The Theory of Everything (2014)

So how well do two biopics about famous British intellects hold well in the same season? Well, as the Oscars have come and gone it seems Eddie Redmayne bested Benedict Cumberbatch for the best actor race, though the "The Imitation Game" was a more satisfying movie. "The Theory of Everything," nevertheless, tells a compelling story of man versus disease and the brilliant performance of Redmayne makes it worth every penny (even if the movie fails to live up to its own title and explore deep into theories on the universe or to portray a satisfying romance).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is a one-trick movie, but Eddie Redmayne is certainly the main reason it's worth the time. Redmayne tackles the daunting task of playing Stephen Hawking - a brilliant physicist with Lou Gehrig's disease - with care and precision. It's not easy to play a man with such a limiting physical condition and he seems to not only struggle under the physical limitations but also think and feel as though he were so limited. This is particularly manifest in his astounding and flawless depiction of the degeneration of the disease despite the film not being shot chronologically. His twinkling eyes, however, never falter to show his youthful, intelligent spirit in search of answers about the universe.

Redmayne's performance is reminiscent of Daniel Day Lewis in his famed portrayal of a man with cerebral palsy in "My Left Foot" (1989). This performance, which won Lewis his first Oscar, was only the beginning of an impressive career and there is no doubt that Redmayne's resumé will soon include other noteworthy performances. I am not venturing to say that Redmayne is the next Daniel Day Lewis, but I am anxious to see what comes next in his career.

"The Theory of Everything" shines because of his performance, but there is something dissatisfying about the film primarily focusing on the romance between Hawking and Jane Wilde (gracefully, quietly played by Felicity Jones). It should be noted that the screenplay is based off Wilde's memoirs "Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen" and not Hawking's own book "A Brief History of Time." That makes this a historical romance rather than a philosophical exploration of cosmology. This isn't a bait and switch situation, the trailers clearly marketed it to be such a film. Though his scientific work is much more inspiring than their disheartening romance, the film takes us through their relationship - spanning from their college years, to their marriage, to the birth of their three children, and to their eventual separation. It certainly wasn't a love story to sweep you off your feet or make you feel confident in romance. None of this is inherently bad - the film's honest and poignant take on Jane and Stephen's struggling marriage is as refreshing as it is exhausting. But perhaps I was hoping for a different film.

Hawking's scientific theories are groundbreaking and revolutionary. Though director James Marsh addresses the ideas of black holes, science vs. religion, and quantum mechanics, these themes are only touched upon at surface level. Limited to the romance formula that it subscribes to, it dares not explore beyond the top layer or tap into these theories that significantly impact the human existence. With spiraling camerawork up staircases or following the milk swirl in the coffee, the film teases at dappling into deeper questioning of infinity and space. Though it is possible to convey science for the layman, the film fails to reach its full potential to edify, inspire or provoke critical thinking by sticking to a more conventional story. We catch a glimpse of who Stephen Hawking was, but don't get the full story behind his fame.

"The Theory of Everything" is still an emotional, sophisticated, well-balanced film. The supporting cast was well-chosen, including David Thewlis, Charlie Cox, and Maxine Peake. The lovely Felicity Jones especially stands out with her graceful, yet intense portrayal of a conflicted wife. The cinematography and music also brilliantly come together to cultivate Hawking's quest for a  “simple unifying equation that explains everything in the universe.” So while the movie may not have moved me as a whole, there are elements that did, especially Redmayne. It's a performance piece that, by winning its acting awards, accomplished what it set out to do. However, it is far more preoccupied with its performances than it is with telling a compelling story. 6/10

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Okay guys.  I’ll relent.  Prisoner of Azkaban is a really good movie and one of the best Potters.

#3 picks up where Chamber of Secrets let out, after another awful summer with Harry’s worst aunt and uncle (Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw – I don’t think I’ve mentioned yet how freaking perfect they are as those snobs.  So, take note of that).  Things in the wizarding world are a little hectic with You-Know-Who supporter slash mass murderer named Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) on the loose, having recently broken out of the high security Wizard Prison Azkaban.  Word on the street is he’s out for Harry’s head on a platter.  Annnnd that he’s responsible for selling James and Lily to Voldemort in the first place.  Creepy, cloaked, Dark-Rider resembling, soul-sucking prison guards patrol the school grounds on the lookout, though they do far from comfort.  Harry’s cocky teenage swagger significantly falters around the Dementors as they embody his haunting past and cause him to relive his worst memories.

See ya, Chris Columbus, it was nice knowing you.  Welcome Alfonso Cuarón… director of Y Tu Mama Tambien?  Wait, wait, did I hear that right?  Pretty sure that’s as far from kid friendly as you can get so how Cuarón got roped into a Harry Potter movie I have no idea.  But man does he do wonders to the atmosphere.  From the get-go things take on a much more dramatic feel.  Gone are the squeaky voices, gone is the upbeat twinkle music.  The castle’s gotten a major make over, hogs heads are directing wizard public transportation, and most importantly – teenagers can be teenagers (thank you for letting them wear normal clothes when they’re not in class… they ARE normal people).  The moment they enter Hogwarts, Harry and his buddies are joking in the common room with much less staged-dialogue.  True, our kid actors have grown in their talent and depth, but they also seem less restricted under Cuarón’s reign.

This may be my favorite of the books.  And that’s saying a lot.  It’s different from all the others, doing without an appearance from our big bad boy Voldemort.  Best of all, it introduces two of the BEST characters in the entire franchise.  Remus Lupin (David Thewlis) and Sirius Black himself.  Lupin is Harry and the gang’s new (and improved) Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher.  Not only does he know how to teach a boss lesson, he becomes a true friend and confidant to Harry.  The scenes with the two of them are precious gems of emotional exchanges.  He’s the brother/father/cool uncle that Harry has never had.  He treats him like an adult, he guides him, he helps him battle his fears.  David Thewlis plays the role so subtly, so easily.  If anything, he makes the movie worth it – as well as to see their relationship develop.  Gary Oldman is just a mastermind – playing the crazy convict like, well, a crazy convict.  Another great addition is Emma Thompson as the Divination teacher, Professor Trelawney.  Her prediction frenzy and paranoia clash excellently with brainy Hermione (Emma Watson) – who is popping in and out of classes more randomly than popcorn.  But seriously, all of these awesome British actors – even for such a small role they show up (Julie Christie even!)  Michael Gambon also joins the cast to replace the beloved Richard Harris as Dumbledore.  I appreciate that he doesn’t try to be cookie cutter Harris, but his edgier take isn’t exactly what I was looking for either.  He improves in later movies, but in this one he’s a little too forceful.

Unfortunately I do have a rather large gripe with an otherwise magnificent film.  It essentially skips over the entire back story between James Potter, Lupin, Sirius, and Peter Pettrigrew (Timothy Spall) – a small but important character.  Granted, this is a selfish and possibly immature opinion, but I just loveitsomuch.  It’s hard to let go.  The entire climax pre time-turner mischief felt rushed, and that’s unfortunate.  I love back stories, I love origins, I love mystery-unfolding (I may have mentioned this before…) and when something is that dear to you, I can’t just accept that absence.  Plus, more Gary Oldman screen time is NEVER a bad thing.

Two other things I will hate on is that ATROCIOUS CGI werewolf.  Serious dislike.  Second, I do not like that Malfoy (Tom Felton) is being made out to be a clumsy, screaming scaredy cat.  I mean, I enjoyed Hermione’s excellent upper cut to his jaw as much as anyone else, but his character was never that immature in the book.  Malfoy’s more than just Harry’s enemy.  He’s a conniving snake, he’s borderline evil.  It discredits his later role.  But whatever.

Not only has the atmosphere been altered to better suit growing teenagers and adults, the cinematography too adds to the maturing themes.  It’s dark, and shadowy, but also beautiful.  Every shot of countryside or castle is breathtaking and a feast for the eyes.  It’s like a painting.  Everything’s more artsy, more quirky.  Even if you didn’t like Harry Potter, it stands alone as a beautiful coming of age film.  It reminds me of how beautiful he adapted A Little Princess.  And the castle, though different from the first two films (irksome to my consistency elves) is new and improved.  And beautiful.  John Williams’ score is also different and moodier.  Harry’s flight on Buckbeak the Hippogriff accompanied by Williams’ music is… so thrilling.

Our regulars are still good. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson are better – Harry’s angrier and Ron has dramatically improved… Hermione’s just always good.  But Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman (oh, Alan Rickman), and Robbie Coltrane are top notch as usual.  Plus the aforementioned new additions.  Part of me wishes Cuarón could’ve stayed on (at LEAST through the fourth one…) but I can’t hate on David Yates’ work.  As long as I hold my tongue, I can appreciate the movie for its emotional character development and the overall imaginative beauty. 8/10