Taken 3 (2015)

Here we go again guys; Liam Neeson is back and once again he just can’t seem to keep tabs on his poor family’s whereabouts. After Taken 2, I thought for sure this “series” (it’s a trilogy now, imagine that) was dead and gone for sure; I mean, everyone had their turn being Taken (first the daughter, then the mom, and finally Neeson himself, everyone’s happy right?) not to mention the movie was one of the worst movies I’d ever seen. Apparently, I was wrong and the obvious, clear next step in the series was to make a Taken movie where no one actually gets Taken (brilliant, right? This was the actual pitch for the movie), on the contrary, this time there’s been a murder.

First of all, the notion that no one gets “taken” in this Taken sequel is technically false. Admittedly, it’s not the main focus of the plot, but Liam Neeson, Famke Janssen, and Maggie Grace all get taken at one point or another (as well as the evil businessman stepdad) sorry to be a stickler, but I just had to point it out. Now that that’s out of the way, what the movie does focus on is a completely unoriginal plot (Taken meets Fugitive! Right guys?) where Liam Neeson attempts to prove his innocence in his wife’s murder the only way he knows how, by using a very particular set of skills.

There’s so much wrong with this movie as an action flick, it almost feels like a parody. For example, the plot itself is a cheap rip off of an older, better Harrison Ford vehicle, but it doesn’t stop there. The editing is atrocious and seems almost intentionally messy to hide Liam Neeson’s actual lack of “skills” (forgive me Mr. Neeson, you’re still the best); in one scene we see Neeson run up to the fence, and then there’s a cut, and then he’s on top of the fence, and then another cut and finally cut to him “landing” on the ground; I’m not sure Liam Neeson actually descends a real full flight of stairs, let alone does any of the stunts this movie would have you believe. The dialogue is cripplingly expositional and bland, evil stepdad explains to Neeson and his spec ops friend what the Spetsnaz is at one point, which is clearly just a line intended for the audience; sloppy lines like this persist throughout the film.

In what I’m sure is an attempt to make up for the particularly bland and cliché villain in this film (really, an ulgy Russian guy with weird teeth? Like every cliché action movie ever?) Forest Whitaker is cast as the “super interesting unordinary detective who’s chasing the hero but doesn’t really believe he’s guilty he’s just doing his detective duties” guy and the movie makes several lame attempts at making him “different.” They give him a knight from a chess set and a rubber band to play with throughout the movie, but fail to explain the significance of either. Also, how does he know that Liam Neeson is really innocent? Bagels, yeah that’s right, bagels, and I’m pretty sure it can’t get more ridiculous than that (unless you’re watching Taken 2).

I could go into a lot more detail on how utterly ridiculous this movie is, but honestly I don’t think it’s worth the time. Granted, it might be a bit better than Taken 2, however, that isn’t exactly glowing praise. It’s a real shame because the original Taken was a solid action movie that shouldn’t have been developed into sequels. Of course, Taken 3 is making good money at the moment, so I’m sure we can all expect a Taken 4 coming soon worldwide in a couple of years, hey maybe they’ll shake it up a bit and his grandson will get taken.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 3

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2446042/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Selma (2014)

Selma may be the greatest, most important film of 2014. That’s right, not Boyhood (which is brilliant) or Birdman (which is equally brilliant) as many critics would have you believe. Don’t get me wrong, both of those films are great and deserving of praise, but neither of them is quite as meaningful as Selma. Selma, of course, is the story of Martin Luther King Jr. but make no mistake this isn’t merely a biopic; rather, this film is a very specific snapshot of King’s life, one that focuses mainly on his fight for the African-American’s right to vote and his march from Selma to the capitol of Alabama. The choice to make a Martin Luther King film purely about this one part of his life is nothing short of brilliant and if anything it makes the movie more impactful than a simple overall take on the man himself.

One of the more poignant films made about the civil rights movement (that I’ve seen), Selma honestly couldn’t have come at a more perfect time. The parallels between Selma and Ferguson are almost undeniable and the life and work of Dr. King seems more relevant than ever now. Selma doesn’t dwell on the violence, but it doesn’t shy away from it either. It’s hard to watch the Bloody Sunday scene on the bridge without tearing up, but this movie isn’t about the oppression and violence, or the white man; it’s about Dr. King and his fight for freedom and the dream that he fought so hard to make come true and that’s what makes this film stand out.

As for David Oyelowo’s performance as Dr. King, it’s damn near perfect and he’s practically indecipherable from the man himself; it’s really a crime that he wasn’t nominated for his role and the Academy should feel ashamed that they missed an opportunity to make a real statement here by giving him a very deserved nomination. Everyone else is incredibly well cast, as well, especially Tom Wilkinson as President Johnson, who absolutely nails the part. Also, shout out to Oprah Winfrey, who blends perfectly into her role as well.

Now, much has been made about the historical accuracy of this film. Some claim that it paints the President in a poor light and dramatizes his opposition to Dr. King, when in actuality he supported King. In my opinion this argument is petty and ridiculous and is akin to those who argue that some slave owners were “really nice” to their slaves and never whipped them, or whatever nonsense racist people say. Bottom line, they owned slaves didn’t they? And the bottom line here is that voting rights for African-Americans wasn’t a priority at all to President Johnson and he definitely dragged his feet the whole way. In fact, the only reason his hand was forced was to prevent more violence. In addition, he was also privy to J. Edgar’s constant wire-tapping and threatening phone calls; perhaps he wasn’t aware of the details, but he had to have known it was happening. To his credit, Johnson does seem to empathize with Dr. King’s cause and he does end up making the right decision, if only not to go down in history as a bigoted racist like the governor of Alabama at the time. Also, so what if the film has made a few historical tweaks to dramatize the film? Other filmmakers do this sort of thing all the time and virtually no one complains; you have to ask yourself why it’s such a big deal when Selma does it.

Finally, if you’ve heard that Selma isn’t getting good reviews (something I’ve heard a few people say) this is false. If you look at Rotten Tomatoes it currently sits at ninety-nine percent with an average score of 8.7, and virtually every legitimate critic has given it a positive review, and with good reason as Selma is a damn good film (also the audience rating is at eighty-eight percent with an average 4.2 out of 5). Ultimately, don’t let the media (or American Sniper) distract you from seeing this one, it may be one of the more important films of our generation and it’s sad that it hasn’t garnered more press and attention, but then I guess it isn’t exactly surprising. Martin Luther King has taken us a long way, but unfortunately, it seems we may still have a long way to go.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 9.5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020072/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Unbroken (2014)

Unbroken is the undeniably incredible true story of Louis Zamperini and also simultaneously the first directorial feature from mega-star Angelina Jolie; together these two aspects have given the film a lot of hype and it’s not hard to see why; both are commanding figures and together they have made for a rather compelling film, but what exactly makes it so intriguing? Make no mistake, there’s an over-abundance of World War 2 films in the film world (although I’m not exactly complaining as it was one of the more interesting times in history), especially here in America where we love to remember the last great ass-kicking we felt good about, but Unbroken isn’t exactly like your average World War 2 film. What sets this film apart, however, isn’t necessarily what is in the movie, but what isn’t.

I won’t waste time telling the story (that’s what watching the movie is for, after all) but suffice it to say Zamperini is the perfect picture of an American and a good Christian, or so he’s portrayed in the movie. He runs fast, he fights hard, and he survives, but if I have one major complaint about Unbroken, it’s that the film never really delves into what motivates the man. Why does Zamperini power on when so many have given up? It’s hard to even fathom the amount of determination that is required to survive what Zamperini went through, and I’m still mystified by it; don’t expect the movie to explain his motives, this is simply a show and tell story, but it is a fairly good one.

The most interesting aspect of this movie by far is the relationship between Zamperini and the POW camp leader, Watanabe; it almost seems as if Watanabe likes Zamperini, as if something attracts him to the young Olympic athlete, but he hates himself for it and he takes it out on Zamperini and the rest of the prisoners. I almost wish the movie had focused more on this dynamic as it is very intriguing, but it seems just a scene or two away from being complete.

As for the performances, both Jack O’connell and Takamasa Ishihara are on top of their game and they largely carry the film, albeit with some more than capable directing from Angelina Jolie. For her first film, this is most certainly an ambitious project and I have to say she mostly pulls it off. Does the film have its faults? Of course, as I mentioned earlier it doesn’t develop the characters as much as I would have liked and it didn’t necessarily excite me as much as it seems to have with others; also, I would have appreciated more of a more humanized look at the other Japanese guards and even some of the American prisoners, but this movie is solely about Zamperini and it does a very serviceable job of telling his story.

In the end, that’s exactly what Unbroken is, very solid and serviceable, but does it really make the audience feel something? I would say that would depend on your views going into the film more than what the movie itself evokes as far as emotions for the characters. Still, this is a great first effort and I’m excited to see Jolie’s next effort. Ultimately, this seems to be a film that will be remembered for launching the careers of Jack O’connel and Takamasa Ishihara respectively as well as Angelina Jolie’s directing career. However, I’m sure Zamperini would appreciate this biopic, it’s just a shame he wasn’t on this Earth quite long enough to see its release. 

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 7.75

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1809398/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

What happened, Ridley Scott? At one point in time I would have strongly considered the mastermind behind Alien and Blade Runner one of my favorite directors; his director’s cuts were stuff of legend (Blade Runner and Kingdom of Heaven to name a couple) and even if Robin Hood was a bit of a misstep, he was the master of swords and sandals flicks (Gladiator remains of the best examples of this genre). However, with his most recent film, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Ridley Scott has really made me question whether or not he might have lost the touch.

Exodus is of course the movie that has become infamous for its mostly all-white cast (in case you’re unaware this is a movie all about Egyptians, who almost certainly don’t look very white), which has caused more than a few people to boycott the film and the country of Egypt to ban it altogether. So just how bad is the casting, really? Well, let’s put it this way, the cast in any film, shouldn’t distract from the movie; in the case of Exodus, the casting is so off-putting, it was hard for me to concentrate on anything else. First of all, Joel Edgerton plays the role of Ramses, and for those who don’t know Joel Edgerton, he might possibly be the least pharaoh-like person to ever grace the movie screen, and the choice to cast Sigourney Weaver as his mother is even worse. These aren’t the only bizarrely miscast roles, however, there’s also Christian Bale as Moses (cue the “guy named Christian plays Moses” jokes) Aaron Paul as Joshua (who’s not even supposed to be in this story) and finally the casting of God himself, but more on that later. Remember, these people are supposed to be Egyptian (and Jewish) characters, and not only are they not remotely Egyptian or Hebrew, but they’re so far from it I can’t even take the film seriously. Literally, every scene looks like white people dressed in poor imitation Egyptian makeup shouting at each other with bizarre accents (are they supposed to be Egyptian accents? Or Egyptian-like English accents? I’m so confused). All of this might (but probably wouldn’t) be excusable, if the movie itself was actually entertaining, but alas, it is not.

Normally, I’m not one to be a stickler over changes from the original source material in an adaptation, as long as these changes are at least somewhat creative and bring new light to the story; I can safely say this is not the case with Exodus. I’m sure “fans” of the original story won’t appreciate many of the changes here, and I can’t say that I did either, mostly because they’re just plain disappointing. For example, the oft-referenced burning bush scene is completely ruined here; for whatever reason instead of god speaking to Moses through a burning bush, he instead stands next to a burning bush, while Moses takes an oddly timed mud spa bath (I know it doesn’t make sense, but this is what happens). Not only that, but the god in question is played by a rather unimpressive eight year-old boy with a bad haircut, which is far from inspired casting but I wouldn’t expect much else at this point.

Of course, one of the big moments of this story and thus the film is the ten plagues (which I’m all but certain have been condensed down into nine for this movie). Unfortunately, this is where the movie really stumbles. Instead of being the highlight of the story as it should be, it comes off formulaic and boring. Every plague is the same; show the plague; show the people reacting to the plague; show the pharaoh’s reaction; show the aftermath and lather, rinse, repeat. By the time the more visually impressive plagues come along I could hardly be bothered to be interested anymore, and those familiar with the story will most likely be disappointed in how little Moses has to do with any of it.

There’s plenty wrong with Ridley Scott’s latest effort, but honestly, it’s not even worth going into in any great detail. The red sea parting looks fine visually, but it’s nothing new, and the ending is somewhat anti-climactic (actually, it’s very anti-climactic, but I barely cared anymore at that point anyway). If you’re looking for a faithful adaptation, look elsewhere; if you’re looking for an exciting swords and sandals type epic, look elsewhere; seriously, just look elsewhere, period. If you want to watch a good adaption of this story, I suggest The Prince of Egypt, it’s on Netflix right now; or if you’re looking for good Ridley Scott, The Gladiator is on there too; but, ultimately, just anything besides Exodus: Gods and Kings.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 3.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528100/?ref_=nv_sr_1

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

#Onelasttime. For those of you that haven’t seen it, that’s the hash tag promotion campaign that’s being used for the final installment of the Hobbit series: The Battle of the Five Armies. The reason I mention this is because this specific tag line, the line they hope you’ll (subconsciously) read and become excited for the film, is obviously important. What does that say exactly? Well, to me it says the filmmakers are inviting us back for one last journey through Middle-Earth, and it promises to be an epic tying-together of all the films before it, and that includes the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The reason I wish to clarify this to begin with is because (at least from my perspective) the makers of this film (Peter Jackson chief among them) have seemingly promised us another film in the line of the original Lord of the Rings, as if to say that the film they have most recently created, should be held to the same standard of the original trilogy. Not only that, but the whole series has been sold as being same quality as the original Lord of the Rings, and this finale is being hailed as every bit as epic and satisfying as The Return of the King. Given this, as I watched the film I found myself comparing it to the original Lord of the Rings, and as has been the case throughout this trilogy, I wasn’t impressed with the comparison to say the least.

First of all, the decision to make one book (which is shorter than any of the individual Lord of the Rings books, I might add) into three movies was a poor one, and almost certainly not a decision made on merit of art or creativity; as such, this has created pacing problems throughout the series, none made more obvious than in the beginning of the final chapter. Seemingly beginning in the middle of a conflict (because it does) the beginning of the Battle of the Five Armies seems more like the conclusion of the Desolation of Smaug, and maybe it should’ve been. As a result, Smaug’s storyline climax feels rushed and fairly tacked on. I can’t say exactly where the film should have started, but I’m confident they chose the wrong spot. If you’re fuzzy on what happened in the last film, I suggest you at least rewatch the end because this sequel doesn’t bother with catching us up on the action, which is immediate.

Another problem I have with this film (and to a degree the whole trilogy) is the odd, misplaced attempts at humor throughout. One minute, we have severe devastation and destruction, images Peter Jackson portrayed extremely well in the original movies, however, in this last film (and in the previous two as well), he has inexplicably inserted “comical” gags that not only disrupt the flow of the film, but serve to make the following dramatic scenes all the more absurd. Not that the drama needs to be made to look any sillier; the acting seems forced and not entirely organic, almost as if the actors are trying too hard to make their lines all sound incredibly epic.

The Battle of the Five Armies is a complete exaggeration of any of the Middle-Earth to come before it, and as such, the staples we’ve come to expect from Peter Jackson, which once seemed more grounded, now seem overdone and comes off as fan service, and not in a good way. For example, in one scene where Legolas is of course supposed to do awesome elf-power things, he hops from one piece of debri to the next, in mid-air while he and the debri are in a free fall all the way to the top before he actually falls for real. Excuse the run-on sentence (if anything it’s a run-on action scene, or something), but I’m pretty sure this isn’t how science works. Walking on top of snow, I can take; Taking out an Olyphant single-handedly is epic, but this just simply had my eyes rolling. There are various more scenes like this in the film, which are obviously meant to be mesmerizing like in the originals, but instead come off as absurd, such as with Thorin and his “dragon sickness” (they use this term in the film about twenty times) which seemed forced and underdeveloped.

A few other random things, Fili and Kate from Lost’s romance was silly from the beginning and it gets even more so in this sequel, not because it’s a dwarf and an elf, but because of the way it’s done. They put in an unnecessary reference to Aragorn here, which sets up events that will happen from the “appendices” (which, basically, are Tolkien’s official notes on Lord of the Rings’ characters) but regardless it feels completely unnecessary in the context of this series. Also, Thorin’s cousin Dain (who’s introduced midway through) seems to almost be animated or something to that effect, which was incredibly distracting. Ever since the first Hobbit film Peter Jackson has attempted to weave teasers of what’s to come in the Lord of the Rings into this trilogy, even though the Hobbit doesn’t have much to do with this storyline. In my opinion, this cheapens the action in the Hobbit (after all it’s not nearly as serious) and also makes it really seem like Gandalf was just sitting on his hands for years until The Fellowship of the Ring. Finally, I miss the look of the old films; what’s with all the over-exposure and digital effects where there were would have been practical ones in the Lord of the Rings?

Some positive notes, the art design is top-notch as always and the dwarvish army especially is impressive (minus the odd-looking Dain). The film is also very faithful to the Tolkien universe and as such will definitely appeal to diehard fans in that regard. Also, delivers well on many of the “death scenes” and you know there’s a few of those. Martin Freeman has always made a strong Bilbo, and despite being practically non-existent in the plot once the battle begins, he still carries the scenes he’s in quite well. The battle itself is impressive overall (even if it still can’t measure up to Helm’s Deep) and takes up a good portion of the movie.

In the end, the last Hobbit movie ends as awkwardly as it started and I must confess I could never really get into it any point. Perhaps I shouldn’t compare it to the original Lord of the Rings so much, but it seems as if that’s what the filmmakers themselves are asking the audience to do, and it simply doesn’t hold the comparison. All I can say is I now fully understand what older generations of Star Wars fans felt when those prequels were released (I was too young to really remember Star Wars before the prequels were a thing). Just as with those prequels the story seems less compelling, and the action too exaggerated, and the performances not as personable; overall it’s just not what I had come to expect, and it’s why I can’t say I’m really a fan of the Hobbit series. However, am I going to marathon these films when the extended versions are released? Yeah, I probably will, and that’s why they call it a cash cow.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 6.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2310332/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Birdman (2014)

We’ve all seen it happen before. A young, relatively unknown actor makes it big, getting cast as the next big super hero; the franchise is popular and immediately spawns sequels; the actor is suddenly one of the biggest stars in the world and gets casting calls from great directors like Ron Howard, Martin Scorsese, etc. Then one day, the franchise no longer feels fresh; the actor is booted and some other young rising star takes his place in the reboot. The old actor is now a shell of what he once was and desperately attempts to cling to relevancy while the world laughs and forgets. The complete and elaborate exploration of the aftermath of this story is what Birdman is about, but that is not necessarily what makes Birdman such an intriguing art piece and one of the best films of the year.

There’s likely only two movies released in 2014 (that I’ve seen so far) that I can say truly blew my mind (sorry but Interstellar is totally not one of them) the first is Boyhood and the second would be Birdman. Now, if Boyhood is a long overlooking picture dedicated to the journey of childhood, Birdman is almost the opposite; Instead, the film is more of a snapshot taken near the end of a man’s life, and contained within this snapshot is every fear, failure and regret that Riggan (played rather admirably by an intense Michael Keaton) has ever had and still has.

There’s a lot to love about this film, but one aspect that really makes this film unique is the cinematography; throughout the entirety of the film all the way to the last fifteen minutes or so, the movie is filmed as one, single take. The camera seems to be a character itself as it follows people down hallways, jumping from one character to the next without a single cut, panning to show reaction shots and pulling back from the scene at just the right moments. Certainly, the cinematography here is deserving of all the accolades I’m sure it will be receiving in the coming months; the timing alone is mind boggling throughout the film.

To focus too much on the camera would be to ignore the truly unique storytelling in this movie; from the very beginning we’re thrown straight into the situation without any setup and we’re forced to catch on as we go. This method works perfectly and mostly avoids any (terribly, awfully) boring exposition-type dialogue, while also managing to keep the viewer interested and engaged rather than lost and bored. We’re also left to wonder who’s perspective we are seeing in the film as time goes on, I don’t wish to spoil anything so I won’t get into the details here, but suffice to say there is at least some doubt as to whether our “narrator” (being the camera here and not an actual voice-over thankfully) is actually reliable or not, and the end of the film leaves plenty of room interpretation.

Another element of Birdman is the depth of the characters, and for once the characters in this film actually feel real and believable. Not since Boyhood has there been a film where I really appreciated the writing of not just the main characters but the supporting characters as well. Without ever having to necessarily say anything we can feel the history between characters and it definitely feels real. Also, kudos to Edward Norton for completely pulling off the pretentious, douchey actor role (it doesn’t seem to exactly be a difficult role for him to channel) and bringing the very idea to a whole new level.

In essence, Birdman is a parody of Hollywood and a parody of those who hate Hollywood and a parody of us all, and it works beautifully. At one point, Michael Keaton chews out a theater critic who boasts that she will ruin his play; he calls her out as a fraud who merely puts a label on things and never actually puts anything on the line herself. He claims that he’s the real artist because he works his ass off and puts his all into his acting, baring his soul to the world and thus making himself ultimately vulnerable. This definitely got me thinking (being someone who likes to write reviews as a hobby) and I have to say it’s something I’ve always felt about a lot of critics. Too many are simply slamming a film without thinking, wrapping up an entire film with some pretentious, snazzy one-liner that maybe someone will glance at on Rotten Tomatoes and then say “well, I heard the reviews were bad.” On the other hand, many clamor to praise a film simply because it’s hyped and the director is really famous and because all the other critics are praising it, without even evaluating the film on its own merit. However, to say a critic doesn’t put anything on the line I think is false. Anytime one makes their opinion public, it invites its own criticism and putting out a review, while certainly not on the same level as putting out a film or play, is also risky and means opening oneself to the public, something that is scary no matter what. Really, I think that may be one of Birdman’s better points, and it’s definitely something that we should all keep in mind, especially when critiquing someone’s else’s beloved self-creation.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 9.75

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2562232/?ref_=nv_sr_1

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