Mauzy, Annette Crosbie, Chris Pine, Richard Glover, Frances de la Tour

Running Length: 124 minutes

Synopsis: Into the Woods is a modern twist on the beloved Brothers Grimm fairy tales, intertwining the plots of a few choice stories and exploring the consequences of the characters’ wishes and quests. The musical follows the classic tales of Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Jack and the Beanstalk (Daniel Huttlestone), and Rapunzel (MacKenzie Mauzy)—all tied together by an original story involving a baker and his wife (James Corden & Emily Blunt), their wish to begin a family and their interaction with the witch (Meryl Streep) who has put a curse on them.

Review: Although it may seem like a kid-friendly movie – after all, it’s a mashup of Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, Cinderella and Rapunzel – Into the Woods is anything but. Adapted from Stephen Sondheim’s 1986 musical, there has been some modifications to the tale (unsurprising, given it’s Disney releasing the film and the story features a bunch of Disney Princesses), but the story is still a dark, albeit comical one. Rob Marshall has won acclaim previously for directing a stage-to-screen musical (Chicago), and although Into the Woods is perfectly serviceable as an adaptation, there’s no real wow factor in the transition, despite the star-studded cast.

Although I believe that Meryl Streep is likely to get her 19th Oscar nomination for her role as the witch (her singing is, surprisingly, quite decent), she’s not the focal point of the movie. And despite once again displaying her formidable talent in singing, neither is Anna Kendrick’s turn as Cinderella, which is honestly quite a bland, dispirited performance. It is Emily Blunt and James Corden who form the emotional centre of the film, and Blunt especially impresses, managing to steal the limelight from anyone sharing her scenes (yes, even Streep) and having a nice enough singing voice to complement her acting chops. Chris Pine also deserves a special mention for his extremely exuberant performance as Prince Charming.

This is Rob Marshall’s third movie musical, and yet the director still shows little flair in translating stage to screen. Although already more expansive than both Chicago and Nine’s stage-bound setpieces, Into the Woods still feels somewhat claustrophobic despite its woods settings, with little visual invention. That is, except the excellent “Agony” sequence, which sees Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen unabashedly hamming it up in what is essentially a medieval MTV. If more of Into the Woods was filmed in the same vein, it would definitely have stood out from the rest of the pack.

In other aspects, the film generally fares well. Art direction and production design (particularly the costumes) are well done, and most of the CG effects are acceptable, apart from the really lackluster work on the giantess. One could assume that Disney picked up on this adaption because it is a reimagining of its own Disney Princesses franchise (Snow White and Sleeping Beauty were however excluded from the film version, ostensibly because their appearance in the musical wasn’t the most family friendly, if you catch my drift), much like how it greenlit the live action Maleficent. However, while Maleficent is a far more imaginative work, Into the Woods is just a rudimentary adaptation that thankfully still manages to entertain.

Rating: * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard