Birdman, The Theory of Everything & Taken 3 – Richards Reckons Reviews

HAPPY 2015 TO YOU ALL, RECKONEES! Lovely to see you again. Did you have a nice new year’s? I like your hair, have you done anything new with it? It suits you, whatever it is.

Anywho, enough of this silly ego-rubbing. We’ve got films to be reviewing. First off, Birdman – or, if you want to be specific, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).

I won’t be specific though, just before it’s longer to type, even as an acronym.

Anyway, Birdman is a motion picture following Riggan Thomson (played by Michael “Batman” Keaton, see what they did there?), an actor who had massive commercial success with the Birdman series of films in which he played the titular character. However, this was 20 years ago and now, as he bemoans, “[he’s] just an answer to a trivial pursuit question!” – he gets vaguely recognised but isn’t working too much. So he decides to direct, write and star in a stage adaptation of Raymond Carver’s play What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. The film follows him and the people around him (including his daughter, played by Emma Stone, and his cast members including Edward Norton and Naomi Watts) for the few days leading up to the grand opening of the play, focussing on Riggan’s cracked psyche and how Birdman haunts him every single day of his life…

Birdman is not a straight forward movie to talk about (which, I know, sounds like a rubbish way to start off a review). In fact, it’s a movie that in some ways is an anti-movie, if you like; rather than constant cutting away during conversation or setpieces, as is movie law, the film is presented for the most part as if it is one long shot; never cutting away, like one fluid motion through a story. In that regard, technically speaking, Birdman is an absolute revelation. There are a couple of occasions in which, if you were feeling particularly nitpicky that day, you could notice points where they could have cut away, but for the most part there is no sign of technical trickery or anything like that; and in that regard, it’s a masterpiece.

The writing is fascinating. It’s a story about so many things, including but not limited to fame, the high/low culture divide, the nature of superhero movies, philosophical and poetic musings on life itself and the state of the actor. Yet Birdman never comes across as pretentious for exploring these areas as it has a dark comedic strain running through it like the jam of a filmic trifle. It’s strangely touching and scathing simultaneously; an example of this being Sam’s (a pale yet amazing Emma Stone’s) soliloquy about human beings trying to convince themselves that they matter when, truly, they don’t. In this same movie, Riggan also gets trapped in Times Square in just his unders. To say that it is a mixed bag would be an understatement, and it does feel as bizarre as it is dynamic, but it also gels together so well in this jazz drumming-scored exploration of Riggan’s broken mind. Michael Keaton is the best he has ever been in this role that is so parallel to his own life, and he uses it to great effect; both Riggan and his Birdman alter-ego could be his echo, and it’s played wonderfully well as he embraces the bizarreness of it all.

Birdman is a film that will rub a lot of people up the wrong way due to how weird and off key it is – indeed, when I saw it, a lot of people came out asking just what the F it was they had just seen. But that is, ultimately, what makes it glorious. The serious themes and reflection on our own culture and the condition of the entertainer, as well as the dark comedy light that it’s shown in (can you have dark light?), are things that I could write on and on and on about, but I’ll spare you. Suffice to say, director Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu will be heralded for a very long time and this film will be studied in the future, and for good reason too – it’s a modern masterpiece. A demented one, but one nonetheless.

Right then, now onto The Theory of Everything (the film, not my theory on everything – that’s something reserved for psychoanalysts).

The Theory of Everything is the expanded story of Simpsons character Stephen Hawking (HAHAHA, come on that’s a joke, I respect the guy enormously). It of course tells the story of the wonderful Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne in a transformational performance), the world famous scientist who studied at Cambridge in the 60’s, where he met the first love of his life in the form of Jane (Felicity Jones). The film follows their relationship as Stephen’s motor neurone disease causes his body to deteriorate, but also follows him as he defies all expectations and becomes one of the greatest scientists the world has ever known.

A spellbinding central performance by Eddie Redmayne is what causes this to transcend the boundaries of the usual biopic. His cheeky and near constantly optimistic characterisation of Hawking is the star at the centre of this movie, making you care about him pretty much one frame into the movie; this of course makes all the funny bits funnier, the inspiring bits more inspirational and the moving bits more, er, movinger. His portrayal of Stephen as a character as well as the intricacies of his examination of his illness is amazing and a true sign of the ascent of a future star.

Felicity Jones, too, is brilliant; making Jane not only a believable presence but also somebody we constantly root for and empathise with. The affect that Stephen’s illness has on her is also what this film is about, and we feel the tug on her heartstrings too as her life pretty much gets consumed by her brilliant husband. The script too is fantastic in going through Stephen’s life at a faster-than-expected rate, but not feeling rushed or like we are missing anything. Much like The Imitation Game, if you are looking for a science lesson from this then you will be disappointed as it does not really go into Stephen’s science too much; just the gravitas that it has and the reaction it causes in people.

It’s a wonderfully sweet and memorable film that caused me to get a lump in my throat (it wasn’t my adam’s apple, I checked) on quite a few occasions. The cinematography here too is wonderful, with beautiful Cambridgeshire shots illuminated by fireworks and lanterns, and the final shots of the film (as well as the heartbreaking final line) sticking with you for a long time afterwards. The Stephen Hawking biopic is just like the man himself; brilliant, moving and a surprising amount of fun.

Finally, it’s Taken 3 time.

Yes, we get to spend yet more quality time with Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) – the most mundanely named action hero in history. In this instalment of the franchise, ol’ Bry is back living in LA, with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) and his ex-wife Lenore (not to be confused with the detergent of the same name. Oh and played by Famke Jassen) living close by. Everything seems happy for a bit. But, all of a sudden, Bryan is framed for Lenore’s murder and is on the run from the police and, once again, is after (for some reason) some anonymous Russian people. So, er, obviously things aren’t so happy anymore…

In Taken, it was the daughter that was being taken.

In Taken 2, it was the ex-wife that was being taken.

In Taken 3, however, it’s the piss that is being taken…

Even by Taken standards, this film doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. People’s motivations, the “twists” that happen along the way, who random people are in the background who just come in to help from out of nowhere… it’s pretty much completely nonsensical. To make matters worse, it seems to be filmed by a person who has just consumed a barrel of red bull and is riding a skateboard while trying to film what is going on – a lot of it is incoherent, with the camera on numerous occasions actually just completely missing the action altogether. It’s edited by that same person too, who doesn’t seem to want to let more than two frames pass by that are the same – even the forced, “funny” conversational bits at the beginning are shot in this way, which makes them even more annoying than usual. Honestly, those bits are cringe mode activators – Liam Neeson straining a smile through the “what the bloody hell am I doing here?” look.

I’m fine with action films being fun and defying the laws of logic and physics by quite some margin, but the fact is that Taken 3 often commits the worst crime in action blockbuster – being boring. Bryan turns up somewhere, leaving it up to our imagination how he snuck in and out, does something relatively innocuous and then leaves. There are some beat em ups and driving and shooting but that is mainly it. Taken 3, even if you are a Taken fan, is really really quite rubbish.

The Imitation Game & The Rewrite – Richards Reckons Reviews

A Game and a Rewrite in today’s post. It reminds me of when I was doing my dissertation, but with a bit less crying and a bit more self respect. A bit.

Right, let’s kick off with a film that’s not actually out for another WHOLE MONTH! (I know, right?!). We’ve got Halloween and fireworks until you can see The Imitation Game, but heck, that won’t stop ya reading what Richards Reckons (please, please don’t let it stop you).

Unlike Monopoly, Hungry Hungry Hippos or any of that ilk, this game has a plot, based on real life; the film follows Alan Turing (Benedict “Cool-As-A-Cu” Cumberbatch), a skilled mathematician who, along with an array of intellectuals (sort of like a brainy, British Avengers), was recruited during World War II (don’t worry, you don’t have to see the first one to understand what’s going on) by the military and secret service to break the supposedly uncrackable enigma code being used by the Germans to relay information about attacks and other military intel. The film follows Turing throughout his life, including his difficult teenagehood, his difficulty with the other codebreakers, the creation of his machine “Christopher” and his hideous mistreatment by the government due to his homosexuality.

So before I get to anything else, know this; Cumberbatch’s performance is masterful. He captures and fully realises this character and all his strengths but also his flaws. He shows the callousness that the character can have at times, thinking with cold hearted, for-the-greater-good logic rather than his heart (don’t worry, it’s in a different way than Sherlock); but also handles the emotive side of him being an utterly broken man very sensitively without being too over the top – conveying his feelings in just a look or an intake of breath. Similarly, Alex Lawther deserves a special mention for his performance as the young Turing, who also has to deal with a fair share of grief too; the control over his mannerisms in relation to Benedict’s performance is also fantastic, making you feel like you’ve really gone in a time machine to see his youth rather than it being a separate actor. The rest of the cast is also wonderful, with standout moments from Mark Strong, Charles “May I Have This” Dance, and Kiera Knightley in particular as Joan Clarke, a woman who Turing grows an intellectual affinity with who has to also combat the sexism at the time.

If you’re expecting a full codebreaking lesson from this film (I’m not sure why you would but each to their own), I’m afraid you may be a bit disappointed. Quite how Turing’s machine works and the intricacies of what it does is never explained in great detail, but it doesn’t matter really; the film instead focusses on the possible consequences and the magnitude of the work they are doing rather than the actual work doing on. Something that is apparent though is Turing’s love for the machine who he names Christopher (never has a man loved a machine more; it’s like a more moving Tony Stark and JARVIS, or more socially acceptable me and Wall-E). His love for the machine is an emblem for the love for his work; and it’s his work that could win the war.

Compared to other films that have a very heavy amount of secrecy and espionage (cough Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy cough), The Imitation Game actually deals with who is keeping what from who quite well, keeping it coherent for the audience at all times. The narrative too is also very clear on the whole, though in parts the jumping around in his timeline can seem confusing. The dialogue too is smooth, engrossing and at times poignant, and not as dense as it perhaps could be; meaning the characters are easier to connect with, although there are some quite unexpected emotional moments that seem to come out of nowhere, in particular between Alan and Joan (is it bad I keep typing “Alan and Lynne” out of habit?); though it’s better than this way than being predictable. It’s also a surprisingly funny film too, especially observing Alan’s almost autistic reactions to the world around him and how people communicate with one another.

The Imitation Game is very clear Oscar bait (a true story wartime period drama can scream Oscar), but that doesn’t make the film any less moving, compelling or wonderfully performed. Director Morten Tyldun has put together a very impressive and moving film that in other hands could be cold or dense. I have read some controversy that the film tries to steer away from Turing’s homosexuality, but I think this is a bit poppycock; it does not paper over it in any way, and the emotional punches to do with his mistreatment as a result of his sexuality feel just rancid and heartbreaking. You’ll be so pleased that the story of this man who not only was one of the fathers of modern technology but was also horribly mistreated by the country he saved has been finally told, and with such gravitas and respect too.

Right then, time I think for a Rewrite. Or, rather, THE Rewrite, starring England’s own Hugh Grant. Here he is, being Hugh Grant.

The Rewrite was written and then probably rewritten with a plot, the plot being this; Keith Michaels (Hugh Grant) was once an academy award winning screenwriter, but has of late not found a great amount of luck nor money in the hills of Hollywood. His agent suggests teaching screenwriting at a small university in Binghamton University (apparently a real place and not in any way affiliated with Matt Bellamy’s son); due to his lack of money and lack of literally anything going on in his life, he agrees, but it’s not as much of a cakewalk as he thinks it’s going to be…

As you may expect, this film doesn’t contain Hugh Grant doing anything new whatsoever really; it’s Hugh Grant being Hugh Grant, but a bit older. It’s very clear that this film is written specifically with him in mind in the title role; it’s written and directed by Marc Lawrence, who has never directed a film without Hugh Grant in it (it’s true, check it out), so it’s safe to assume that rather than the actor fits the mould for the character, the character fits the mould for the actor. Now, if you like Hugh Grant’s normal shtick of being a charming-but-aloof-and-quite-grating British man then there’s no reason for you to object to this; but it would be nice for him to do something that maybe wasn’t quite so… Hugh Grant (‘Hugh’ and ‘Grant’ don’t look like words anymore, do they?).

Keith, while also being very Hugh Grant-y, can be a bit of a dick at times, complaining about female empowerment and there being too many “kick ass girls” in Hollywood, and exploiting his students for his own gain; such as judging them purely on what they look like rather than their talents when it comes to class admission, treating them like mail order gawk objects. But this is swept under the rug somewhat as he is showered with praise regarding his most well known film that seemingly everybody loves (is there such thing as a film that EVERYBODY loves?!); it’s mentioned so often you start to groan every time it comes up (which it does, A LOT).

Some of the characters on the side (such as the students) would be instantly forgotten as caricatures of one joke if they weren’t so well performed, with one character’s last name being Bai only to serve as a “go either way!” punchline. Annie Q puts in a great Aubrey Plaza-flavoured deadpan cynic performance, and Andrew Keenan-Bolger also adds a degree of vulnerability to a role centered around a guy being obsessive about Star Wars. However, there is a criminal underuse of the wonderful J.K. Simmons, playing a surprisingly meek authority figure who gets emotional about his family almost constantly. In terms of performances, I would say this movie’s strongest point is Marisa Tomei as Holly; an older student who works almost constantly while studying and raising her kids. She adds a degree of quirkiness and enthusiasm to an admittedly underwritten role; coating it in kooky chocolate like a digestive biscuit (sorry, I’m hungry again).

It’s quite a patchy affair that has charm in some areas but drags and feels very forced in others, and there aren’t that many laughs either. I particularly enjoyed the way that it progressed with the story alongside the students’ scripts, but their creativity is kind of shunted aside for more Hugh Grant flavoured romance which ultimately doesn’t amount to anything. Plenty of people find it likeable, and while I didn’t find it perhaps as charming as others did, it’s not offensive in any way; just don’t expect too much from it…