Eddie Redmayne

The Aeronauts

First Hit: Although the ground scenes lack any conviction or interest, the up in the air scenes are amazingly shot and provide lots of tension.

Two things that surprised me while watching this film. One; how wonderful it was that Amelia Wren (Felicity Jones) was the amazingly brave and daring character in this story. Two, the difference between the mediocre ground-based scenes and fantastic air-based scenes was almost too significant to make the whole film work.

In short, James Glaisher (Eddie Redmayne) was a scientist and part of The Royal Society, where the big thinkers of the day held court where they expound on grand ideas, philosophy and scientific postulates. Glaisher thought that he and others should be able to predict the weather if they had more information about the atmosphere and how it works. The society laughed at him.

To prove his point, he wanted to go up in a lighter than air balloon to take measurements. The person he asks is Wren, who is still mourning the loss of her husband, Pierre, who was also an aeronaut balloon pilot and took his life to save his wife’s during an ill-fated flight.

The film uses flashbacks throughout to show how Wren and Glaisher meet, and how they ended up in the first scene where Glaisher is impatiently waiting for Wren to show up to their launch site. Wren, on her way in a coach, is both scared and brave in her path to confront the feelings she’ll have been in a balloon for the first time since her husband’s death.

When she finally arrives at the launch site, she’s quite the showman and gives the broad audience, who is here to witness this event, lots of ways to enjoy the beginning of this balloon launch. These scenes include a small dog. It is an enjoyable part of the opening scenes.

However, it is after they take off that the real drama comes into play. Enough to say, it is not only the views they get while rising to a then-record of 38,000 feet (without oxygen) but it is what happens to the balloon and how Wren powerfully saves their lives by doing something I don’t think I would ever consider, even if my life depended on it.

These scenes are beyond tense, well shot, and exciting and it makes this film worth watching.

Lastly, one thing I wondered about through the entire film was what were they using for the lighter other than air gases? Because this wasn’t hot air they were using as there was no flame device to heat the air inside the balloon.

Jones is exceptional in this role. Her portrayal of the Amelia Wren as an Aeronaut and woman was first-rate. She also did an excellent job of showing her sadness and love towards her former husband while conquering fear by piloting the balloon. Redmayne was perfect as Glaisher, but for some reason, he was so overshadowed by Jones that he got lost in the film. When his character gives his talk at the Royal Society after his excursion with Wren, I thought that his pride in proving something felt egoic and small. It did show the smallness of humans whereas the big picture was carried by Wren. Hamish Patel was terrific as Glaisher’s friend and supporter. Tom Harper and Jack Thorne wrote a good screenplay, but it really came to life while in the air, and here is where Harper’s direction and filming made this worth watching.

Overall: Having been up in a hot air balloon, I can only imagine what they were going through as they passed through the higher reaches of the atmosphere where a man can survive without oxygen.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (3-D)

First Hit:  Engaging at times, wonderful visualizations, and slightly misguided.

Although I left the theater thinking that this film was very entertaining, upon reflection it seemed like the film was too convoluted and didn’t know what it wanted to be in the end. Granted it was fun to watch, the beasts were extraordinary, and Newt (Eddie Redmayne) was very good as the kind hearted magician coming to New York with a goal of freeing his Thunderbird in Arizona, but the sweetness got lost in the hoopla.

There is a lot else going on in this film, however it is really enough to say that the beasts are extremely well done? Probably not.

Although wizardry and the like is viewed as naturally dark, Redmayne did a great job of bringing some light heartedness to the story as did Dan Fogler as Kowalski. What also added to the darkness of this film was watching a 3-D version which reduces the light on the screen.

The basic story is that New York is being attacked by an Obscurus (a dark entity) and MACUSA (Magical Congress of the United States of America) is trying to find a way to capture and stop the Obscurus from destroying New York as this sort of entity also puts magical wizards and witches in the public eye which isn’t good and Newt, just arriving from England and Hogwarts, gets caught up in this battle.

Arriving via ship, he’s carrying a suitcase filled with an odd assortment of creatures, including the Thunderbird, some of whom are mischievous and occasionally escape the case. Although this part of the storyline is entertaining it really didn’t work for me in that I kept wondering why he didn’t get a case with more secure locks.

During his first few hours in New York, he ends up entangling with Kowalski (Dan Fogler) who is going to a bank to ask for a loan to open a bakery. The reason for the engagement of these two is that they both have the same type suitcase. Kowalski’s is filled with pastries he wants the bank loan officer to taste.

However, with the cases switched, three of the beasts get out including a platypus looking animal called a Niffler, that steals anything shiny like coins and jewelry, adding additional complications to a troubled city. While the Niffler is ravaging jewelry stores filled with shiny bangles, Newt is desperately trying to find his suitcase of creatures, and capture the escapees. When he finds Kowalski, and hopefully his suitcase, he realizes that this person could help him despite him being a “muggle” or “no-maj.”

This is part of the overall story as muggles and no-majs cannot know about wizards, magic and witches therefore Kowalski, knowing about this magic, puts himself in danger for getting part of his mind erased. But being open and kind towards Newt, accepting of the wizard’s way, and being liked by a beautiful witch named Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol), he gets a temporary pass. Queenie’s sister Porpentina “Tina” (Katherine Waterston), who is a previously demoted inspector for MACUSA, captures and arrests Newt for using magic publicly. When she takes him to a MACUSA hearing, they ignore her and see Newt as an odd misplaced individual. However, as Tina learns more about Newt, she befriends him and hides Newt and Kowalski in her and her sister’s home.

When MACUSA learns that Newt has real experience capturing Obscurus types of entities they support him, with the assistance of Tina, Queenie, and Kowalski, in helping MACUSA rid New York of this entity.

Redmayne is very good as an introverted wizard that relates more with his fantastic beasts than people. He’s good at acting clumsy around people and great when in his own world. Fogler is really good as the budding baker and muggle who helps the wizard Newt. Sudol is wonderful and the engaging witch sister of Tina. Her brightness was welcomed in the film. Waterston was strong as the demoted investigator of MACUSA. Carmen Ejogo is good as President Seraphina Picquery of MACUSA. Colin Farrell is OK as Percival Graves a high ranking and powerful wizard in MACUSA. J. K. Rowling wrote this somewhat predictable script that seemed more complex than needed. There is limited character development which makes the story somewhat shallow. David Yates who directed three of the Harry Potter films, knew what Rowling wanted and outside of doing a great job of making the beasts fantastic, he did his best with Rowling’s limited vision.

Overall:  Although I was, at times, enchanted during the film, my interest and fascination faded away too quickly.

Academy Awards - The Oscars

OK, here we are again celebrating another year of film going. Some strong films this year, films that broke box office records, and films that failed. Here are my choices for the following awards and some thoughts around some of them.

  • Best Actor - Nominees are:  Bryan Cranston (Trumbo), Matt Damon (The Martin), Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant), Michael Fassbender (Steve Jobs) and Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl). This is not as strong a field as it was last year. The obvious missing actors are Tom Hanks (Bridge of Spies) maybe because he made it look so easy, and Steve Carell who was so quirky and interesting you just wanted to see what he was going to do next. Both of these were strong performances, yet not in my top two of this listing. Although Cranston's  performance was good, I didn't like the character nor the interpretation. Fassbender was very good, however this role had been done too many times in the last two years. I did not see The Danish Girl therefore I don't have an opinion. However, Damon and DiCapiro's performances were fantastic - beyond amazing. I loved each of them. My guess is that DiCaprio will win the Oscar.
  • Best Actress  - Nominees are:  Cate Blanchett (Carol), Brie Larson (Room), Jennifer Lawrence (Joy), Charlotte Rampling (45 Years), and Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn). This is a strong category although I didn't see 45 Years, the others were great. I also see a missing person from this list and that would be Rooney Mara in Carol as well. Between Cate and Rooney I would have picked Mara because I felt as though her evolution through the film was a more powerful statement. However, she is in the Supporting Actress listing. Out of the nominated list, it comes down to two outstanding performances: Ronan and Blanchett. Lawrence's performance was really good and I was fully engaged with her character, however it did not have the power of Ronan or Blanchett's. Larson was also very strong, however so much of her performance is linked to Jacob Tremblay the young boy that it took away from her own performance. For me I'd like Ronan to get this Oscar in an amazing performance in a  wonderful film.
  • Best Supporting Actress  - Nominees are:  Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight), Rooney Mara (Carol), Rachel McAdams (Spotlight), Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl), and Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs). As I mentioned earlier I think Mara's performance belongs in the Best Actress category. I didn't see The Danish Girl so I'm making my pick without full knowledge of the selections. However, without Mara I think the most interesting and performance is Leigh's. It was so hidden and yet over the top that I was mesmerized each time she opened her mouth and/or the camera focused on her. These are the top two and in my view either probably deserves the Oscar.
  • Best Supporting Actor  - Nominees are:  Christian Bale (The Big Short), Tom Hardy (The Revenant), Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight), Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies), and Sylvester Stallone (Creed). The missing performance is Jacob Tremblay's in Room. He was phenomenal. But this is probably one of the strongest fields in years, so someone had to be left off the list. They were all great and my favorites out of this list are Rylance and Stallone. Rylance had such a small role yet it was so much impact on the film that it was unforgettable. However Stallone will get it for both this performance and his body of work as Rocky Balboa.
  • Best Cinematography  - Nominees are:  Ed Lachman (Carol), Robert Richardson (The Hateful Eight), John Seale (Mad Max: Fury Road), Emmaual Lubezki (The Revenant), and Roger Deakins (Sicario). Although Mad Max: Fury Road was big it did not grab me because I thought the film was more on the mindless side. Carol was elegantly shot and fully deserves the nomination. However, The Hateful Eight and The Revenant are over the top amazingly beautiful and powerful. The Hateful Eight deserves a lot of credit for doing so much in one room, while The Revenant wins this award for how shots were made and the perspective by which they were made. The winner - pick.
  • Best Adapted Screenplay  - Nominees are:  Charles Randolph and Adam McKay (The Big Short), Nick Hornby (Brooklyn), Phyllis Nagy (Carol), Drew Goddard (The Martian), and Emma Donoghue (Room). Wow, what a list. All great picks. Any one of these could win in any given year. However, my final two would be Randolf and McKay for The Big Short and Hornby for Brooklyn. In the end I'm picking Nick Hornby for Brooklyn because it was a great screenplay and a wonderful film to watch.   
  • Best Original Screenplay  - Nominees are:  Matt Charman and Ethan & Joel Coen (Bridge of Spies), Alex Garland (Ex Machina), Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, and Josh Cooley (Inside Out), Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy (Spotlight), and Jonathan Herman and Andrea Berloff (Straight Outta Compton). Another strong set of contenders. All very different films. In the end I think I like Ex Machina and Spotlight as powerful screen plays for very different reasons. One reflects a horrible set of acts by Catholic Priests and the other about the obsessiveness and controlling nature of technology. In the end I select Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy for Spotlight.
  • Best Director  - Nominees are:  Adam McKay (The Big Short), George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road), Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (The Revenant), Lenny Abrahamson (Room), and Tom McCarthy (Spotlight). Missing are:  Ridley Scott (The Martian), J.J. Abrams (Star Wars: The Force Awakens), Todd Haynes (Carol), Quentin Tarantino (The Hateful Eight) and John Crowley (Brooklyn). To me this is the most messed up nominee listing. How is Max: Fury Road better directed than all my exceptions? It isn't and doesn't hold a candle to them. Also given my exceptions, I think Abrahamson's delivery is not quite there. Anyway, from the nominee list, I would say it is between McKay, Inarritu, and McCarthy. In the end I'd select McKay (with McCarthy a very close second) because he did the most to keep the film on track. Inarritu had too many long wistful shots. However this listing of nominees is really flawed.
  • Best Picture  - Nominees are:   The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, Brooklyn, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Martian, The Revenant, Room, and Spotlight. Missing here is Carol and The Hateful Eight. Mad Max: Fury Road is nowhere in the league as these other nominees and, in my opinion, doesn't deserve to be listed. I simply was board stiff by the one long chase film filled with foolish philosophy. It is hard for me to pick as I loved "Brooklyn" as being a wonderfully executed nostalgic story. I thought "The Big Short" told a compelling story of how our economy tanked. "The Martian" was beautifully delivered and Damon made it happen. "Bridge of Spies" and "Spotlight" are both amazing stories about something that really happened. I was totally engaged and felt they delivered in all ways; education and story. The only thing I didn't like about "The Revenant" was that there were too many long scenic only shots which took away from the story.  In the end, of the listed I'd like to see "The Martian" win but can also see the others winning except Mad Max.

Some other thoughts about films this year:

  • "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" was amazingly edited.
  • "Ex Machina's" visual effects were very strong and so were scenes in "The Revenant".
  • "Anomalisa" and "Inside Out" were both amazing Animated Feature films.
  • "Carol" had perfectly detailed costumes and overall set design.
  • "Writings on the Wall" the song for "Spectre" was dreadful.

Note: I'll be England sitting in silence for 30 days starting late next week. I may be able to see one more film before I go, but otherwise I won't be seeing any films or posting any reviews until the first week of March.

Thank you for viewing my site.

Jupiter Ascending (3D)

First Hit:  All this film has going for it are a few interesting visuals.

Before I knew it, this film descended into the realm of “are you kidding me?” Not only was the premise stupid the execution of this premise was almost as bad.

The only thing that saved it were some of the visuals. Really:  People owned planets in our galaxy? They were divided up amongst 3 people whose job it was is to harvest human specific DNA stuff to make themselves live longer. Their stated goal - to live as long as one can - even unhappily. The planet owners claimed the only worthwhile commodity that exists is time? Titus Abrasax (Douglas Booth), Kalique Abrasax (Tuppence Middleton) and Balem  Abrasax (Eddie Redmayne) owned planets and did the harvesting.

Each wanted the prize planet Earth (of course where most the human type people live). Kalique and Titus live on spacecraft and Balem lives in the red eye of Jupiter which is protected from the gases by some structure he’s built. With Earth being the most desired planet, each of the Abrasax’s kids are trying to find and entice the rightful owner of Earth to give it up to one of them.

Earth is unknowingly owned by earthling Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), who also happens to be their reincarnated mother. When she learns that she owns Earth… OK you may start to get my drift. This story is so far-fetched, complicated and convoluted that it just doesn't (read as "can’t") work. Oh heck, I forgot there is also a hero Cain Wise (Channing Tatum) who flits about on shoes that allow him to skate through life and space at outstanding speeds. Mind you no one else in the film has these skate shoes.

The visuals of the different worlds, of the red eye of Jupiter and the space vehicles are good to very good but that is about it. The dialogue was stilted, the premise undefinable, and the execution miserable.

Kunis was OK, and given the level of story-line, script and direction this is a complement. Booth was bland. Middleton was barely OK. Redmayne was disastrous. The difference between this role and the one as Stephen Hawking is like night and day. Tatum was very disappointing. However for all of these people it wasn’t their acting that brought this down, it was the concept, script and direction. I wonder how they all got bamboozled into taking these roles. Andy and Lana Wachowski did the producers a disservice by actually pitching and making this film.

Overall:  Don’t waste your time. It is bad even in 3D.

The Theory of Everything

First Hit: Extremely well-acted and a very engaging story.

Stephen Hawking (played here by Eddie Redmayne) is a brilliant man. His way of viewing our world is ever changing because he continues to open his mind to concepts while having the tenacity to prove things mathematically. Sharing with us, his thoughts through a body that has basically shut down is a story of perseverance and unending support and love from his wife Jane (Felicity Jones).

The film follows the story of Hawking meeting Jane, his learning that he has a motor neuron disease which will slowly disable his physical movement, how Jane’s support allowed him to continue, flourish in the science community, and finally through the end of Jane and Stephen’s marriage and their continued support each other past their divorce.

This film is beautifully shot as the scenes in the house show both havoc and love - amazing.

Redmayne gives an Oscar nomination worthy performance – enough said. Jones is fantastic. I thought she was equally the heart and soul of this film. David Thewlis as Dennis Sciama was great and embodied the man who helped Steven grow and explore his inner universe. Anthony McCarten wrote an excellent screen play from Jane Hawking’s own book “Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen”. James Marsh did a fantastic job of giving us a view into this great man’s life. He did an even better job of giving us a view of how Jane was the base that empowered Stephen.

Overall: This was a wonderful film to watch.

googleaa391b326d7dfe4f.html