The Theory of Everything

Tali: The Theory of Everything tells the compelling story of Stephen and Jane Hawking, and what looks like the most difficult and drawn out marriage ever. In all seriousness, continuing with the Oscar biopic marathon we are on, we all know Stephen's narrative already. But, what we don't know, is how humourous he was (is?) throughout his bodily decline, how dedicated his wife was to him, and what this ultimately says about the human condition. I was more than a little nervous that this film would just be an exercise in crip drag, but thankfully, it wasn't. Eddie Redmayne's performance is what (Oscar) dreams are made of - just totally superb. But, the movie was slow in parts, and the ending made my jaw drop and I wasn't too happy. 81/100.

Leo: I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would. It wasn't all science, but it was enough that I felt it gave Stephen Hawking's brilliance at least some standing within the film rather than simply just repeating it. Eddie Redmayne was outstanding, but the supporting cast was not quite as good (except somehow Professor Lupin is back from the dead and teaches physics instead of defence against the dark arts and Owen from Boardwalk Empire was up to his old sneaky tricks). It was odd that I sort of felt that the humour Stephen was constantly showed made perfect sense. I'm usually the first one to make a joke about something serious and I think a quote from the movie V for Vendetta really applies here:

              Evey Hammond: Is everything a joke to you, Gordon?
              Gordon Deitrich: Only the things that matter.

I like that someone else has taken that perspective. As for the movie and story....as tragic as it was I feel like the story was slow and slightly wishy-washy. Jane Hawking has an interesting perspective and the complexity of her and Stephen is very interesting, but Felicity Jones merely delivered the frustrated narrative effectively but not any others. And I think the score was outstanding. Leometer: 84/100.

Selma

Tali: Selma tells the story of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his work for voting rights and justice for blacks in Selma, Alabama in 1965. It just may be one of the best movies I've seen, and it couldn't have come out at a more important moment in American history. Pick these characters up and plop them down in Ferguson, New York City, or anywhere in America for that matter, and you'll see just how little society has come decades after the events in the film. The imagery is intensley powerful, the characters have depth and soul.  Haters gonn' hate, but this film is not about LBJ. If that is your concern, I think you are missing the point. Political critiques aside, this film is just so so so well done. After seeing it, I told Leo, "that was wonderful." Although I instantly regretted that word choice, I must say, it was damn near close. 94/100.

Leo: If I had to summarize my thoughts on this movie into one word, it would be "powerful". The message of this movie was so strong and delivered so clearly that I just wanted to get out of my seat and march with them (though I would probably be horrible at non-violence if someone attacked me). While it had this crazy effect on me, I do not think it was the "best" movie of the year....I have a critique. I was sort of unsure of whether or not this was a biopic or a retelling of the event, not that it has to be one or the other, I just thought it would have spent time a bit more...relevantly. What I mean is this: in their time half-telling MLK's personal story and struggles, they glossed over a lot of supporting characters (I'm not just talking about Viola Liuzzo, but people like Diane Nash as well). Even if they aren't as important, I thought it was very....odd to have them come on screen, say "Hi I'm <insert name>" then basically nothing about them until their respective blurbs at the end. When comparing this movie to others I would definitely say this: as a technical film it had its hiccups, but in conveying the message it sought to convey, it was one of the best I've ever seen. Leometer: 89/100.

The Imitation Game

Tali: The Imitation Game tells the true story of Alan Turing, a brilliant but misunderstood mathematician who created what was essentially the first digital computer - all to win the war against the Nazis. Those this film is billed as a "wartime thriller," and it is, there is very little action involved. There is nothing exciting about watching a few nerds in a room try to dicect code. The film draws on the performances of the cast, along with the weight of importance of the mission itself, which makes this movie a heavy hitter. Cumberbatch, Knightley and even ol' Papa Lannister are all perfectly cast and are just wonderful to watch. An excellent, must-see film, especially since the Golden Globes are only a week away. Also, if you're interested, here is a nifty little piece about Joan Clarke, the female codebreaker featured in the film. 85/100.

Leo: I am a  fan of this movie for a lot of reasons so I'll try to summarize them quickly. First and foremost, I actually enjoy the code breaking and math puzzles aspect of this movie. It made me want to go do some logic games from my LSAT books (am I kidding???) and I definitely understood his excitement to solving the "unsolvable" machine. Next up, the performances. Benedict Cumberbatch killed it. He really sold me that Alan Turing was both fragile and unshakeable at the same time. You couldn't help but tear up (not cry, I don't do that) at certain parts of the movie. All of my favourite British people like Tywin Lannister and Ozymandias (he actually plays an American in that movie) were great in supporting roles. Lastly, the message. The power of the message through text is surprisingly common in movies this year and even more surprisingly, effective. Leometer: 87/100.

Interstellar

Tali: I don't know if I can sum this up in one sentence like I normally do, but here we go: Interstellar is, in essence, about how space travel is just as mind expanding, powerful and important as deep, eternal love (there, I said it). What can I say? This fim was JAM PACKED - from start to finish I barely exhaled. A truly thrilling and exhillerating ride, Interstellar tells many stories and has many different philosophies and and ideas. Though it certainly has its faults, Interstellar is a movie that is hard to forget. With all that being said, there is just something about it that it misses, and for that reason (and without giving you any spoilers), I can sense that it won't be a huge award season contender. 85/100.

Leo: After finally getting out to see this movie, all I can say is that I'm glad. Christopher Nolan has this way with movies that he almost always makes you think in a spectacularly entertaining way. This movie had so many, almost too many, interesting-but-dangerous topics to delve into. The one obviously crazy topic is the science. I appreciate that Nolan did the best he could to make it plausible and when he couldn't make it plausible, he at least made it cool. I also thought it was smart of him to sort of "glaze over" those details of the science that made you suspend disbelief (no spoilers required - you know what I'm talking about). There was no dwelling on those scenes. The real science on the other hand is really cool. If you're unfamiliar with dimensions and shit, here's a cool video on imagining 10 dimensions (no spoilers or anything to the film). The time-relativity and age-gaps are always going to make heart wrenching scenes between family and friends who aged differently due to space. I will say, I do understand how some people would not totally love this movie because it's intellectual reach is immensely high and it sort of cops out before it gets there. That being said, if you're interested in the science, that thought probably won't even be on your mind. Not quite as good as Inception, but still one of Nolan's great movies. Leometer: 87/100.

P.S. I stopped reading that list of faults at #1 since it implies the only way to have beer is with wheat. What kind of sad life does the person who wrote that list live if they've only heard of wheat beer??
P.S.S. I lied, #20 is legit.

Birdman

Tali: Birdman tells the story of Riggan Thomson, a washed up Hollywood actor who tries to reinvent himself as a serious Broadway artist. Though the film is about 'fame' and 'reinvention/reincarnation', there is something much more universal at stake here. In addition to being an incredible feat of cinematography genius, Birdman somehow manages to be a movie about the peoples deepest insecurities and fears. There is something about this movie that just makes you say YES, even though I can't quite put my finger on it. Emma Stone and even Edward Norton are great in this. An overall delight to watch and definately a contender at this upcoming awards season. 89/100

Leo: This was one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. I knew I was going to like it when the first line of the movie had the word "balls" in it (spoiler alert?). The stylistic direction of Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (yea I googled how to spell that) acted as a canvas for Michael Keaton as the brush. Keaton showed his ability to become one of many characters, such as a superhero, struggling manager, actor, and depressed father / husband. However, when considering his experience as an actor so far, it's not so surprising that he was able to pull it off so well. Maybe he was going through a struggle represented by this movie as wanting to shake the image of Batman? Probably not, but whatever.  When actors act as actors in a film, there may be certain imperfections required and that was definitely shown in this movie by Keaton as well Ed Norton. And spoiler alert, but Keaton does whip out his Batman voice and I appreciated that. Emma Stone played a convincing character that was definitely far-removed from her comfort zone of "generic likeable girl" to somewhat of a fuck-up. I am definitely rooting for this movie so far, and at the very least Michael Keaton deserves some recognition for it. Leometer: 96/100.