A SHALLOW, STUPID SITCOM SHIVA: a review of "This Is Where I Leave You"

"THIS IS WHERE I LEAVE YOU"
Screenplay Written by Jonathan Tropper based upon his novel
Directed by Shawn Levy
* (one star)

Near the end of the abominable "This Is Where I Leave You," Director Shawn Levy's completely tone deaf and painfully idiotic adaptation of the Jonathan Tropper novel, one character proclaims that he is ready to face a life that is "unpredictable, irrational and complicated." What a shame that he was anchored by an albatross of a movie that was not only exceedingly irrational, it was also pathetically predictable in its force-fed, hyperbolic complications.

Dear readers, the dysfunctional family film is indeed a tricky beast to pull off successfully as this cinematic sub-genre can too often find itself drowning in a sea of contrivances and overstuffed narratives at the complete expense of just allowing the characters and situations to unfold and resonate naturally, thus allowing audiences to relate accordingly. For my tastes and sensibilities, movies like Director Robert Redford's "Ordinary People" (1980), Director Noah Baumbach's "The Squid and the Whale" (2005), Director Tamara Jenkins' "The Savages" (2007) and this year's "The Skeleton Twins" from Director Craig Johnson are often so few and far between.

Typically, we are given the likes of Director Jodie Foster's "Home For The Holidays" (1995), Director Thomas Bezucha's even more odious "The Family Stone" (2005)"and even Directors Jonathon Dayton and Valerie Faris' irritating "Little Miss Sunshine" (2006), where the characters are too often defined by their self-consciously quirky eccentricities and not at all by any stitches of their humanity. This trait often makes films of that nature fall apart in a cacophony of screaming fests, kitchen food fights, relentless revelations and discoveries and oceans of tears all signifying absolutely nothing approaching any real family that you have ever known or are even a part of. "This Is Where I Leave You" is a prime example of every single thing that is completely wrong with a dysfunctional family film as it feels to be a movie made by a checklist rather than any perceptive insights into how a family works, lives, breathes and operates, falls apart yet miraculously remains together. And therefore, we have one of the very worst films I have seen in 2014.

The packed to the gills plot of "This Is Where I Leave You" is centered around Judd Altman (Jason Bateman), a radio producer for a shock jock DJ (played by Dax Shepard), who returns home one afternoon to find his wife Quinn (Abigail Spencer) having sex with said shock jock DJ.  Judd soon moves out of his home and is eventually contacted by his sister Wendy (Tina Fey) who informs him that their Father has just passed away, prompting Judd to return to his small town home for the funeral.

Arriving to his family home, Judd is re-antiquated to the mammoth lunacy of his family as presided over by the Altman matriarch, Hilary Altman (Jane Fonda), a famous (and infamously oversexed and over-sharing) psychotherapist and author who has exploited the intimacies and intricacies of her family for her legendary book. The aforementioned Wendy is left behind at the Altman home, along with her toddler who has a habit of defecating in his potty seat absolutely anywhere in the Altman home, by her workaholic husband, which leaves her to possibly rekindle the flames of her one true love Horry (Timothy Olyphant), who lives across the street from the Altmans and has remained in the town due to a brain injury.

We meet Judd's oldest brother Paul (Corey Stoll), the responsible one, who oversees the family's athletic store business but is dealing with issues of infertility with his wife Annie (Kathryn Hahn), who was also once Judd's girlfriend. The family "black sheep" is Phillip (Adam Driver), a philanderer now involved with Tracey Sullivan (Connie Britton), an older woman who was also once Phillip's therapist.  PHEW!!!!

After the funeral, Hilary informs her children that it was their Father's dying wish that the family remain in the Altman home and sit shiva for the full seven days, despite the fact that Hilary is not Jewish and their Father was an atheist. So forced together for the span of one week, the Altman family not only come to terms with the passing of their beloved Patriarch but also with each other and perhaps, even long simmering emotions can be renewed between Judd and his old high school crush, the ice skating Penny Moore (Rose Byrne).

With that amount of a plot description (and trust me, that is not even everything that comes to light in this film), "This Is Where I Leave You" stuffs so much narrative into itself that it feels like the entirety of "All My Children" crammed into 1 hour and 45 minutes! Now dear readers, to be fair, I have not read the novel from which this film is based, so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that perhaps this material works better on the page. Even so, I cannot help but to wonder that despite Tropper fashioning his own adaptive screenplay, this material just cannot work as a feature film at all. Or at least a feature film that was directed by the consistently and disastrously unsubtle hand of Shawn Levy, who has unleashed his specialized brand of Times Square on New Year's Eve level crowded motion picture dreck like his remake of "Cheaper By The Dozen" (2003) and its 2005 sequel, his remake of "The Pink Panther" (2006), the truly horrific "Date Night" (2010) and for the love of Pete, his "Night At The Museum" trilogy (2006/209/2014).  "This Is Where I Leave You" is especially preposterous compared to his past films as this time, he is actually trying to attempt a piece that contains a more serious core and potential sense of truth and familial solidarity but shatteringly, the film is an absolute steaming mess.

The longer I watched "This Is Where I Leave You," I was constantly reminded of other, better films that depicted that serious core and potential sense of truth that I am certain Levy was aiming for but missed by 2000 miles. I'm thinking of films like Director Ron Howard's classic "Parenthood" (1989) or even Director Jeremiah S. Chechik and Writer/Producer John Hughes' "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" (1989), which has now become a holiday staple. Even better are films like Director Jonathan Demme's extraordinary "Rachel Getting Married" (2008) or both of Writer/Director Wes Anderson's features "The Royal Tenenbaums" (2001) and "The Darjeeling Limited" (2007). 

Unlike those films, over, over, and over again, "This Is Where I Leave You" makes the cardinal sin that so many of these dysfunctional family films happen to make: It seems to know absolutely nothing about what families are and how they work and just populates itself with a bunch of actors who not only don't seem to be siblings for even one moment, they all seem to be the same age! Levy, just not knowing what to do with them, feels that if these people just keep shouting louder, talking faster and allow themselves to be shuffled from room to room and in and out of scenes with no rhyme or reason whatsoever, this can approximate the chaotic feeling of a family wrapped together after a lengthy spell apart and all ensconced within some variations of grief to boot. Issues are brought up and dropped or remain tortuously unexplained, which makes for an awful lot of wheel spinning for a film that claims to have as many stories to tell as it introduces. For instance, let's take the neighbor Horry and his brain injury. What actually is his injury and issues in the first place as he is able to speak, to function, and even hold down a steady job at the Altman's sporting goods store? What exactly happened to him to obtain his injury? The film never condescends to answer even those questions to any degree that is comedic, dramatic or remotely satisfying.

Barely any of the film's characters ever feel to exist as real human beings as they are all a collection of "types" who are solely defined by their eccentricities as dictated by the situations the plot shoe-horns them into. Since none of the characters felt to be real, the situations felt even less so which makes "This Is Where I Leave You" a film of plastic people trapped inside plastic circumstances in a plastic story that is screaming for some realism, some honesty, something, anything that any person watching the film could possibly relate to. There is nothing on display that suggests that Levy was remotely concerned with how real people behave and feels as if he just wanted situations that were self-consciously comedic or quirky enough to obtain some sort of laughter. Trust me, he failed because every moment feels to be so false.

I could not believe for even one minute any of the church service sequences and interactions between the Altman family and the young Rabbi Charles Grodner (played by Ben Schwartz), a character who is somehow still saddled by his unfortunate childhood nickname "Boner." It just made for a film that not only knew nothing about how families work and operate but even church services and mostly, how relationships are altered once childhood friends and acquaintances age and how what once was home either changes or remains steadfast. Films like Director Lawrence Kasdan's "The Big Chill" (1983), Director George Armitage's "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) and Writer/Director Cameron Crowe's criminally undervalued "Elizabethtown" (2005) handled the concepts of families, prodigal characters returning to former homesteads and even death and funerals in exceedingly more truthful fashions than any one moment contained in "This Is Where I Leave You."

Even worse, this is a film where arguments and revelations come steamrolling at you in nearly EVERY scene and in a complete cavalcade as if Levy did not believe in his material enough to trust that any inherent comedy or drama would live, breathe and arrive naturally. Nope! He had to sledgehammer every single moment from beginning to end and race it along as if the audience would get bored by something approaching, oh, I don't know...any realism. The overall mechanics, as presented in this film, are only of the most contrived and shallow sitcom variety, all the way down to why the family is actually even spending a week together in the house in the first place, which makes you even question the existence of this film at all.

All of that being said, Jason Bateman is truly a King. Try at he might, it often felt as if he was acting in a completely different movie as he clearly was trying his damnedest to find the real soul within Judd Altman and anchor down the madness that swirled around him, much as he performed masterfully in the brilliant "Arrested Development" television series, which incidentally is much more knowledgeable about the mechanics of families despite the insanity of the situations. And also, I did like Adam Driver quite a bit as he did carry a certain strong screen presence that really did make an impression and nearly transcended the thanklessness and cliched aspects of his character. But again Tina Fey is wasted in yet another film role that is so clearly beneath her tremendous skills and if I could I would have to insist that she never appear in any film in which she did not write herself.

I think I have said all that really needs to be said about "This Is Where I Leave You," a film that is as hackneyed as it is flat out stupid and for all of the crying that occurs throughout the film, not even one single solitary tear was earned.

Shawn Levy's "This Is Where I Leave You" is frankly a movie that should be left in the cinematic refuge pile. You have been warned.

ROCK AND ROLL: a review of "Top Five"

"TOP FIVE"
Written and Directed by Chris Rock
***1/2 (three and a half stars) 

If the philosophical musings and meditations of Writer/Director Richard Linklater somehow merged with the blistering confessional comedy of Richard Pryor, I think you would have quite a fine idea of what kind of an experience "Top Five," the third directorial feature from Chris Rock, actually is.

For me, the film represented an artistic breakthrough for the veteran comedian, a figure that I have admittedly taken many, many years to warm up to. That is true, dear readers. There was a time when I could not stand the sight and sound of Chris Rock whatsoever, as his loud, shrill voice just kept me at an arms length, and his tenure on "Saturday Night Live" combined with the terrible movies he was making (quite a few of them with Adam Sandler) certainly did him no favors. But it was through his stand-up comedy specials that I slowly began to see the razor sharp creative mind at work as his cultural commentaries about race, sex, politics and relationships was as ferociously unrepentant as it was so wisely perceptive and pensive.

Lately, it feels as if Chris Rock is on a supreme roll as his press junket interviews, essays and viewpoints concerning race relations in 21st century America have contained an even greater fire and truth than he has displayed quite so explicitly before. Because of that, it feels as if Chris Rock has reached a creative crossroads and with "Top Five," Rock has delivered a sharply satirical, cheerfully vulgar, smartly astute and surprisingly romantic adult comedy that houses a distinctly serious core that speaks directly to life as it is lived right here and right now.

For all intents and purposes, "Top Five" is a film that is fueled not by plot but exists as a dual character study. Chris Rock stars as Andre Allen, a famous stand-up comic and movie superstar of the "Hammy The Bear" series, a trilogy of action comedies in which Allen plays the titular role, a cop dressed inside of a bear suit. Yet, despite his meteoric success, as well as his potential marriage to the vapid reality television star Erica Long (a strong Gabrielle Union), Allen is ensconced in an inner crisis that has left him unwilling to perform stand up again, wary to don the bear suit for a fourth installment of his lucrative franchise and possibly not return to comedy at all. His desires for more serious fare has led to the arrival of the new dramatic feature film about the Haitian revolution entitled "Uprize!," in which he stars.

On the day of the release of "Uprize!," Allen, on his promotional tour throughout New York City, is joined by New York Times journalist Chelsea Brown (Rosario Dawson), who accompanies him to obtain a probing interview. During the course of this long day and night, both Allen and Chelsea are forced to confront their individualized personal and professional forks in the road, as well as their possible building feelings towards each other.

Most certainly, "Top Five" is Chris Rock's version of Writer/Director Woody Allen's acerbic classic "Stardust Memories" (1980), in which Allen portrayed a famous comedian who no longer felt funny and wanted to devote his creative energies into more seriously meaningful material and projects despite the vehement objections of his fan base and the derision of his critics. With "Top Five," Chris Rock has taken what could have easily existed as a vacuous vanity project and transformed it into a film in which he clearly has something to say and prove. He has seamlessly bridged the gap between the boldness of his stand up material and his equally bold political viewpoints into a character and full film experience that is precisely as sharply intelligent and pointedly funny as Rock probably is in his real life, a tactic which makes for compelling viewing from start to finish.

Just take a moment and really think about this following concept. One item the late, and eternally great Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert often mused about when critiquing films was if the characters on screen would be as or more interesting than if we happened to overhear the real actors having lunch in a restaurant. If the characters on screen are not as interesting, then you ultimately would have a very weak film on your hands. With that in mind, plus the plethora of downright horrible films featuring members from the "Saturday Night Live"/"SCTV" community, where the scripts and characters are completely non-existent, and the laughs are even less than that, it was downright genius to see how Rock completely sidestepped this particular film comedy fate which has almost become a standard.

Chris Rock has peppered his film with appearances from his friends and colleagues in the comedy community and allowed absolutely all of them to contribute to the wider canvas of the film as a whole. From Cedric The Entertainer's wild performance as a simultaneously hilarious and horrifying guide on Andre Allen's fateful comedy tour to a sequence set within Allen's ex-girlfriend's neighborhood home, which features no less than Sherri Shepherd, Leslie Jones, Michael Che, and the inimitable Tracey Morgan, those terrific sequences and others are all designed to deepen and broaden the character and life arc of Andre Allen, while also being funny.

Rock wisely allows his cast to just talk, talk and talk even more, revealing not only traits about themselves but the rich history that exists between themselves and Allen, thus making for moments that are painfully bittersweet as emotions of pride and resentment are forever intertwined. Rock explores the difficulties that occurs when one of your own just happens to "make it," as Allen and his companions all questions whether his success was ever truly deserved over anyone else within their circle. Rock accomplishes this feat without any hyperbolic scenes of prefabricated drama. Just through a simmering tension that lurks beneath the joyous ribbing. A particularly strong sequence with the legendary Ben Vereen is especially prickly and even the otherwise comical scenes between Allen and his close friend/"security and assistant" Silk (the effortless natural JB Smoove) contain a bubbling jealousy.

The heart of the film belongs entirely to the trepidacious and often contentious relationship between Allen and Chelsea, the journalist he does not fully trust due to the years of lacerations he has received from her newspaper. Here is where I thought "Top Five" belonged in the same neighborhood as Actor/Co-Writer/Director Steve Buscemi's "The Interview" (2007), his remake of the Dutch original in which he starred alongside Sienna Miller as a political journalist and soap opera star respectively, engaged in a night long battle of wills. Granted, "Top Five" is not nearly as acidic as that film, but Rock does indeed inject a sizable amount of professional, intellectual and sexual tension between his two leading characters by giving each of them sharp banter that augments their respective worldviews and the chemistry between Rock and Rosario Dawson was much more palpable than I thought would be possible.

With regards to the relationship between Andre Allen and Chelsea Brown, again I found myself mentally returning to Richard Linklater's priceless "Before" series (1995/2004/2013) but also to films like Director Stephen Frears' "High Fidelity" (2000), Writer/Director Theodore Witcher's underseen yet celebrated romantic drama "love jones" (1997) and even moreso, Writer/Director Sofia Coppola's "Lost In Translation" (2003). With all of those films, especially Coppola's, Chris Rock has given us two characters who are essentially lost souls who somehow find each other unexpectedly and at a most opportune time. For Allen and Chelsea, they completely exist within the fishbowl maelstrom of celebrity, fame, artistic and professional expectations combined with the commercial demands of both of their respective industries of film and print media, yet they both feel as if they have reached stages of treading water to survive. No matter their successes, both of their professions have nearly eaten them alive due to all of the compromises and concessions each of them have made over the years. This element allows Rock to delve even deeper than he ever needed to do for a film of this sort, thus making for a much richer experience.

First of all, both Allen and Chelsea both posses some shared demons, which delve profoundly and rightfully into issues of race and class as each of them represent a societal rarity: highly successful African-Americans, an existence which sets them apart from their own race as well as their White counterparts. While one plot twist (no spoilers) unearths some racial and gender realities about the longevity and influence of Chelsea's journalism career, I loved how Rock forces us to take a harder look at what it really means to be "lonely at the top."

Andre Allen may be a globally famous movie star but where are the Black executives and studio heads that could possibly support his wishes to branch outwards creatively instead of forever wishing him to exist inside of a bear suit? A quick sequence with Kevin Hart as an Ivy League educated executive who is continuously left out of important studio meetings with his White colleagues is blistering in its truth, for instance. In another sequence, systematic prejudices against Blacks are further exhibited during another sequence where Allen, recording a station identification jingle for a satellite station, is asked by a White DJ/Producer to put "a little more stank" into his delivery. Chris Rock showcases and educates throughout "Top Five" that the air Andre Allen and to an extent, Chelsea Brown, are able to breathe is of a distinctly rarefied quality, making them truly the only people that can honestly understand each other.

But then, there is the matter of addiction. Both Andre Allen and Chelsea Brown are recovering alcoholics, which also ties the two characters together. But on a larger platform Chris Rock's "Top Five" also exists in the same neighborhood as Woody Allen's dark comedy "Celebrity" (1998),  and even to a degree Director David Fincher's "The Social Network" (2010), Writer/Director Spike Jonze's "Her" (2013) and Writer/Director Kevin Smith's "Tusk" from this year, as Rock is indeed holding up a societal mirror to the audience in regards to our addictions to fame, celebrity culture and our continuous obsessions with figures who hold no discernible talent and have actually only contributed massively to our societal and spiritual decay. Wisely, Rock never utilizes a heavy hand as he is just so savvy and sly with the presentation that we may not realize just how stinging his commentary is until we ruminate over the film afterwards.

Chris Rock's "Top Five" is another welcome surprise in a cinematic year that really has been filled with surprises. Ribald, raucous, and richly resonant, Chris Rock has accomplished a motion picture feat that is as enlightened as it is jocular and decidedly raunchy. Even moreso, it was not nearly lost on me that this is the second film this year, after Writer/Director Justin Simien's audacious "Dear White People," that I have seen in which the film is driven by the motivations and actions of contemporary, articulate, verbose, intelligent individuals who happen to be African American. While it is a shame to have to point out this fact, I am more than thankful that both of these films have arrived at all, itself a minor miracle.

For fans of Chris Rock, "Top Five" will certainly fly right up your alley. For late and newcomers like myself, the film is a terrific surprise. For those who just want to see a good movie, you can easily add this one to your list of films to see.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR DECEMBER 2014

This month, Savage Cinema will reach a very important milestone.

On December 30th, Savage Cinema will reach the age of 5 years old!!! Yes, almost five years ago, while sitting  in the basement of my parent's house during a Christmas visit, this blogsite was hatched and released into the world. The journey I had taken with Savage Cinema has been more than I could have ever hoped for it to be and your support of it and what I have been doing with my time has only continued to lift me and my creative spirit higher than ever.

While my official annual posting thanking you will arrive before the start of the new year, I have to just keep my eye on the prize right now with even more new releases on the horizon. Yes, "Foxcatcher" has yet to be released. But in addition to that film...

1. "The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies," Director Peter Jackson's final installment of his (and he means it this time) Middle Earth saga will open and while I have not been nearly as enthralled with his trilogy as I was with his "Lord Of The Rings" series, I have invested this much time into it already, so of course, I'll be there for the big finish.

2. Anytime Writer/Director Paul Thomas Anderson makes his return, I am READY!!!! This time, he arrives his druggy crime thriller/comedy hybrid "Inherent Vice" re-teaming him with Joaquin Phoenix. I have a feeling that this film may not open up for a wide release until January 2015 but I am hoping it does indeed find a release this moth.

3. Tim Burton has been operating on a downward side for the last few years so I am hoping that his latest drama "Big Eyes," a departure from fantasy worlds provides him with a creative upswing.

4, After the brilliantly fearless comedic bombshell of "This Is The End" last year, I am more than ready for the already controversial "The Interview" from the Writing/Directing team of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg.

5. Finally, there are the prestige pictures like "Selma,""Wild" and "Unbroken" on the horizon as well, and also, some of those may not see a full nationwide release until January, so stay tuned...

And as always, I'll see you when the house lights go down!

A BEAUTIFUL MIND: a review of "The Theory Of Everything"

"THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING"
Based upon the memoir Traveling To Infinity: My Life With Stephen by Jane Wilde Hawking
Screenplay Written by Anthony McCarten
Directed by James Marsh
***1/2 (three and a half stars)

In my recent review of "St, Vincent," which I felt was good but not great yet did contain one of the finest performances of Bill Murray's career, I remarked that sometimes all a film needs to do is to just tell its story as well as it is able, regardless of whether it pushes the boundaries of the movies any further or not. Yes, this year, my favorite films have essentially all included the very types of movies that have bravely pushed those boundaries, challenged me, upended me or made me think about what movies are able to achieve in new ways. But even so, there is indeed something to be said for the film that is more straightforward and relatively inoffensive but remains a first class production of high quality.

Director James Marsh's "The Theory Of Everything," a biographical romantic drama centered around the life of theoretical physicist/author Stephen Hawking is precisely that kind of a movie, an experience that will certainly not make you re-think the power of the cinema but one that is indeed fully and instantly absorbing, deeply emotional yet provocative in its concepts and themes and one that features two unquestionably outstanding leading performances, which equally demand awards season attention.

Beginning at the illustrious Cambridge University circa 1963, "The Theory Of Everything" opens the miraculous odyssey of Stephen Hawking (an astonishing Eddie Redmayne) at the age of 21, when he was rapidly on his way to revolutionizing our collective knowledge of the universe through the merging of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. At this same time, Hawking met and fell in love with Spanish/French student Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), a union that blossomed into a blissful romance.

All of life's elements seemed to be locked into its perfect place until Stephen Hawking's fateful diagnosis of a debilitating motor neuron disease related to Lou Gehrig's disease, an illness which initially gave him a prognosis of a mere two more years to live.

Battling the disease as well as his depression, Hawking, with Jane firmly at his side, continued to defy every single obstacle as his endlessly inquisitive mind produced new landmark scientific theories renowned the world over. But, even so, the struggle to maintain their love and marriage seemingly would prove to be even more difficult than discovering the possible beginning of time itself and the meaning of the universe.

"The Theory Of Every" is an exquisite production, lusciously filmed and lovingly executed with honest, probing and perceptive drama, as well as with a sweeping and rightfully painful romance housed at its core. In many ways, I felt this film to be precisely the kind of traditional yet first class motion picture that is bound to be recognized during awards season especially Oscar time. Much like Director Tom Hooper's Best Picture Oscar winner "The King's Speech" (2010), "The Theory Of Everything" contains such elegance to its aesthetics. The visual sheen by Cinematographer Benoit Delhomme is delicately superb, Anthony McCarten's screenplay is fiercely intelligent and all of the actors, who are excellent from top to bottom, are given much room to instill gravitas and spread their creative wings.

This feat is accomplished heroically by Eddie Redmayne who delivers a spectacular and enormously transformative performance as Stephen Hawking. Undoubtedly destined for Oscar recognition, I certainly wish to alert to you that I never felt for a moment that Redmayne's performance was self-congratulatory, histrionic or painfully melodramatic. Certainly, it is a performance of immense physicality as Redmayne, over the course of the film, begins to resemble the real world Stephen Hawking more and more (so much so that you may be performing double takes to ensure that you are witnessing the actor and not stock footage). It is so wondrous to see just how Redmayne has seemingly folded his entire body inwards to portray Hawking, an accomplishment which is more than fitting as his entire performance feels inhabited from the inside out. Redmayne's Stephen Hawking dials past the iconic status and never once do we see the "hero." Redmayne gives us a figure that is so recognizably human and knowable. Especially when his body begins to fail him.

The early sequences of "The Theory Of Everything" really struck a chord with me as Eddie Redmayne captured a certain and frightening fragility within the failures of the flesh. I think it would be hard pressed for anyone viewing this film to not place themselves into Hawking's shoes when the motions and movements our body undertakes, the very ones that we all indeed take for granted, are just not available to us anymore. In addition to just being housed inside of those thoughts in regards to our mortality, those feelings surfaced for me when I thought of what I go through whenever illnesses inevitably arrive, especially my bouts with minor vertigo, an ailment I have been struggling with for thirteen years. Dear readers, I must admit to you that I am not the best patient, as I am extremely impatient and overly anxious to return to the business of my life, from home and work responsibilities to writing on this blogsite. There is more than enough for me to do in a day, just as it is for all of you. Yet, I am not one to just take it in stride when I am forced into times of convalescence. And at times, it is very unnerving as I can never know exactly when I will be all of myself again. So, imagining a point when I would never be my complete self just terrified me as I truly have no idea of what I would do with myself if I could not be who I feel that I need to be.

Harboring those very thoughts and emotions as I watched this film made me wonder tremendously just how did the real Stephen Hawking force himself to continue onwards. Within the film, Redmayne presents no such easy answers within his performance as we see him exist through some extremely dark days and nights, signifying for himself, and for all of us, the painful but harsh reality that whether through science or metaphysics or both, we are not in as much control as we may think we are or wish to be. Nonetheless, "The Theory Of Everything" illustrates that Stephen Hawking carried onwards anyway for what else would he, or would we do in the same situation? Eddie Redmayne simply nails Stephen Hawking's relentless drive to keep probing for answers to the cosmos and existence itself while also depicting his frailties, his darkest fears, his human failings and most surprisingly, his sharply sardonic wit.

As brilliant as Eddie Redmayne is, he does not walk away with the entire movie. Felicity Jones is 100% Redmayne's equal and furthermore, she accomplishes this feat in what is arguably the more difficult role. Jones, as aided by the screenplay and James Marsh's expert direction gives us a performance, while less showy, that refuses to allow Jane Hawking to be swept into the background or reduce her to existing as the long suffering but endlessly supportive wife to the brilliant but ailing genius. Jones completely brings Jane Hawking to vivid three dimensional life because we are given a portrait of a woman who houses her own desires and educational pursuits as well as her own world and existential worldview that is just as rich and as intensely passionate as her husband's. For instance, where Stephen Hawking is an atheist who for a spell utilizes his scientific work to basically prove the non-existence of God, Jane challenges him fiercely time and again.

But it is through the love story where we truly see Stephen and Jane Hawking as flesh and blood human beings the most as their domestic hopes and struggles are again so instantly recognizable and therefore relatable. In fact, while watching "The Theory Of Everything," I was reminded of the love story contained within Director Steve James' "Life Itself," the wonderful documentary based upon the life of the late Roger Ebert as we were given front row access to the relationship between Ebert and his wife Chaz Ebert, most notably, during his own deteriorating health combined with his own unstoppable creativity and ultimately, his passing.

Here is where I felt "The Theory Of Everything" functioned at its most bittersweet and perceptive as Marsh presents us with this iconic figure who could figure out the mysteries of the universe, time and space but was still undone by the even more mysterious universes contained within the human heart. Felicity Jones shines especially in her role as we are given an explicit journey into the heart of the caretaker, a role that is often thankless and even moreso when the ailing partner in the relationship is globally famous and revered. Jones shows us through Jane Hawking how love and devotion can slowly transform into obligation, frustration, anger, resentment, loneliness, hopelessness and wanderlust (as represented by her return to the church to sing in the choir and her attraction towards church musician Jonathan Jones as played by Charlie Cox). which then continues to transform into guilt, remorse and regret and then, back to love and devotion all over again.

In some respects, this aspect of "The Theory Of Everything" also places this film somewhere in the same neighborhood as Director Terence Malick's controversial and majestic "The Tree Of Life" (2011), which also juxtaposed the birth, life, decay, death and rebirth of a family alongside the similar circle of existence as played throughout time, the cosmos and all living things down to the smallest molecule. But unlike the esoteric nature of that film, "The Theory Of Everything" is as accessible as it is artfully stately.

If I did have any flaws with the film, I wished for some key information regarding Stephen Hawking's health that the film not once touched upon. If you remember, when Hawking was first diagnosed, he was given a life expectancy of only two years. Now, Stephen Hawking has survived and thrived up to the age of 72! And yet, nowhere in the film were we given any medical and/or scientific information as to what procedures Hawking underwent to ensure his survival. I felt that just adding that crucial bit of information would have given this film a greater push over the top for me. But as it stands, and as strong as this film is, it still felt like a big black hole.

That being said, James Marsh's "The Theory of Everything" is a stylish, refined, sophisticated film front-loaded with two of the finest performances I have seen this year at the movies.  No, it didn't re-invent the wheel and nor did it have to. For when a motion picture is this exceedingly well crafted, what else could I really ask for?

THE REVOLUTION WILL BE (PARTIALLY) TELEVISED: a review of "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1"

"THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY-PART 1"
Based upon the novel The Hunger Games: Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins
Screenplay Written by Peter Craig and Danny Strong
Directed by Francis Lawrence
**1/2 (two and a half stars)

Ah...what hath Harry Potter wrought upon us all...

I am remembering when I first read J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The accompanying film series was already long underway and had, by that point, proven themselves to not only be faithful adaptations of Rowling's literary vision, they were gradually building themselves into being excellent films within their own right. Yet, as I read what was the final installment and imagining the film version to come, I was truly confused as to how the filmmakers would even have been able to stuff everything into one single film, even if that film happened to be a three and a half hour epic a la Director Peter Jackson's majestic "The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King" (2003).

Every moment in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows felt to be so important, so crucial and so integral to the over arching narrative that I was dumbfounded as to what could have been edited out of the story to make everything work as a feature film. And then came the announcement that the book would be cleaved into two films, a decision I felt was brilliant on an artistic level as well as a commercial level. For the fans and the story itself, the narrative would not be compromised and for the suits, those "Harry Potter" dollars would roll in for one more film. It was win-win for everyone.

Or was it?

After that unquestionable success, movie studios have been going more than a little haywire with the multiple, serialized film series format. Somehow, a trilogy just doesn't seem to be enough anymore as we are now receiving film adaptations of books and book series that are extended needlessly and to the point of exhaustion.

Just take a look at the "Twilight" film series (or better yet, don't), especially Director Bill Condon's interminable two part finale "Breaking Dawn" (2011/2012), whose lack of actual narrative explicitly showed the last film should have only been one film as well as the overall mercenary aspect of the project as a whole. Even moreso, is Peter Jackson himself whose devotion to all things Middle Earth has given us "The Hobbit" (2012/2013/2014) as a most unnecessary trilogy that sidelines its titular character and is, potentially, a full nine hours culled from one book (plus supplemental J.R.R. Tolkien material and Jackson inventions). And just this week, I read that the upcoming theatrical adaptation of Stephen King's The Stand will become...four feature length films. To that, I say the password is "overkill."

Now, we arrive at Director Francs Lawrence's "The Hunger Games:Mockingjay-Part 1," the beginning of the end as it is itself another adaptation of one novel being split into two films, the second installment to arrive this time next year. If you have been following my exploits on Savage Cinema, you would know that I have been an extremely enthusiastic fan of this film series as both of the previous installments delivered an elegant, compelling and brutal future vision of a world where the many are subjugated by the powerful few and children are forced to fight to the death on live television in the Hunger Games to further the political subjugation, that is until the arrival of teenage Katniss Everdeen as a defiant Hunger Games contestant who inspires rebellion and revolution.

Certainly, nothing would keep me away from this third chapter, especially as I have not read the book as I am not fond of author Suzanne Collins' writing style. But, I have to admit to a sense of fatigue with this trend of the extended concluding episodes and therefore, I have to say that "Mockingjay-Part 1" does suffer a steep decline in quality due to this elongated finale. No, it is not a bad film and also, it never loses its sense of purpose and intent. What it does lose is a sense of urgency and momentum because just as this series should be building up towards a towering, and inevitably cataclysmic conclusion, it remains stuck in neutral for far too long.

"Mockingjay-Part 1" begins not long after the events of "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" (2013) when Katniss Everdeen (again portrayed by Jennifer Lawrence)  destroyed the Hunger Games Quarter Quell arena and was rescued by the rebel leaders of District 13, a subterranean facility located deep below the ruins of the original District 13.

While underground, Katniss is not only reunited with fellow Hunger Games victors Beetee (Jeffery Wright), Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin) and the alcoholic but now detoxed Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson) and her former chaperone and PR rep Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) but also with her family and her closest confidant Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth). She is addressed and recruited by rebellion leader President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) and former Hunger Games
mastermind yet in truth an undercover rebellion leader Plutarch Heavensbee (the late Philip Seymour Hoffman) into serving as the "Mockingjay," the symbol of the political uprising now underway, a movement that has led to the full evisceration of Katniss' home of District 12.

Capitol President Snow (a silvery and demonic Donald Sutherland), in his pursuit of ultimate societal control, becomes more openly fascist with public executions of any and all who defy his leadership. To further his personal battle of wills with Katniss, he has also seemingly co-opted Katniss' Hunger Games partner and possible love interest Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) in the process.

"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1," as with the two previous installments, continues its grim path with strong cinematic style, a further broadening and deepening of the story's canvas while cementing Katniss Everdeen as a teenage heroine to cheer and root for and follow straight into the mouth of Hell itself. Jennifer Lawrence again confirms that she was the absolute perfect choice to bring this character to three dimensional life as her steadfast empathy, churning inner turmoil and undeniable passion simmers powerfully from the screen, making it impossible to tear your eyes away from her.

While this installment offers no Hunger Games events as well as considerably less action as the previous two films, Jennifer Lawrence through Katniss is forced to rely less upon her physicality and more upon her mental athletics as she presents Katniss as a young woman struggling to maintain any sense of individuality as she quickly realizes that she is as much of a political pawn for the rebellion as she was for the totalitarian government. Francis Lawrence wisely utilizes "Mockingjay-Part 1" to serve as a treatise on the properties of propaganda as the rebellion creates and utilizes a collection of short guerrilla films (referred to as "propos") to further manipulate the masses into revolution.

I really loved the sequence where Katniss stood in front of a make believe background of war torn destruction while unconvincingly shouting scripted declarations of union and uprising as directed by Plutarch in a control booth. This is juxtaposed with a sequence in the Capitol as President Snow decides upon what would the proper vocabulary be in order to keep the masses in line. On both fronts, the rebellion and the government attempt to one up each other until Katniss is convinced to go directly into the decimated District battlefields, complete with a camera crew, acting almost as a front line war correspondent ready to relay messages through pirated frequencies.

With this, I felt that Francis Lawrence has again used the source material and has extended from any genre trappings by urging those of us in our theater seats to make the connections between this very fictional world and the real world we will inevitably return to once the end credits cease to scroll. For me, I could not help but to find my mind turn towards the tragic events in Ferguson, MO as well as how the events have been played out and represented within the media on all sides of the political aisle. Just listen to what words are said and how language and imagery are used for the police and the protesters as well as the deceased Michael Brown himself, and how each side has been characterized to produce an emotional response and strict opinions within viewers. The desire to manipulate is constant, ever shape shifting but with a clear end-game in mind and Lawrence is cleverly in tune with how propaganda is created and disseminated and how we all play into being players as well as being played.

As I remarked earlier, the issues I had with "Mockingjay-Part 1" really had nothing to do with the overall purpose of the film in regards to its themes and concepts, but with the purpose of its execution. Essentially what we have is only half of a film. Yes, with that "Part 1" in the title, I know that we will have a story that is unfinished but that doesn't mean that we need to have a film that feels so unfortunately incomplete and therefore padded as we are just marking time before the next film. Yes, I do realize that the events of this film are serving as a prelude for the next film but why make two films when there could have been just one tight, taut, and accelerating three hour plus film to serve as a grand finale? As it stands, "Mockingjay-Part 1" is a film that spins its wheels for far too long, slowing down when it should be revving up.

I will admit that the longer "Mockingjay-Part 1" runs, the better it gets. With a nighttime raid that felt like parts of Director Kathryn Bigelow's "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012), the cavernous underground escapes from the pulverizing bombings above, and a thrilling final few scenes, we get the film that we have needed "Mockingjay-Part 1" to be. However, the first hour or so of the film just drags and drags. While I am not able to think of actual full sequences that needed to be edited out, I do feel that the film could have easily been edited down a bit or at least a tad streamlined and still make the same points. Because watching a collective of characters wring their hands and furrow their brows in an underground world plotting and planning or having several other sequences where characters are staring sadly at above ground worlds of devastation can only be so visually and viscerally interesting for so long. Before you know it, you realize that we are all just being spoon fed a plot not to create suspense or dramatic tension but solely to justify the two hour plus running time and the subsequent two hours to come.

Which is a shame because I feel that even within a film series, it is up to the filmmakers to ensure that audiences are receiving as complete of a film as possible. I look back to something like George Lucas and Director Irvin Kirshner's "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980), a film that begins and ends in mid-action and yet feels like a full, complete statement. For more recent examples, take The Wachowski's "Matrix Trilogy" (1999/2003) and even Director Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight Trilogy" (2005/2008/2012) where they also accomplished the same feats of crafting an escalating drama where each section was fulfilling individually. And of course, returning to the "Harry Potter" series, we saw how each book and film contained a central story with its own concepts, themes and mystery all of which then served the on-going and larger story.

With "Mockingjay-Part 1," once it says what it needs to say, all we can then do is just wait and wait, a tactic that does indeed make me a bit nervous for "Part 2" which will undoubtedly be a film of all out war but potentially may have its power undercut. Yes, this first half will inform the second half, but for now, it just feels like a "half," one that left me unsatisfied and underwhelmed as it really didn't have that much story to tell. "Mockingjay-Part 1" is exceedingly well acted by the entire cast, beautifully visualized and does possess a creeping sense of all encompassing doom but once it was over, I indeed stifled a yawn.

Because for a movie that is boldly going to wade through the themes of totalitarianism and propaganda, how pathetic it is to be defeated by the mechanics of commercialism and commerce.  

GIVE THE DRUMMER SOME!!!: a review of "Whiplash"

"WHIPLASH"
Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle
**** (four stars)

"Whiplash," the breakout feature film from Writer/Director Damien Cazelle is hands down the most electrifying film I have seen in 2014. This story of a 19 year old jazz drummer engaged in a ferocious battle of wills with his tyrannical instructor is exhilarating as it is exhausting, profound as it is pummeling, towering as it is tumultuous and even terrifying. Chazelle is, from the very first shot, a born filmmaker who somehow possesses a Scorsese-ian heft and fury to his storytelling that is blistering to behold. In a year and time period when CGI extravaganzas and costume heroes rule the day in our local theaters and cineplexes, it is truly a miracle to see a film about everyday human beings that carries such a tremendous amount of natural excitement. Trust me, dear readers, "Whiplash" is a knock out experience of agony, discipline and euphoria that showcases the power of the movies at its excellence. This one is NOT to be missed!

"Whiplash" stars Miles Teller from last year's wonderful teen drama "The Spectacular Now" in a sensational and feverishly intense performance as Andrew Neiman, the aforementioned 19 year old jazz drummer who attends the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory Of Music, who catches the eyes and ears of Terence Fletcher (a titanic J.K. Simmons), the school's infamous Studio Band conductor who is not only on the lookout for a new drum alternate, but a true musical phenom.

While Andrew eventually impresses Fletcher enough with his percussive skills and proficiency during a band rehearsal session, he quickly realizes that Fletcher's teaching style, which is based in severe emotional manipulation and all manner of abuses and injustices, is not only the order of the day for the band but also the exact technique utilized to inspire young musicians to become greater than they ever conceived themselves to become.

Essentially, that is the plot of "Whiplash," a film which serves as a two character study that richly explores the themes of success and failure, as well as the aspirations and endless hunt for personal and artistic greatness even when that very greatness arrives at the expense of maintaining and retaining one's sense of humanity. The performances by both Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons are two of the very finest of the year and they each deserve every stitch of acclaim that falls at their feet, Your teeth will be gnashing together as you witness their struggles with each other as well as within themselves.

The characters of Andrew Neiman and Terence Fletcher are essentially cut from the very same cloth. For Andrew, he exists as a lonely, introverted and friendless young man whose only relationships of value are with his Father (beautifully played by Paul Reiser), a high school teacher and failed author, as well as with his drums, most notably contained within his obsession with the iconic percussive talents of Buddy Rich, the brass ring that Andrew hopes to reach. By the time he is under the feral tutelage of Terence Fletcher, and the abusive mind games continue to mount, Andrew is repeatedly forced to question not only why he would continue to endure such a despairing, straining existence within the band but are the punishing lessons indeed as useful as Fletcher clearly intends for them to be.

Miles Teller, who actually is a drummer, performs his role with such endurance and athleticism but he nails the psychological drama contained within the obsession and most importantly, the fear of failure and overall insignificance that fuels him. Andrew is a spirit that feels that achieving the level of notoriety where he has essentially created a certain immortality for himself  based upon his musical talent is worth living a life of loneliness and succumbing to a series of potentially compulsive behaviors, anxieties, and depression. This decision also makes scenes between himself and Nicole, a possible girlfriend (nicely played by Melissa Benoist) as well as those with his Father so heartbreaking as the trade Andrew is making between musical excellence and emotional stability is anguishing to watch as he is willingly placing himself in such harm's way every single minute he continues to remain with Terence Fletcher.

Just take the early sequence in the film which I will call the "Rushing or Dragging" sequence, where Fletcher continuously questions and then berates Andrew in regards to whether he is rushing or dragging the beat of the dizzying complex jazz composition "Whiplash." The sheer intensity between these two men during this section just emanates heat from the screen as Fletcher begins somewhat patiently yet uncompromisingly and then the scenes unexpectedly explodes into violence, with thrown chairs, a barrage of insults and public humiliations and finally, repeated slaps to the face.

And from that sequence, it only gets worse as Andrew, continuing to try and attain Fletcher's approval, suffers through more rehearsal sections that play and conclude like crime scenes. Fletcher weaves an environment where he pits these young musicians against each other in the classroom as well as during jazz competition performances, where there is no mercy for visible sheet music when it must be memorized, let alone the possession of out of tune instruments and God forbid, forgotten drum sticks. Hell's flames are pitifully weak when compared with Terence Fletcher's unrepentant rage.

Damien Chazelle also utilizes "Whplash" to explore the cycle of abuse as depicted within the classroom settings. We see how Fletcher's venom when inflicted upon his students carries over from student to student with a competitive outrage and also a certain self-infliction. A sequence where Andrew, running late for a competition performance and fearing he will lose his cherished drum part is equally combustible and draining in its unstoppable force. Chazelle structures this section as tightly as the best action thriller you could hope to see as it contains not only the requisite shocks but a white knuckle power that will have you grabbing and even pounding your theater seats. But Chazelle never exploits his material for cheap effect. He wisely and strongly allows the only exploitation to occur on screen as Fletcher is obviously a figure who is exploiting the talents of these young musicians in pursuit of his own elusive success and musical immortality, desires that are housed inside his own fears of failure.

J.K. Simmons is a revelation in his performance as Terence Fletcher as he has discovered the Machiavellian layers within the character as he is simultaneously seductive and encouraging as well as nightmarishly formidable and maddeningly unforgiving. Where perhaps other actors would just portray this figure as a monster and be done with it, Simmons draws you in closer and closer and just as rapidly blows you out of your seat. You will definitely attain a certain mental whiplash yourselves just trying to keep up with him.

Yes, Fletcher is a monster, precisely the type of teacher you would never wish for your child to have. But then again...

While Chazelle is rightfully critical of this character's tactics, with his rancorous temper, nearly inhuman demands and impossible psychological tests, he also delivers a challenging and provocative argument that suggests that perhaps Terence Fletcher's relentless teaching style just may be able to produce the next Charlie Parker by weeding out those who just cannot take his level of pressure and commitment. Throughout the film, both Andrew and Fletcher are equally inspired by the story of how Charlie Parker attained greatness after having a cymbal thrown at his head by drummer Jo Jones for a sub par performance (in truth, the cymbal was thrown at Parker's feet, a gaffe I think is intentional as Fletcher would obviously know the real story but augments it to further his manipulation of Andrew). Supposedly, as Fletcher explains, this was the fork in the road where Parker could have slunk away and given up forever or he could practice even more, which he did, and then returned one year later and emerged as Bird!!

This musical anecdote completely informs the characters of both Andrew Neiman and Terence Fletcher as it carries a weight that exists on the level of  Herman Melville's Moby Dick, as everlasting greatness and fame serves as the "white whale" for both men--possibly even moreso for Fletcher, who, the film implies just might be a failed jazz musician himself, for why else would he be teaching if he had not achieved the level of greatness he so doggedly pursues? Themes of exploitation resurface as we realize that he is just using the younger musicians to help him attain the success that he was unable to achieve on his own, all the while using fear and violence as the catalysts.

In the film's final concert sequence, "Whiplash" grows into a battle of power and control as Andrew and Fletcher go mano-a-mano in a virtuoso performance of the jazz selection "Caravan." Chazelle builds the sequence to an extraordinary yet seismically ambiguous conclusion for we are left with questions of what has been either gained or lost and as both men serve as each other's antagonist, we also wonder just who is using whom.

How far would you go to achieve greatness? What are you willing to do? What lines would you continue to cross including the very ones that define your individual sense of self-respect and dignity? And even if you do compromise everything about yourself for greatness, would that even produce genus anyway? These questions and themes lie at the very heart and soul of Damien Chazelle's "Whiplash" a film of passion, sweat, grit, and heaping amounts of boiling blood, fire and brimstone. Believe me, dear readers, there has not been even one CGI explosion this year that carries as much palpable force as what is witnessed and experienced within this film, one that will undeniably leave you shaken and reeling from its magnitude.

When it comes time for me to officially compile my top ten favorite films of 2014, I will certainly be struggling with what to place at the number 1 spot for this is the year that gave us all Writer/Director Richard Linklater's "Boyhood," a film I consider to be his masterpiece, his greatest cinematic achievement.

Even so, the brutal beauty of "Whiplash" cannot be denied and refuses to be ignored. This film will hit you like a fist in the face, and trust me, you'll be eagerly waiting to take the punches again.

TO INFINITY AND BEYOND: a review of "Interstellar"

"INTERSTELLAR"
Screenplay Written by Jonathan Nolan & Christopher Nolan
Produced and Directed by Christopher Nolan
**** (four stars)

I wish I could just possibly understand just how Christopher Nolan accomplishes what he always sets out to do when he decides to craft another cinematic work. Each and every single time that I have had the pleasure to experience a Christopher Nolan film, I have been amazed, to varying degrees, how deeply he has been able to immerse me into a audio/visual journey, the kind of which where I feel a bit of internal transformation when I exit the theater.

To think, Nolan has taken all of us on enormously captivating yet deeply disturbing ventures through memories and madness with "Memento" (2000) and "Insomnia" (2002); competition, ego and violent hubris via dueling magicians in "The Prestige" (2006), the labyrinthine dream worlds in "Inception" (2010) and of course, his transcendent Dickensian presentation of the Batman saga with "The Dark Knight Trilogy" (2005/2008/2012), and all with a masterful filmmaking hand with weaving a collection of mind benders that also stirred the soul.

With "Interstellar," Nolan returns with what is definitely his most ambitious undertaking to date, as he charts a path from Earth past Mars and Saturn, through wormholes, black holes, time and space and a variety of astrophysical dimensions and back again while firmly keeping the love story between a Father and daughter at its core. This three hour experience truly provides Nolan with his most extreme sense of the journey one can have while sitting within a theater seat and while his ambitions sometimes elude his grasp here and there, the overwhelming effect of "Interstellar" made for one of 2014's furthest reaching films.

Set in an undetermined future, Earth's existence hangs in its most precarious state as natural resources have been depleted to the point where society has regressed to becoming a farming civilization. The presence of deathly dust storms have polluted to atmosphere to its most inhospitable state thus propelling the planet close to collapse.

Matthew McConaughey stars as Cooper, a widower and former NASA test pilot, astro-physicist now turned farmer who lives with his teenage son Tom (Timothee Chalamet), his aging Father-In-Law Donald (John Lithgow) and his beloved 10 year old daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy). Cooper soon discovers a secret NASA installation community where is then is recruited by Professor Brand (Michael Caine) to pilot a space craft through a wormhole on the outskirts of Saturn to potentially find a new hospitable planet for humanity, a decision which causes a near irrevocable rift between Cooper and Murph.

With the aid of geographer Doyle (Wes Bentley), physicist Romilly (David Gyasi), Professor Brand's daughter and biologist Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway) and an oversized sardonic boxy robot named TARS (Bill Irwin), Cooper departs Earth with the hopes of saving civilization, most notably his daughter, whose generation just may be the last to exist on earth should the team fail in their efforts.

While the plot itself may appear and lend itself to being nothing more than "Armageddon 2," Christopher Nolan clearly has conceptually much more on his plate. The titanic and towering shadows of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) and Steven Spielberg's "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" (1977) loom tremendously large over Nolan's proceedings and with dashes of James Cameron's "The Abyss" (1989), Robert Zemeckis' "Contact" (1997), Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity" (2013)  and Andrei Tarkovsky's "Solaris" (1972) as well. Even so, Nolan remains no cinematic copycat. Yet, what his film shares with those aforementioned titles is a more serious and therefore realistic representation of what the experience of travelling through outer space would be like combined with an equally serious and profound take for what the presence of interstellar worlds spell for our collective humanity itself.

All of that being said, the warmth inherent within the sense of discovery and exploration has been completely jettisoned for a more, and appropriately fraught landscape of feverish despair and desperation. "Interstellar" hinges much closer to Kubrick than Spielberg as the film is undoubtedly and defiantly a dark experience that proves to be Christopher Nolan's coldest and most clinical film to date. Yes there are action set pieces, otherworldly thrills and splendidly realized cosmic visions to be had, but Nolan has not crafted an escapade or space opera. "Interstellar" is a grim tale of survival and the often futile possibilities that success could even be reached in the first place.

Nolan gives us a complete collective of characters who are all caught within the encroaching claws of anger, regret, recrimination, depression, grief, failure, and decades long bouts of resentment, all qualities that certainly give the quest for survival an added weight, purpose and realism but I will say does make the experience of watching "Interstellar" somewhat joyless, especially as planetary extinction is imminent.  

To that end, Nolan also gives us a few characters who are dangerously duplicitous and incorporates them into a pointed cultural commentary about our political and even societal denigration of Science, which will possibly lead to our downfall just as much as our own sense of hubris that lies at the heart of our inflated perceptions of our own human intelligence and scientific capabilities. It is a particularly bleak future vision that Nolan, like Terry Gilliam's "Twelve Monkeys" (1995), just might be saying that human annihilation is simply inevitable.

Which makes the tension between Cooper and Murph that much more palpable and urgent because when Cooper leaves Earth, there are no guarantees that he will even return at all or that even she will be alive if he does. Their need to communicate and connect supplied the film with its turbulent soul, a film which showcases a universe that is as unpredictable and as unforgiving as the Earth has now become. Even time itself works against Cooper and Murph as Nolan, obviously extending his time altering landscapes of "Inception" even further, has created a story in which one hour spent on another world in another galaxy could be seven full years on Earth. As Cooper explains to Murph before he departs,"When I come back, we could even be the same age." Or the parent who only wants to save his child may even outlive that child simply due to time and space travel. There simply is no safe place anywhere and that's why the film's love story really moved me, despite some reviews that found any notions of emotional sensitivity laughable. The hope to see that cherished person for even just one more time carried a heartfelt fragility that for me, spoke to the central conceit of our collective existence and our relationships with each other. This was a hope that never felt to be a Disney-esque fabrication. It was the tether that provided the connective tissue to life and the endurance of the human spirit itself.

Matthew McConaughey's re-invention of himself as an actor has continued beautifully. Within "Interstellar," Nolan has essentially taken McConaughey's devil-may-care persona and then propels him through time and space itself yet always keeping him firmly grounded to just seeing and saving his daughter. Some astoundingly presented sequences very late in the film (and of course, I will not describe) showcase McConaughey's newfound sense of gravitas and for me, the effect of his completely physical and psychological performance was primal. And Anne Hathaway, along with strong performances by Jessica Chastain and Casey Affleck, aided and supported McConaughey with confidence and grit. 

From a visual standpoint, "Interstellar" is a sumptuous presentation, all the better when screened on the luscious and grainy warmth of 35MM film as opposed to digital. Awards season has better give much acclaim and accolades to Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema for the gorgeous visual design as well as for Nolan's special effects team who utilizes physical objects and landscapes as a preference to the rampant CGI technology. And while it may have been irritating to some, I was thoroughly engaged with Composer Hans Zimmer's innovative score which prominently featured the pipe organ to grandiose effect.

But I do have to make note of my issues with the film's sound, issues that I have been reading about over the pas week. Now initially, I was very concerned about the film's volume as I had read that some IMAX screenings had their speaker systems blown out, thus prompting me to bring a pair of ear plugs just in case. Well...it turns out that I never needed them as he sound was indeed not unbearably loud at all. In fact, there were many portions of the film, especially during the film's surprisingly quiet as a tomb middle hour, where I was just straining to hear actual lines of dialogue which seemed to be whispered. Another moment, this time featuring Michael Caine, was practically unintelligible as it was a collection of barely audible mumbles. Yes, I understand that Nolan thinks that audiences will be able to understand the gist of what is going on and that he is possibly using dialogue as more of an Robert Altman-esque effect but even so, the technique did irritate me at points, especially as the actors are giving performances that suggest the most crucial information is being given...if only we could hear it,

Yet, those issues did not deter the overwhelmed feeling I experienced at the conclusion of "Interstellar," a film which indeed make me feel as if I had extended my consciousness to the furthest reaches of the universe. I am gathering that within subsequent viewings over the years, the greatness of "Interstellar" will only continue to reveal itself to me as the mysteries of the universe as well as the soul continues to merge together.

While some may scoff at the actual science of the film, I hate to break it to you, "Interstellar" is not a documentary. But what Christopher Nolan, a filmmaker who only continues to push, challenge and just flat out try in ways that most filmmakers have long forgotten, has achieved with his remarkable and wide reaching film is a meditation about how the science informs the spirit and how the spirit informs the science, making the two inseparable and essential partners as we navigate our place in the universe.

And how hope and love remain, even when human beings may soon cease to be.