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

The Princess Diaries (2001)

Does anyone else remember how awesome this movie is? I definitely forgot. I'm sure I haven't seen it for at least ten years. However, while I was serving my eighteen month mission for the LDS church, I swear I thought of this movie once a week.

1. I saw a lot of miracles while I was in Japan. Cue Myra's "Miracles Happen." We'd be riding on our bikes and suddenly I'm jammin'. And foot popping.

2. I had a lot of Canadian friends on the mish. The whole secret to The Princess Diaries is that it's actually about Canada. Don't try and tell me that "Genovia" and "O Canada" don't sound EXACTLY THE SAME. We all know what "between France and Spain" means...

Anyway.

The Princess Diaries, based off Meg Cabot's novel of the same title, is about 15-year-old Mia Thermopolis (Anne Hathaway) who is just trying her best to stay invisible and pass the tenth grade. It's clear after five minutes that Mia is the ugly duckling, the awkward nobody, the gawky unpopular girl who throws up public speaking. She lives with her mom, Helen (Caroline Goodall) and Fat Louie the cat, and hangs out with slightly less unpopular and a little less ugly eccentric Lilly Moscovitz (Heather Matarazzo). Mia's got the hots for the jock, Josh Bryant (Erik von Detten), and he's all sharing saliva with cheerleader Lana Thomas (Mandy Moore) and then Lilly's brother Michael (Robert Schwartzman) has got the hots for Mia. This is high school, guys. Nevermind the fact that Anne Hathaway is 21-years-old when this was filmed. This drama shiz is still totally real. Fantasy macking it with your crush and all.

Anyway, Mia the invisible nobody gets thrown a fast one when her never-before-met perfect poise & posture grandma Clarisse Renaldi (Julie Andrews) shows up and drops the "you're-actually-a-princess" card of this made-up country called Genovia. At first Mia's like, "what??" then she's like, "shut up!" and then Queen Grandma's like, "I beg your pardon?" and the butler's like, "chill out majesty, in America it doesn't always mean be quiet it could be wow, gee whiz, or golly wolly!" and then there's panic and then we found out that the future of Canada lies in Mia's hands. I mean Genovia. (A little extreme plot device, but we'll roll with it).

However, if Ugly Betty's gonna be a princess, then something has got to be done with that beast she's got growing on her head. Not to mention... every other thing about her body. It's like Mia doesn't even know what a hair brush is. Or tweezers. Novel invention that's been around for centuries, it's cool. "I love your eyebrows! We'll call them Frida and Kahlo. If Brooke Shields married Groucho Marx, their child would have your eyebrows!" They bring in the big guns and it's no wonder that the famed hair dresser Paolo's (Larry Miller) hair brush broke on her head... But after her shot on Extreme Makeover, Mia has transformed into super hot Anne Hathaway! PRINCESSED. We all knew this was coming.

Garry Marshall was also the director of Pretty Woman, Runaway Bride, and those weird Valentines Day/New Years Day whatever they're called movies. Anyway, this is Pretty Woman G-rated. But what could be just another lame movie to sit through with your 7-year-old, instead Princess Diaries is a delight. It's a clean and witty comedy - not only can your kid AND you enjoy this Disney flick, but you can enjoy it for the same reasons. Marshall doesn't try to make it something it's not with unnecessary innuendos that fly over kids' heads. It's a straight up fairy tale with straight up morals and straight up charm. It's a great movie for our daughters! Two great take home messages:

-There is responsibility in princess-dom! You little girls may dream big, but let's knock some sense into you - no one wants that kind of work and pressure! No one wants a media posse 24/7! Okay, maybe that's just the message that I took out of it. Food for thought, little girl. Grow up and be a lawyer.

-For reals, though. No matter what you look like, it's just important who you are and living that way with integrity. Be yo'self. Maturity comes when you stop thinking about "I" and "me" and what others think. You need to look outside of yourself and use your talents to help other people. Pretty good take home message, eh Canada? Genovia?

A terribly predictable and unoriginal story is brought to life by these skilled actors particularly newcomer (now Academy Award winner) little Anne Hathaway, the ever lovely Julie Andrews, and Hector Elizondo - the butler "you-can-call-me-Joe." (Let's talk about the alluded romance there, huh?) What the plot lacks in originality it makes up for in good acting, a clever script, and character chemistry. Throughout the film, Mia & her Queen-bee grandmother's relationship strengthens and they both learn lessons about family and responsibility. They take a day out on the town where Mia shows her the ropes and the rush that comes from arm wrestling arcade. Just a suggestion, Queen Elizabeth, if you're looking to get out...

Princess Diaries is pure early 2000s gold. Doc Martins, Mandy Moore and her backup singers, balloon art gold. Though without the nostalgia, I can't speak for you. 8/10

Twilight (2008)

This is totally a bandwagon endeavor.  But with all of the Breaking Dawn hype, I’ve decided that I need to get a move on the Twilight series.  Yeah, I read all of the books, I thought Twilight was super gripping and stuff until it blew up America.  And by America I mean the world.  Man, Stephanie Meyer is the worst best thing to have come out of my hood.

With that, I’m only just getting to watching the movies.  Word on the street is they still suck, but I don’t want to be that girl that never watches something only because it’s popular.  Even though I actually abhor everything to do with the Vampire/Werewolf/Human love triangle.  But hey, I’m a cinephile so I gots to watch ‘em all.

Catherine Hardwicke’s Twilight takes place in the dark, dreary town of Forks, Washington.  Our leading lady is the clumsy, supposed-to-be-not-that-pretty-but-is-actually-pretty-hot Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart).  Well, she would be hot if her face did something other than grimace or pout.  She’s the new girl in town straight out of Phoenix, Arizona (sans tan) here to live with her pops Charlie Swan, the local sheriff (Billy Burke).  Charlie is the only solid character of the bunch, he’s got a sound mind and is trying his hardest to be a good dad to his estranged daughter.

Bella starts at her new school mid-year.  What would predictably be a rocky beginning as the typical “new girl in town outcast” turns out to be a refreshingly smooth transition.  Bella eases her way into a group of nice (and normal) kids who gossip and joke and accept her as their friend.  Her long face is inexplicable, but apparently something isn’t right.  She eyes the strange and beautiful Cullen family with piqued interest as her friend Jessica (Anna Kendrick) gawks over Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), but encourages Bella to steer clear.  No one really talks to the Cullens.  They keep to themselves.

But apparently Bella can’t be content with a normal life.  She is mesmerized with the not so beautiful Edward Cullen.  She has never met anyone like him before.  The way he stares at her is so penetrating, as though he sees directly into her soul.  Lucky for both of them, she finds this more attractive than creepy.  Her fight to be different is grossly rewarded when her person of interest turns out to be a vampire, and she’s totally into it.

As I was watching this, I couldn’t help but think to myself, “Did I really like this book?”  Because I did.  It’s like literary cocaine, I read ’till all hours of the night and couldn’t curb my addiction.  But seriously, there was actually something appealing to this ridiculous vampire stuff?  Because sorry twi-hards, I am not digging it.

First of all, if you take out all the vampire/mystical stuff, it is nothing more than a formulaic teenage 
lust love story and a guy who has abstinence issues.  And WHAT is up with Kristen Stewart & Robert Pattinson?  They seem to have a really good time staring at each other, though Stewart always looks like she’s suffering from manic depression and Pattinson that he’s going to throw up.  Neither can act.  And Pattinson seemed to lose every feature that I found attractive when he played Cedric Diggory in the fourth Harry Potter film.

The dialogue is atrocious.  “You better hold on tight, spider monkey.”  A fourth grader could write a better screenplay.  The special effects are mediocre at best, though the film was produced on a very low budget.  And these vampires are nothing like the vampires of yesteryear.  Contrary to popular belief, daylight does not disintegrate our fanged friends, it only causes them to SPARKLE (another testament of high-school effects).

The relationship between Edward & Bella is, well, crazy.  Their romance blooms because Edward WANTS TO DRINK HER BLOOD.  He thinks she SMELLS good, much like my Subway sandwich smells good.  Who dates (and by date, I mean stare at) a guy that is attracted to her based on how good he thinks she would taste if he were to kill her?  But she’s cool with it, because he’s one of the good guys, a vampire vegetarian if you will.

I think what is really missing from the book is the depth to Bella’s character.  Kristen Stewart does not portray the complexities nor the inner turmoil that Bella suffers with in the book.  Though my opinion quickly changes in the Twilight sequels, Bella was a pretty good character in the first book.  She wasn’t perfect, and the average girl could relate to her and dream about having a similar fantastic romance.

Twilight will no doubt satisfy its rabid fans, and teenage girls across the world will always drool over Edward.  And if you’re one of those peeps, go knock yourself out.  But, if you appreciate something deeper, Twilight is missable.  3/10

A Place in the Sun (1951)

So that George Stevens is pretty cool, huh?

George Eastman (Montgomery Clift) lands a job at his rich uncle’s factory, perks excluded.  His humble beginnings spark a relationship with his fellow packaging buddy, Alice Tripp (Shelley Winters) in his “eff this” mindset against the taboo no-relationships-in-the-workplace policy.  Alice, or “Al”, is fixated with George, dazzled with his dashing good looks and personality (who wouldn’t be?)  Things get crazy when George meets the enchanting Angela (Elizabeth Taylor), a high-society beauty with rich friends and influence to boot.  Alice is all-but thrown out the window once the chemistry between George and Angela starts fizzling.  But Alice isn’t done with George.  Not even close.  She’s determined to win him back, and she’s got a pretty convincing argument after she ends up pregnant.  But George has other plans.  [don don don...]

This was not was I was expecting.  I expected some sweeping romance between Clift and Taylor, with lots of passionate kissing and emotional music and beautiful scenery.  While this isn’t entirely untrue, haunting romanticism and tragedy encompass the plot.  When Elizabeth Taylor died just a few months ago, this was the first movie I wanted to watch since I had never seen it before (and it’s another one I can check off the AFI top 100 list…)  Go even further back to when I discovered Montgomery Clift, my mom told me that I needed to see A Place in the Sun if I wanted to see one of the most beautiful on-screen couples ever.  Boy was she right.  Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift, two beautiful people with beautiful faces and beautiful bone structure, were meant to be together on screen.  I’d argue that this is one of Taylor’s most beautiful films.  She’s classy, refined, and elegant.  And Clift is, well, movie-star dreamy.  Don’t judge.  I am a girl, you know.  I won’t tell you whether or not I drooled at his on-screen presence.  I’ll leave that up to you to figure out.  All handsomeness aside, he’s fantastic in this role.  Just sayin.

The real hero here, however, is George Stevens (won an Oscar).  Somehow he manages to paint the movie on screen.  The cinematography (also won an Oscar) is magnificent and breath taking.  Every camera angle contributes to Stevens’ ideals and overall feel of the story line.  I also feel like Stevens has a remarkably sensitive approach to the subject which, by the end of the film, is pretty grim.  He allows us to connect with the characters and feel the angst and pain.  But he also reminds us of what it’s like to be in love, and that confused hormones aren’t just reserved for teenagers.

This is a remake of the 1931 film An American Tragedy.  Though I have not seen the original, it intrigued me that Stevens’ version features a different title. A Place in the Sun.  After I finished, the title seemed to take on an entirely new meaning.  It was poetic.  Sunshine and warmth in the midst of tragedy.  Finding solace in the heat of a new and exciting relationship and forgetting about the pressing problems of life.  On such a high, one wouldn’t believe how fast it could come crashing down.  But oh it does.

One must not forget Shelley Winters – she’s not easy to overlook with her plain features and feisty, whiny mannerisms.  You can relate to her insecurity concerning the L-Taylor and her bubbling hope that things will work out with George.  Her performance, though not as widely recognized for her lack of star-power, is a highlight and earned her an Oscar nom.

Haunting and tragic, A Place in the Sun is a beautiful film, albeit kind of difficult to watch by the end.  8/10

Jane Eyre (2011)

A favorite book is not shamed.  Ever since I overcame my Harry Potter movie phobia, I don’t walk into those films with a constant fear of disappointment.  But just the same, it’s been a while since I watched a movie adaptation of a dearly loved book with that edge of fear that your treasure would be thrashed.  I’m pleased to report that Jane Eyre not only didn’t disappoint, but it brought a smile to my face.

In case you are sadly unfamiliar with this classic tale, here’s what’s going down.  This adaptation opens with a young woman (Mia Wasikowska) frantically traipsing some beautiful countryside.  She’s alone, she’s wet, her face looks sad and hurt.  Her hair looks like it was once beautiful before being torn apart by the downpour.   She is taken in my a man and his sisters, a man who’s got muffin chops like nobody’s business (Jamie Bell).  Everything’s spinning, it’s very disorienting.  Who are these people?  Who’s the girl?  As they begin to question her, we are jumped backwards to a memory that obviously belongs to the woman.  She’s now a young girl, eight-years-old probably.

Pause.  As previously mentioned, I love Jane Eyre.  I’ve seen basically every other movie/mini-series ever made.  I read the book twice, and it’s one of my all-time favorites.  I know the story back to front. This was a bit of a different take.  I was trying to figure where in the story we were, where Rochester man was, and why it seemed like we completely skipped over the climax.  With this being only a two-hour version of a long and detailed book, this was a smart move and helped with us dive into the story without it seeming like a biography.  Which I guess it kind of is, but it doesn’t have that same feel starting in the middle.

Anyways, Jane Eyre had it rough growing up.  Hated by her aunt who took care of her, hated at her sadist boarding school where she lost her one and only childhood friend.  Then she lands a governess job at Thornfield Hall with the young French girl Adele.  Mrs. Danvers (Judi Dench) runs the coop but has a kind heart and accepts Jane.  Later, after Jane is nearly trampled by the mysterious, rude man on a horse, we find out that the mysterious man on the horse is Mr. Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender).  She is intrigued by the master of the house, and she becomes a pet of sorts.  Their relationship develops, and so do the mysteries surrounding him.

Jane Eyre is a combination of many genres.  It is definitely a romance.  It is also something of a spooky mystery – an element that is sometimes overshadowed by the romance, but the mystique is awesome.  It is also a drama, and even a tragedy (though not really).  What makes Jane Eyre special is, you know, Jane Eyre. The crossroads she reaches between integrity and happiness has always been moving, and it was not put to shame in this adaptation.  You can feel her pain.  Jane will always be one of the greatest literary heroines ever written and one of my greatest examples.  I can only hope that my own daughters can be as strong as she.

Mia Wasikowska was great.  I would have liked a little more fire in her personality, though she is still wonderful.  She had a great year and this is definitely her best performance to date. I love that she could emulate the intelligence, independence, and integrity that I admire so much in Jane.  Judi Dench, and Jamie Bell are also great secondary characters.  Who steals the show, however, is Michael Fassbender as that sexy SoB.  He so perfectly creates a character that you learn to love despite initial hatred. Mysterious and dark I couldn’t keep my eyes off him.

The film is also GORGEOUS.  From the get-go I was swept back in time, transported to a new world. There are a lot of castles, fields, gardens, and woods to capture the eye.  The landscape, combined with the music, help to create the perfect tone for this film.

I think my one complaint is that the two hours FEEL like two hours.  I mean, I’ve seen four hour mini-series of this, and this felt just as long.  I wasn’t complaining, I was loving every second of it.  But it did seem at least a half an hour longer than it actually was.  Which makes me think that they COULD have added more detail in that additional half hour that I ALREADY thought existed.  IMHO.  The constant back and forth in the first fifteen minutes was a little confusing as well.

I love that book, and I now love this movie.  Girls, get yourself a new role model.  Try Jane Eyre.  9/10

The Accidental Tourist (1988)

I really wanted to like this movie.  It’s got two of my favorite things in it: dogs and travel.  It also has a man who hardly cares for either.  I gave an involuntary shiver at him searching for American cuisine in foreign countries – I mean eating Burger King in PARIS?  Sinful.  That hurt me just a little bit.

Anyway, William Hurt stars as Macon Leary (what kind of a name is that anyway?) and he dispassionately writes travel guides for people who hate traveling.  A travesty, yet I guess someone’s gotta do it, so it should probably be Macon Leary.  We meet him at the beginning of the movie in an ICU gazing over his son’s dead body. He and his wife Sarah (Kathleen Turner) take it hard, but they’re having difficulty coming together over it.  So she leaves him.  And leaves the dog.  Macon falls down some stairs, screwing his mobility and goes to stay with his weird siblings.  They play funny games.  His editor, Julian (Bill Pullman) comes to see him sometimes.  He likes his sister.

Then he meets Muriel Pritchett (Geena Davis).  She’s kind of awesome, but also kind of eccentric and definitely quirky.  She’s talkative and forward, and knows a lot about dogs.  He hires her to help him train his own dog.  Then they fall in love, or whatever.  Then everything comes to a big wha-bam in Paris, of course.  The end.

Before you write me off completely, I emphasize that my low opinion has NOTHING to do with it being slow.  On the contrary, I love slow, quiet films (84 Charing Cross Road for example).  What I didn’t like had nothing to do with the story.  It’s like I could see, even almost taste, the beauty and potential of an emotional connection but I was just never truly moved.  The letdown was even more potent with that in mind.

I’ve always loved William Hurt, but the man disappointed me with this one.  It didn’t feel like a story of a hurt man who needs a little attention and lovin’ to make his way to recovery.  No, he was static, he was expressionless.  How could the fiery Muriel even dream of falling in love with him?  His personal journey seemed superficial at best.  He doesn’t even like his own dog…

Geena Davis, on the other hand, was great.  She manages to play the wacky woman with just enough umph yet still grounded in reality to make her likable and not overbearing.  She’s a realistic mother, looking after her son with great care and love.  She’s also realistic in her relationship with Macon.

I’ll admit, the writing is excellent.  Kasdan and Frank Galati know how to run things, and on paper it portrays the beauty that could not be captured on screen.  Something is missing.  I found myself searching for emotion, something that only Davis gave to me.  Okay scratch that, the other actors were also pretty solid (though I don’t care for Kathleen Turner too much), but I did love Macon’s crazy family surroundings and the family dynamic.  As well as Bill Pullman.

The Accidental Tourist was a disappointment.  I wouldn’t go so far as to give up on it forever, but it’d take a lot of will power to get myself to sit through Macon’s monotonous personality for an additional hour and a half.  4/10