THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

The Theory of Everything
Grade: A

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Charlie Cox, David Thewlis, Maxine Peake and Harry Lloyd

Premise: Shortly after falling in love with a beautiful young woman at Cambridge, cosmology student Stephen Hawking receives a devastating health diagnosis. But despite his increasing physical limitations, his wife refuses to give up helping him conduct his research.

Rated PG-13 for thematic material including intense emotional content and some unsettling/disturbing images

What does it mean to truly love somebody?

That question often came up in discussions of last year’s Spike Jonze film, Her, which was about the romance between a man and the lively female personality of his automated home management system. I thought of that movie—and that big question—while watching The Theory of Everything today, because it touches on similar ground. In Her, a man becomes happily and fully committed to a woman he cannot and will not ever see or touch; in Theory, we see a woman serving as lover, companion and provider to a man who is alive and lucid but can barely function without her assistance, and can give her almost nothing in return.

The man is, of course, physicist Stephen Hawking, whose early adulthood bout with “motor-neuron syndrome”—aka Lou Gehrig’s Disease—left him incapacitated, wheelchair-bound, and, eventually, unable to physically speak. The woman in the film is Jane Hawking, the physicist’s first wife, on whose memoir (“Travelling to Infinity: My Life With Stephen”) the movie is based. As adapted by Anthony McCarten and directed by James Marsh, and acted out by spirited young actors Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything explores the depths of love, commitment and companionship in the unique dynamic of a relationship that, despite being between two living, breathing human beings, is unavoidably (some might say hopelessly) one-sided.

Plot

Cambridge, 1963: Stephen Hawking (Redmayne of Les Miserables fame) is just another young man. He may be a tad smarter than most, studying cosmology and seeking a Ph.D. thesis subject, but with a thin, freckled face, a gangly figure, and huge eyeglasses, he doesn’t stand out much, and certainly doesn’t impress the ladies. One night at a party, he happens to catch the eye of poetry enthusiast Jane Wilde (Jones), and once he gets a chance to talk to her, even though he’s got quite the vocabulary and high-minded topics of conversation, he’s more down to earth than she might have thought. He’s winning enough that even his snooty upper-class family won’t deter her. Lovesick though Stephen becomes, he still proves himself the smartest student in his class.

Then—disaster. After taking a terrible and unexpected fall on a flat walkway on campus, Stephen goes to the doctor and gets horrible news. His propensity to fumble away items or to suddenly go stiff in the legs wasn’t a random illness, a cramp, or clumsiness. He has motor-neuron syndrome, ALS, Lou Gehrig’s Disease—whatever you choose to call it—and he probably only has two years to live. Devastated by this diagnosis and realizing he has limited time left, Stephen decides to throw himself into his studies, to use his brilliant mind to accomplish and study as much as he can, particularly his Black Hole Theory. He’s even angry and desperate enough to turn his back on Jane.

But she won’t have it. Even in light of the diagnosis, Jane sticks by his side, confesses her love to him, marries him, and has his children. Stephen becomes a doctor and renowned published author and physicist. In a remarkable (but often unheeded and unrewarded) show of strength and selflessness and bravery, Jane feeds Stephen, helps him get dressed, helps him in and out of his wheelchair, and does what she can to make life as accessible as possible to him. Even once Stephen loses the ability to speak, and can only communicate by typing words into a machine that will read them aloud, she’s faithful and willing. But Jane does have her own needs, and when church choir director-turned family friend Jonathan Jones (Charlie Cox) confesses feelings for her, it’s hard not to reciprocate.

What Works?

The Theory of Everything doesn’t waste any time, having the main characters meet within five minutes and having warning signs of Stephen’s disease appear almost equally early. Especially since it’s almost impossible to walk in without knowing who the protagonist is and what sort of limitations he has, the movie has got you in its grip right from the get-go. You’re intrigued and cheered by the easy chemistry between Stephen and Jane (especially when they seem such a mismatch, with her way out of his league), you’re crushed by the horrible diagnosis you know is coming, and you’re engaged by scenes of their day-to-day life, which they make almost normal. And, of course, you end up thoroughly invested and moved at the hard-working, overlooked Jane’s work behind the scenes as her husband becomes a world-renowned professor.

The movie is very well-cast, with seasoned veterans like David Thewlis (Professor Lupin in the Harry Potter series) and Emily Watson (a two-time Oscar nominee) in supporting parts, and new faces Charlie Cox and Maxine Peake in key roles as the Hawkings’ respective love interests—the former the warm, supportive male presence Jane craves and the latter a spunky individual who livens up Stephen’s long, slow days of trying to communicate. I won’t call this group ‘window dressing’, as they’re far too effective for that, but it’d be hard to blame anyone who walks away only remembering the leads.

Redmayne, 32, is best known for his role as the lovelorn patriot Marius in 2012’s Les Mis, and he’s done eye-catching work in My Week With Marilyn and Hick, but what he does here is astonishing. His complete physical commitment to the role of the barely-mobile protagonist is riveting, so far beyond acting you barely remembering you’re watching an actor play Hawking, and not the physicist himself. Other thoroughly-convincing tour-de-force portrayals of physically-limited individuals came to mind, such as Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot and Colin Firth in The King’s Speech. Both those guys won Best Actor Oscars, by the way, and Redmayne will likely be in the conversation for his portrait, which isn’t always very dignified but is certainly true to the real figure.

Good as Redmayne is, the real star is the 31-year-old Felicity Jones, whom audiences might recognize for her small role in last summer’s Amazing Spider-Man 2 or her starring role in the 2011 drama Like Crazy (most remembered now as one of Jennifer Lawrence’s first prominent films). Jones’s performance is superb, not just for the emotional theatrics she sometimes must bring to the role, but what the role suggests—a woman who loved a man enough to put her own needs forever on the back burner, to feed him, change him, clean him, push his wheelchair, raise his children, defer to his public genius, and support him fully. There are moments when the strain of carrying this unenviable burden shows (her first attempt to try to get Stephen to communicate after he loses the ability to speak altogether is heartbreaking); the emotion and agony increases dramatically when you remember the real Jane Hawking did this for twenty-five years of marriage (they divorced in 1995). It’s a moving, wonderful performance, and likely also puts Jones in line for an Oscar nomination (for Best Actress, and it would be well-deserved).

What Doesn’t Work?

At just over two hours, The Theory of Everything isn’t agonizingly-long, and, thankfully for a fact-based-film, it doesn’t feel much like a history lesson or a documentary, either. It doesn’t contain a great entertainment factor, so it’s not exactly a film one would watch over and over, but that’s a small fault. This movie is very well done.

Content

Audience members who might wonder how on earth Jane and Stephen Hawking had three kids, given his condition, will be left wondering, as The Theory of Everything is impressively clean. I can’t recall any specific profanities (though I’m sure there are a couple), there’s no violence, and there’s no sensual content beyond a few kisses. But, of course, the details of Stephen’s symptoms and his struggle can be difficult to watch and endure—a good portion of the film, while enlightening, is unavoidably depressing. Younger viewers will probably have many questions.

Bottom Line

Based on the real-life lengthy marriage between Jane and Stephen Hawking, The Theory of Everything can be impressively-enlightening and desperately-sad, but above all it is truly moving. The principle figures are brought to vivid life in fine performances by Felicity Jones and Eddie Redmayne, and the stirring dynamic is one that can and should be pondered and marveled at by viewers for a long time. What does it mean to really love somebody? How far would you go to show someone you love them? Is it wrong to crave physical affection when you’re married, but your spouse is physically unable to provide that physical affection? And how would you react if you or someone you loved was given such a harsh diagnosis? This is a profound and affecting movie.

The Theory of Everything (2014)

Directed by James Marsh
Screenplay by Anthony McCarten
Based on the book “Travelling to Infinity: My Life With Stephen” by Jane Wilde Hawking
Rated PG-13
Length: 123 minutes

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - Part 1

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1

Grade: B

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Willow Shields, Donald Sutherland, Sam Claflin, Elizabeth Banks, and Jeffrey Wright; also Featuring Mahershala Ali as Boggs, Natalie Dormer as Cressida, Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman and Paula Malcolmson as Katniss’ mother

Premise: Now a resident of the long-hidden District 13, famous but shell-shocked Katniss Everdeen tries to decide whether or not to become the face and mouthpiece of a fierce, end-all rebellion.

Rated PG-13 for thematic material including disturbing images and some blood, intense action, scary moments, and some language

There is a scene in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 that will blow you away.

Yes, Mockingjay is overall an effective, dutiful adaptation of the first half of the third and final book of Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games trilogy, but there is one scene in particular audiences will leave the theater talking about. I’m not going to reveal what happens in that scene, but you’ll know it when you see it. This scene is noteworthy not only for its startling immediacy (even those who’ve read the book and have been awaiting the scene will be surprised) but also that it suddenly makes what has, for nearly two hours, been a pretty-good movie, a Must-Watch movie. This breathless intensity is carried the rest of the way, making one rather wish the end credits could be staved off a little longer.

If Mockingjay had been that good all the way, it would have been a pretty great film. As it is, it’s a good movie and an effective link in the series chain (both readers and non-readers will be able to follow along), but it is without question the weakest installment so far.

Plot    

**Note: Those who have not seen the previous movies (or read the books) are urged to do so before seeing Mockingjay, as it picks up within days of the end of the previous installment, last year’s Catching Fire.**

There is still a District Thirteen after all. Though every citizen in the futuristic nation of Panem knows District Thirteen was bombed to smithereens by the air forces of the oppressive Capitol, it turns out that was only on the surface. The survivors remained and thrived, building a huge, technologically-advanced underground fortress with the means to sustain a population. The leader of this regimented, highly-disciplined society is President Alma Coin (series newcomer Julianne Moore). Her right hand is former Head Gamekeeper and Capitol bigwig Plutarch Heavensbee (the late Philip Seymour Hoffman). They’ve got armies of soldiers and pilots, an arsenal of explosives, a whole fleet of attacking aircraft, and they’ve got word that people in many of Panem’s remaining districts are ready to mobilize against the Capitol. But they need something to unite and inspire them all.

The something could be the “Girl on Fire”, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), the Hunger Games champion who made the mockingjay bird a mascot of sorts for the rebellion. But Katniss is in a state of emotional and psychological turmoil after two trips to the killing-contest Hunger Games, particularly her second trip, which ended with her being rescued from an exploding arena by the rebels while her friend and some-time love interest Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) was captured and imprisoned by the Capitol. She’s still got friends and allies around for support, like her longtime friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and her sweetie-pie little sister, Prim (Willow Shields), but she’s sick at heart imagining Peeta being interrogated and tortured by the minions of President Snow (Donald Sutherland), the dark-hearted leader of Panem. Barely out of the hospital after being stabbed and electrocuted during her last Games, Katniss is soon approached by Coin and Heavensbee, who ask if she’s willing to take on the mantle of Mockingjay, the larger-than-life figure who’s inner strength and defiance of the Capitol sparked the rebellion. Is she willing to make patriotic radio broadcasts, be followed around by a film crew, even wade into battle to show her courage and willingness to stand up to the Capitol and fight for freedom? Katniss decides she is, but the unmistakable human cost of the rebellion she inadvertently started begins to wear her down.

What Works?

Director Francis Lawrence is back, which is cause for great cheer—his Catching Fire was an enormous improvement over the shaky-cam afflicted Hunger Games, which was helmed by Gary Ross. Thus, Mockingjay basically has all its ducks in a row, proving a well-paced flick that is admirably-faithful to the book while also cutting away to scenes the book’s first-person viewpoint couldn’t touch (a crowd's uprising against the armed Capitol crew protecting a power-producing dam is a particular highlight). Much of the dialogue is word-for-word from the page, new characters effortlessly blend in while old favorites resurface (prominent among them are Woody Harrelson and Sam Claflin’s former Games winners, and Elizabeth Banks’ spunky mentor), a few key scenes are impressively fleshed-out, and, despite some heavy proceedings, the film is laced with enough wit to keep things from getting too depressing. Also, for the second film in a row, Lawrence leaves the audience with an utterly-haunting final image.

What Doesn’t Work?

Okay, so, the marvelous Catching Fire was always going to be a tough act to follow, especially for a partial adaptation of what is without question the least popular book in the Games series. It doesn’t help that this is a Part 1, so it feels even less like a complete story and more like a set-up (think Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, which was very dedicated to its source material but seemed like boring filler compared to the action everyone knew was coming in the finale).

It sounds odd to say this, but it is not necessarily Mockingjay’s fault that it’s not better. I called the Catching Fire film arguably the best adaptation possible of the second book in Collins’ series—Mockingjay is almost at that level for its own material. Again, the dialogue is close, all the right characters are here, and key moments are brought to vivid life; however, the fact remains that, after two chapters centered around a morbidly-irresistible contest about action and survival, Mockingjay is more of a procedural, with more talk and a lot less action. It lacks the set-up and searing emotion of the first installment, and the spectacular action and colorful characters of the second. It was true of the books—I’ve always said Suzanne Collins bit off more than she could chew with the third installment, turning an edgy but undeniably-entertaining Young Adult adventure story into a brooding post-apocalyptic chronicle of war. Director Lawrence makes an uncharacteristic misstep at one point in trying to capitalize on the possibilities of this concept (a Zero Dark Thirty-style night-time incursion into the Capitol by special ops personnel turns out to be little more than a string of scenes of men passing through pairs of mechanical doors and entering empty rooms).

While it was unavoidable—because this is a faithful adaptation—it’s also true that many of the more entertaining performers from the previous installments are minimized (among them the charmingly-snarky Harrelson, endearingly-sincere Hutcherson and amusingly-chirpy Banks) while more serious performers take the fore (such as the clinical, straight-laced Moore, subdued, understated Hoffman, rather brooding Hemsworth and the always-brooding Jennifer Lawrence). They each get their moments, but there’s too little of most of them. Harrelson’s first appearance was cheered in my theater, and Hutcherson walks away with MVP honors this time around despite appearing in just a few short scenes—his heart-breakingly honest emotion is affecting, especially when compared to the sullen mutterings coming from Hemsworth and Lawrence. Yes, as was true in the book, Katniss and Gale’s will they/won’t they relationship is given more room to breathe, though the lack of chemistry and mostly-depressed sweet-nothings they exchange mostly just prove dull reminders of what annoyed viewers about another recent, wildly-popular Young Adult franchise (*cough* Twilight *cough cough*). It is nice to see Hemsworth get to actually do something rather than simply cameo in early scenes—and he impresses delivering a dramatic monologue Gale didn't have in the book—but he lacks the boy-next-door charisma of Hutcherson, if we’re talking romantic rivals and/or main co-stars for Lawrence.

Speaking of Lawrence, she’s one of the most recognizable stars in the world and has been on the A-list for four years, but I still can’t quite decide how to rate her acting. It’s undeniable that she can turn on the waterworks and agonized screams like few others, but her performance here seems rather on-again, off-again. I won’t argue with those who say Katniss is the perfect role for her, but the fact remains that the books deeply explored Katniss’ inner life and thoughts, and the films can’t. Thus, Lawrence broods and/or freaks out, but seems to do little else; it’s curious how her eyes can be such deep wells of emotion but her face can remain so inexpressive. Let’s just say that, like in the books, where Katniss gave all the credit to Peeta for making her likeable and interesting, in the films, Lawrence owes a debt to Hutcherson for making her more accessible.

Content

There’s less overall action this time around, but what action there is tends to be more of the gut-check variety, as large crowds of people are gunned down in a few scenes of the rebellion in the Districts. There’s not usually much blood, but bodies pile up. There’s also a fairly-disturbing shot of human remains mixed with rubble where doomed civilians tried to flee an air raid. Some actual blood is shown in a scene in which Katniss visits a hospital filled with the victims of bombing and strafing attacks. And oh yeah, that one scene—get ready to jump out of your seat. Those who have no idea what’s coming will feel like they just got hit by a Mac truck.

Bottom Line

If Mockingjay – Part 1 isn’t nearly as good as its predecessors, the person to blame is author Suzanne Collins, because this movie is a pretty rigorously-faithful adaptation of her work. There’s just less action and less humor this time, less Woody Harrelson and less Josh Hutcherson, more exposition and more moping. Oh, there is some invigorating action, some affecting emotion, a couple interesting new characters, and one big, gnarly whopper of a scene, but I would ultimately say Mockingjay is solid, not spectacular.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1

Directed by Francis Lawrence
Screenplay by Peter Craig & Danny Strong
Adapted from the novel “Mockingjay” by Suzanne Collins
Rated PG-13
Length: 123 minutes

INTERSTELLAR

Interstellar

Grade: A-

Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, Mackenzie Foy, Casey Affleck, Topher Grace, David Gyasi, Wes Bentley and Ellen Burstyn, with Bill Irwin as the voice of TARS and Josh Stewart as the voice of CADE

Premise: As Earth’s food supply diminishes alarmingly and people become desperate, the remnants of the NASA program try to take advantage of the latest technology and gravitational anomalies to travel across space to explore new potentially-habitable planets.

Rated PG-13 for intense action and scenes of peril, language, and some intense emotional content

 
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-from the poem “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night” by Dylan Thomas

Well, Christopher Nolan has done it again. The writer/director behind the last decade’s most popular thinking-person’s-action-blockbusters (The Prestige, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Inception) has, in Interstellar, created another eye-popping, jaw-dropping wonder of a movie that is undeniably flawed but undeniably awesome. While its premise is simple, its epic rollercoaster of a plot demands repeat viewings (I can vouch: I had to see it twice in a 24-hour span to wrap my head around it enough to write this review, and I still have questions). Some will love it, some will hate it, and most everyone will debate it—online, at work, in coffee shops around the world—and will be able to debate it for a long, long time. Which is somehow fitting for a movie that takes a soberingly realistic look at what may lie in humanity’s future.

Anyone who watches the movie will be able to recognize the poem excerpt above, a bit that is recited at least three times during Interstellar. It’s appropriate, as its dynamic wording hints at dramatic grandeur and unmistakable grit, as the movie also does. Written by Christopher and his brother Jonathan (previous Oscar nominees for their original script for Inception), this is a stirring cocktail of solid acting, superb special effects, gut-punch realism, affecting emotion, and brilliant suspense.

Plot

Some time into the future, the “excess of the 20^th century” has caught up with mankind. A bacterial plague called Blight has wiped out much of the world’s food supply and population, and word has come that not only wheat, but okra, too, are no longer existent. This means, for the world’s vast population of farmers, corn is the main crop. Though he owns acres of corn fields and has robotic machines called combines to work those fields for him, one such farmer, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), is ill at ease. A former engineer and hotshot NASA pilot, his promising career was derailed by a random crash, and he has since seen the NASA program, the world’s militaries, and other features of human technology and ambition vanish entirely or become warped into a purely-agricultural mindset. This widower’s dissatisfaction is well-noted by his live-in father-in-law (John Lithgow), dutiful teenage son, Tom (Timothee Chalamet), and spirited preteen daughter, Murphy (Mackenzie Foy). Society is quaint and rural, dust is a life-endangering problem, and any kind of high-mindedness is looked down upon.

Or so it seems. Purely by accident, Cooper one day stumbles across the hidden underground remnants of NASA. According to elderly Professor Brand (Michael Caine), NASA had to go underground because the public wouldn’t approve funding for space exploration when there was difficulty “getting food on the table”. But a few have worked on with the highest technologies available, and they believe they have found something. A wormhole—a sort of time-warp shortcut to another galaxy—has been discovered near Saturn, and early robotic probes and even a brave few human explorers have found potentially habitable worlds in the foreign galaxy beyond. A crew is needed to pilot a more high-tech exploration mission to see if any of the worlds really are ripe for human colonization, while the heads back home try to design the right craft with the right mechanical thrust to send large populations of people to a potential new home. All of NASAs best pilots have already been lost or are believed to be setting up camp on those new worlds; Cooper is the best remaining pilot on earth, and NASA needs him to pilot this mission.

Cooper is reluctant to leave his children, but not only has he always been fascinated with outer space and human ambition, he’s always wanted to do something more. Tom understands, but Murph appears unforgivably wounded by his seeming abandonment, for which he can give no definitive answer as to when he’s coming back. Determined to ultimately return home and make things right, Cooper leaves Earth with trained astronauts Amelia (Anne Hathaway), Doyle (Wes Bentley), and Romilly (David Gyasi), plus high-tech robotic aids TARS (voice of Bill Irwin) and CADE (voice of Josh Stewart). But while time is of the essence with family-minded Cooper, there are few certainties about the mission. The trip to the Saturn wormhole will take two full years—requiring cryo-sleep—and beyond, nothing is known of the other worlds except that the other astronauts landed.

What Works?

Having directed the Dark Knight trilogy and Inception, Christopher Nolan has obviously dealt with significant scale before, which is important, since Interstellar is BIG. Aided by top-notch special effects, Nolan’s film reminds you of Earth’s size relative to other planets, and those planets’ size in relation to their galaxies, and their galaxies’ size in relation to the whole universe. He conveys the utter vastness, silence, isolation, and loneliness of space, but also amazes with depictions of the universe in its unparalleled beauty and splendor (the trip through the wormhole is magnificent, as is a mind-bending trip into a black hole). But this isn’t some artsy-fartsy planetarium experience—after the grounded, convincing set-up on Earth, Interstellar presents a string of epic set-pieces, from an ill-fated landing on one planet, an ill-fated landing on another planet, a ridiculously-risky midair stunt, and the greatest jump scare I’ve seen in a movie in years.

Then again, just as Interstellar is not a Terrence Mallick nature-lovers' movie, it’s not a Michael Bay action film, either. I describe these superb events as "set pieces" because that happens to be a rather apt term for them, but the plot and characters are so engaging that these sequences aren’t Events that are supposed to be Super Epic Cool so people can tweet about them—they are part of a big picture that’s supposed to be awesome and powerful, which it is. Just as Nolan’s previous films dealt with human ambition, loss, drive, and stirring psychological portraits, Interstellar explores the vastness of space but feels very personal. Rarely has mortality seemed so inevitable and painful as it does here, and 2004’s The Butterfly Effect was the last movie that so intimately reminded me we can’t have time back, we can’t change things we’ve done, and we’ll always have some regrets. A late-act twist involving re-living memories is profoundly-devastating in its picture of love, separation, and yearning, and the movie’s depth is felt in the way lines of dialogue that seem almost matter-of-fact convey a world of meaning:

-"It's been twenty-three years..."
-“We buried him with Mom and Jesse."
-"I hope you're at peace."
-“You stand a fifty percent chance of killing yourself!” “…those are the best odds I’ve had in years…”

I don’t foresee any Oscar nominations here, but Interstellar is brought to life by a large, well-cast ensemble of actors. Continuing his recent winning streak, Matthew McConaughey brings the usual wry wit and daredevil charm, though it is punctuated with moments of almost unbearable emotion. Anne Hathaway goes through a similar gauntlet of intense emotions as the high-minded daughter of Michael Caine’s wizened professor; she knows all the theory and facts on paper and could say it all backwards, but is ill-prepared for the rigorous intensity that awaits. Caine is expertly-cast as the warm and wise, yet haunted, genius who hopes to save humanity, and other supporters are cast in parts that are ideal for their natural screen personalities—among them Jessica Chastain with her sharp, poised intelligence and Casey Affleck with his earnest but depressed weariness. And whole scenes are stolen by Bill Irwin—best known as Cindy Lou Who’s bumbling father in the live-action version of The Grinch—as the surprisingly-funny robot TARS (who has been the favorite character of both people with whom I’ve seen Interstellar so far).

What Doesn’t Work?

Interstellar is not an air-tight, question-free zone. Far, far from it. This is why I said it demands multiple viewings, because each viewing will probably answer some questions and raise some more, as it did for me. I will say Interstellar gloriously steers clear of the kind of pitfalls that would sink many similar movies, such as a cheap romantic and/or sexual relationship developing between the McConaughey and Hathaway characters, too much focus on ‘future technology’ like hover cars or cool phones or ray guns, or close encounters. Also, despite the movie’s play with time and space and dimensions, “rules” are established—though many audience members will wish otherwise, a very convenient, happily-satisfying reunion is not made at one pivotal moment late in the running.

But the movie’s not perfect. Without leading to any spoilers, I will say that any movie dealing significantly with time travel, dimension-crossing, and scientific terms like “relativity”, “dimensions”, “anomalies”, “singularity” runs the risk of losing people’s interest or alienating them. In a movie like this, a sudden influx of information is necessary but can also be quite challenging. I also questioned why, at one point, the characters thought it necessary to so quickly leave one planet without exploring further (even though they had a particularly negative experience there almost immediately). I also thought McConaughey’s character seemed to take surprisingly little convincing—for a dedicated single parent—to leave his children for an indefinite amount of time. I knew the movie was anxious to get into gear and this development was critical, but I wasn’t quite convinced.

Finally—and this isn’t really a criticism of the movie, but something I just have to say—I wish the movie could have been ten minutes longer. Yes, this is on top of a 2-hour, 45-minute flick (it’s so engaging the time is well-used). Shoot, I’d even have taken 30 more minutes, the ending is so good.

Content

Interstellar doesn’t have any sex or any blood and guts, but it’s a lengthy, challenging picture that is white-knuckle suspenseful at times. There is a bit of profanity (including PG-13’s celebrated one F-word) and, as mentioned, some scary content. I suppose families could see this movie together—just everyone being able to enjoy/understand some of its mind-bender ideas is another thing altogether.

Bottom Line

Wow. Interstellar will leave you with a lot of questions, but it is a well-acted, brilliantly-made, utterly engaging flick, well worth the nearly-three-hour running time. There’s no silly romance shoehorned in, no easy answer, and an ending that leaves you wishing for more. Best of all, the movie’s so complex (Inception in Space, anyone?) that, in repeat viewings, it will undoubtedly prove a gift that keeps on giving. Highly recommended.

Interstellar (2014)

Directed by Christopher Nolan
Screenplay by Christopher Nolan & Jonathan Nolan
Rated PG-13
Length: 169 minutes

NIGHT CRAWLER

Nightcrawler
Grade: A-

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Riz Ahmed and Bill Paxton
Premise: An ambitious loner excels at the "profession" of night-crawling--taking graphic on-the-spot footage of crimes/accidents and selling it to the highest bidder among local news stations.

 Rated R for bloody/disturbing images, language, and some violence

It's a shame I didn't agree with the note on which writer/director Dan Gilroy chose to end the movie Nightcrawler, because I left a sensational movie decidedly less than thrilled. That's a significant complaint, but a small one. For the vast majority of its running time, Nightcrawler borders on phenomenal. It's a truly spellbinding thriller, an adventure that's so engaging and exhilarating despite being undeniably icky. True, in the day and age of Game of Thrones, American Horror Story, Gone Girl and True Detective, audiences aren't exactly strangers to the idea of moral and ethical ambiguity, but, in Nightcrawler, it hits home with an extra deflating force because of the all-too-real nature of the seeming crimes against nature perpetrated. Packing a powerfully edgy punch and a brilliant against-type performance from Jake Gyllenhaal, Nightcrawler is great stuff.

Plot
Lacking formal education and many (any) friends, ambitious ne'er-do-well Louis Bloom (Gyllenhaal, superb) has scraped a living selling scrap metal and odd objects to black market traders. One day, he sees a car accident on the side of the road, and he sees the people who arrive before the news--camcorder-waving scavengers determined to scratch a freelance living, turning stolen, snatched moments into headline news. They're nightcrawlers, and their philosophy is delivered to Louis curtly by one experienced videographer (Bill Paxton): "If it bleeds, it leads." This turns out to be true, as Louis' first adventure giving it a try bags him some graphic close-up footage of a shooting victim. A brief jaunt over to KWLA Channel 6 news brings Louis a stroke of good luck; tough-as-nails News Director Nina Romina (Rene Russo) likes what he has, offers him $250, and tells him to keep her in mind in case he gets anything else particularly interesting.

The offer sticks. Hooked, Louis hires a partner/navigator (Riz Ahmed) who's too poor to refuse the dubious position, grabs a police scanner, and begins crawling every night, seeking diamonds in the rough in the form of flames, corpses, wreckage, and blood, all caught on camera. It works, and he's soon such a name the local vet who brushed him aside offers him a chance to team up. But Louis' hard-changing, no-questions style begins to exhibit worrisome signs, such as a tendency to bend (or break) the law, drive like a maniac, lie to the police and, sometimes, put people in danger who didn't need to be. While Nina's always looking for some more footage from her protégé, Louis's competitors, his partner, and local law enforcement are soon on his tail. But Louis--obsessive, driven, increasingly-maniacal Louis--can't help himself.

What Works?
Any discussion of Nightcrawler's merits has to start with--and mostly consist of--praise for Jake Gyllenhaal's performance, a turn that deserves to be remembered in the Best Actor category come Oscar time. This is the 34-year-old actor as you've never seen him--gaunt and goggly-eyed, suspiciously-evasive, creepily-manipulative and darkly-driven. It's far removed from the actor's boy-next-door appeal; in fact, it's sometimes impossible, while watching Nightcrawler, to picture the kindly actor as he's generally known. This is a chameolonic turn, with the rants, raves, deception, and creepy offers others can't refuse. Louis Bloom is a character you'll remember.

Gyllenhaal dominates the proceedings, appearing in almost every scene, but he's ably supported by a tightly-wound Rene Russo (in her best and most prominent role in probably a decade) and newcomer Riz Ahmed, who plays audience surrogate as a guy who sometimes admires Louis, but, at other times, is appropriately terrified of him.

This is Dan Gilroy's directorial debut; his highest-profile past projects were writing The Bourne Legacy and Real Steel. Considering the former was a bust and the latter was a pile of clichés, Gilroy's Nightcrawler script is a major breakthrough and an absolute gem. While its main character and primary content are certainly repellant, Gilroy's quietly-churning script pulls you in and holds you there, until the last act suffuses breathtaking suspense and then explodes with wild action. That Louis is composed mostly of self-help clichés and workplace platitudes clearly memorized off the internet is unnerving in this digitally-obsessed age, and the crimes depicted are so commonplace you'll be hard-pressed to avoid thinking of nightcrawlers the next time you drive past a car accident scene or a cluster of emergency response vehicles (one scene audience members will likely find hard to shake is the sight of Louis--fixing an accident scene to his liking for the first time--dragging a probably-dead car accident victim around a car and leaving him there, illuminated in the glare of the headlights, because it makes a juicier shot).

What Doesn't Work?
While the plot takes a late turn many audience members won't particularly like, it's the final two scenes that hit me as false. Not wanting to post spoilers, I can't reveal what they are, but it's unfortunate, because the majority of the movie is utterly stellar. It's not fun to leave the theater in which you saw a brilliant thrill ride trying to convince yourself it really was good.

Content
Nightcrawler will give you the willies, with unnerving depictions of car-accidents and shootings at the immediate aftermath, with wounded or dying people bleeding and being treated while cameras hover in their faces, taking in their agony. Go in knowing what you will see will be unethical and morally skewed. For the squeamish, there are some depictions of very bloody bodies and crime scenes, plus a few realistic shootouts. There are also some F-words. This is dark stuff (more power to Gilroy, who made this edgy concept so entertaining).

The Bottom Line
I thought I might like Nightcrawler, but I didn't expect it to border on brilliant. The last couple minutes didn't feel quite right and damaged my enthusiasm a bit, but this unnerving, suspenseful, well-acted film is powerful. Jake Gyllenhaal deserves to be in the thick of the Best Actor conversation for a performance unlike anything he's done before. And try keeping this movie out of your mind the next time you witness a catastrophe. If you liked Gone Girl, here's another dark story about the everyday sociopath.

Nightcrawler (2014)
Written and Directed by Dan Gilroy
Rated R
Length: 117 minutes