Movie Review - Whiplash: who thought Jazz drumming would make for such a tremendous drama?

As it's awards season there's no dearth of films out at the moment that display awards winning potential - whether direction, scripting, production or acting performances.  'Whiplash' is a film that has been nominated for several awards, including acting nods, and straight off the bat I have to say: this film contains one performance that absolutely should walk away with an acting Oscar, no contest.  But that's not the least of what this film should be notable for - it is an absorbing and rousing drama, focussing on one young aspiring jazz drummer's attempts to win the approval of a noted conductor, and assure his place as one of the greats.  You don't have to appreciate, or even like, Jazz music to appreciate this story of an artist's drive for perfection, what it costs them, and a fire-brand mentor figure who is as terrifying as he is inspiring.  And that such an impressive film should come from a first-time director is even more remarkable.

Let's get the obvious out of the way first: this will be remembered as J.K. Simmons' film.  His portrayal of band conductor Terence Fletcher is one of those roles that is at once iconic, and will forever be considered Simmons' signature role.  He has the best lines in the film, delivered with passion and appropriate venom.  He praises, he berates, he taunts, he bullies, he even slaps those in his band around; but in Simmons' hands Fletcher is never a one-note villainous archetype.  He brings out the humanity in the character, showing moments of sensitivity and reflection.  In one scene he talks about moments that made great jazz musicians, and without resorting to scenery chewing or shouting, he conveys that Fletcher completely f**king loves Jazz, and pushes the musicians in his band because he wants to play his part in launching the next great jazz musician.  If Simmons doesn't win an Oscar for this performance in this film I will be absolutely astonished: he takes hold of this film like a crocodile grabbing a wildebeest - he utterly owns it.

Andrew (Miles Teller) gets 'pushed beyond what is expected' of him by Fletcher (J.K. Simmons)

Saying this, the rest of the film completely stands up on its own merits beyond Simmons' performance.  Miles Teller plays the lead character, Andrew, the aspiring 19 year old drummer who is the focus of the storyline.  It is to his credit that not only does he deliver an even-handed performance (although Andrew is likeable, he makes a couple of decisions and a couple of statements that show the flaws in his ego), but he goes head to head with Fletcher, demonstrating the depth, motivations and drive of the character.  You come away from the film feeling that here is a young actor who could have great roles ahead of him (beyond the Fantastic Four reboot, out this summer) - and that's no mean feat in a film that has such a  towering performance from an established actor like Simmons.

The direction from Damien Chazelle is assured and confident - it is staggering to think this is just his first film (which he also wrote).  He evokes the likes of Tarantino and Edgar Wright with rapid close-ups of musicians instruments cases, tuning and preparing their instruments - drawing a comparison with the way these and other directors give a sense of military precision to (usually) action heroes readying for battle; for the musicians there is obviously an almost military level of discipline and precision involved in their art - especially when they have to meet the exacting standards of a conductor like Fletcher.  As well as this, the film makes apt use of the title, which is not only that of one of the Jazz standards that is central to the band's performances, but evokes a sense of punishment: that which is self-inflicted, as Andrew literally drums until he bleeds in order to meet Fletcher's standards, but that which the conductor afflicts in order to get the performances he requires from each of his musicians.  There's also the sense of evoking the injury of the same name, as Andrew almost engages in a battle of egos with Fletcher, going to the point of injury to prove his is deserving of his place on the conductor's band - and the way this goes back and forth between them.  At the end of the film, the camera itself captures this, with break-neck whipping pans back and forth between the drummer and the conductor during a final, exhilarating performance of another Jazz standard, 'Caravan'.

Don't worry, JK - this movie is my tempo...

From a personal viewpoint, as someone who used to be a drummer in bands with friends in my younger years, I appreciated this film for drawing attention to the fact that drummers are just as dedicated and driven to perfection as other musicians, but are often overlooked at this.  Having said that, listening to the amazing drumming performances in this film, I'm disavowed of any notion that I was anywhere near as good a drummer as I thought myself to be!  'Whiplash' will be remembered for Simmons' phenomenal, defining performance as Terence Fletcher - and rightly so.  But it is also a great drama, and an excellent début from a first-time director.  Whether you care for Jazz music or not, this is a film that you will enjoy and will remain in your memory long after.

Movie Review - American Sniper: a flawed war movie slightly redeemed by Bradley Cooper's performance

WARNING - this review contains a few Spoilers.

I suppose there are several ways to look at ‘American Sniper’; an Award-nominated biopic, based on the memoirs of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle (played here by Bradley Cooper); a solid yet unspectacularly-made war movie set during the US-led invasion of Iraq during the past decade; one soldier’s perspective of that conflict; a film centered on a particularly strong lead actor; or a biased account that allows little room for political or moral reflection.  All of these are true, but how you feel about the film will ultimately depend upon how you feel about the Iraq Invasion, and whether you can put your feelings aside - or embrace them - enough to care about the central character.

First of all, without going in to too many details, I’ll have to admit that my feelings about this war are negative - I never believed it was justified, and even now the consequences are continuing to make themselves known.  I believe that this is an issue that any war film about this conflict should address.  Ironically however this film almost succeeds in sidestepping that, due to it being told mainly from the perspective of Kyle.  A few scenes early on give an idea that, whilst not a saint, Kyle was a decent man, instilled with pretty black-and-white ideals about good and evil from his strict (read: child beating, as one scene infers) father.  He enlists in the Navy SEALs out of an apparent desire to protect the people of his country after watching TV reports of terrorist bombing of a US Embassy in another country.  At this point there’s no context given to the attack, who carried it out or why - the report simply states that the perpetrators clearly hate America.

Cooper plays Kyle in an un-showy and compassionate manner. 

Then follows your standard grueling military training montage, interspersed with a scene where he meets his wife Taya (played by Sienna Miller).  But before their wedding there is a scene where they watch, in horror, the attacks of September 11th 2001.  Jump to their wedding, which is overshadowed by his unit being told they are shipping out to war.  The film then jumps to Kyle’s first tour in Iraq, part of the Military’s attempts to put down an insurgency in the city of Fallujah.  During his first mission, providing cover for an advancing unit of Marines, we witness the first of his more than 160 kills; despite the fact they are quite harrowing, these are presented as justified because Kyle has to protect his comrades above all else.  At this point it might have been easy to depict Kyle as an almost heartless killer, but the scene that follows it depicts him reflecting on his decisions and actions - these weren't easy for him.  Some might argue that this scene could have taken more time, but the fact it is there at all is welcome.

After this the film shows scenes from his tours in Iraq interspersed with scenes at home with his wife and family.  Sometimes the editing feels a little sloppy, as jumps between the two settings can feel so abrupt as to disorientate the viewer from a scene involving military to a scene with his family.  During these scenes we see Kyle trying to be a good husband and father, whilst quietly brooding over the war.  We get obligatory scenes where his wife, distraught at seeing reports of US personnel being killed in Iraq, begs him to stay, and at one point even threatens that if he goes for another tour she and his children won’t be waiting for him when he gets back.  Although Miller does her most with the role, sadly the film doesn't give her enough to make her decisions clear - especially as she is apparently struggling with her husband being at war.

Sienna does as much as she can with the little the film allows her in the role of wife Taya.

I suppose this is the cost of basing the film so much from Kyle’s perspective - on the other hand, his motivations to continue the tours are clear.  The film repeatedly tells us that he wants to keep his fellow US service personnel safe, but an added plot about an Insurgent sniper gives this motivation even more clarity (than it arguably needs).  The scenes of war are effectively shot and suitably tense, but this film becomes too one-sided in its portrayal of this conflict - which is its greatest flaw.  For example, when one of Kyle’s squad members begins to question what they are all doing in Iraq, he is clearly at odds with Kyle’s outlook.  When this same person is (somewhat predictably) killed in conflict, after his funeral Kyle tells his wife that he died before being shot, but because of his views.  To me this is the point the film crosses the line from Kyle’s own view, to making a very jingoistic and sweeping commentary on how people view the US ‘involvement in any conflict: you’re either on the US side, but if you even have a differing opinion then you should be as good as dead. 

This view point might have some basis if there was some moral high-ground, but - even though the film completely side steps the murky political motivations that led to it - the attitude of Kyle and many of his fellow service personnel is, well, racist to be frank. All of the resident population of Fallujah are referred to as ‘savages’; yes, we witness some evil men in the insurgents do despicable acts, but it unfair to label an entire nation because of their actions.  This attitude might have made sense also if the film allowed a depiction of the soldiers growing more and more weary of the conflict - as other war films (not just about this particular conflict) have done; but by focusing on a ‘mission’ to find and neutralize the Insurgent sniper, Kyle and his squad seem to be given sufficient motivation to continue fighting a pretty un-nuanced ‘good fight’.

Although it doesn't excise this view point, when you consider who directed the film – Clint Eastwood – it’s arguable that he has framed the conflict, and Kyle’s actions, in the manner of the genre in which he made his name: the Western.  Many of those films are marked by a straight-forward sense of good and evil, white hats versus black hats, savage Indians versus stoic frontiersmen.  Indeed, that word is applied to the people of Iraq – they are the savages to whom the ‘Cowboys’ of the US military (indeed, it is mentioned early on that Kyle aspired to be a Cowboy) must fight to bring to order.  Of course, this view point is not the right one to take about the Iraq conflict – but appreciating how Eastwood possibly projected this on to Kyle’s memoirs is one way of accounting for how the film treats the subject.

You might argue that when a film handles the Iraq War so insensitively that there could be nothing to redeem it, for me it is Kyle, and Cooper’s performance, that goes some way to rescuing it.  Cooper has bulked up impressively for the role, and he manages to play Kyle in a surprisingly nuanced way.  He brings out the humanity of the role, ensuring that Kyle is never portrayed as a complete saint, just an ordinary man with very straight-forward views about good and evil, yet deep down the weight of his self-imposed mission to protect people clearly affects him.  A scene later on where he comes close to having to shoot a child for picking up an RPG and aiming it at US Marines shows the stress each decision to make a kill must have had, and Cooper portrays this very well.

Ultimately, Kyle is considered an American hero, and while the film fails in a balanced portrayal of the conflict he fought in, this is unsurprising - to suggest otherwise would tarnish his standing.  It seems odd then that, despite wanting to be respectful to Kyle and those who served in the US military during that was, so little is made of the plight of many of the veterans suffering the effects of injuries and PTSD after it.  Despite scenes depicting Kyle’s new-found mission to ‘save’ these former soldiers, more could have been done to highlight this: regardless of whatever political stance on the Iraq Invasion, it is an injustice that so many people that fought through it and survived it are still suffering.

In the end we are left to reflect on Cooper’s portrayal of a man, dubbed a legend by those who served with him, who was apparently a simple, decent human being - concerned with the well being of those in his care, and a man who loved his family.  The most powerful part of the entire film are the shots of real footage from his funeral procession and memorial during the end credits.  After the final scene, depicting Kyle’s last moments at home with his family, these give the film a real gut-punch ending.

...and when you've done talking about controversial depictions of the Iraq War, there's still the issue of the fake babies that the internet is raging over...

Movie Review - Birdman: sets the bar by which other movies this year will be judged very high

A theme running throughout 'Birdman' is that humanity is inconsequential; in terms of the entire universe, we have existed for the blink of an eye.  Our lives don't seem to matter in the bigger scheme of things, but still we go through our lives looking for meaning from the approval or adoration of others.  So it is with faded Comic-book movie star Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), trying to restore his career and esteem by writing, directing and starring in an adaptation of a Novel by Raymond Carver, 'What We Talk About When We Talk About Love'.  As he struggles with this staging this his ambitions are confronted, and at times thwarted, by the egos, ambitions and expectations of everyone else involved: each of the other actors, theatre critics, his recovering addict daughter (played by Emma Stone), his ex-wife, and his producer (played by Zack Galifianakis).  All the while, he is haunted by the voice of his ego, which has taken on the form of his best known character - the titular Superhero, Birdman; it taunts and goads him, putting down all of his choices, second guessing him, and continually urging him to return to the one role where he was truly loved by mass audiences.

Riggan Thomson (Keaton) can't escape his ego, or the role from 20 years ago that still haunts him...

This is a film which is bursting with intelligence and ideas on so many levels.  Aside from the philosophical element that I've described above, there is a pitch-perfect satire of the film industry, Hollywood, the Broadway theatre scene, and those who attempt to make money or their fame from it.  The actors are all either bruised egos, one moment demanding adoration or respect, the next openly admitting their fears and failings.  At the same time the film acknowledges there is a level of faking, of being about 'surface' that defines these people - best exemplified by Edward Norton's often pretentious, often arrogant lead actor Mike, who admits that the only time he is being 'real' is when he's performing on stage.  Yet it never allows any of the characters to devolve in to stereotypes - and this is despite many of the casting choices having no small amount of meta-knowingness about them; obviously, Norton is an actor who has had a reputation for being difficult, and for making (sometimes unwanted) input in to a film's script and/or direction.  Then there's Keaton himself, still probably best known for playing Batman in Tim Burton's two movies about the character.  (Though unlike his character Riggan, Keaton has had a solid career and been in several acclaimed roles and movies since then).

Director/Co-writer Alejandro González Iñárritu (best known for his effective yet depressing dramas such as 'Amores Perros', or 'Babel') also takes aim at not only the Hollywood Blockbuster machine, but at the audiences that crave its output; in one scene Riggan bemoans great actors currently tied in to playing 'capes', whilst later the 'Birdman' tells him to give the audiences what they want, escapist action-'porn'.  A theatre critic (Lindsay Duncan) lambasts Riggan for being part of an industry that is artless and base.  Yet you get the impression that Iñárritu acknowledges there's nothing wrong with an audience's need to be entertained - and if, as the film keeps coming back to, there is an underlying pointlessness about human existence, there's nothing wrong with wanting to escape from that fact.  As well as this, you can sense that the aspirations of the theatre actors to make 'great art' is ultimately futile in the face of this fact, too.

If all of this sounds like too much hard work when you're watching a movie, then you can still admire the great acting performances, and the technically audacious and impressive direction from Iñárritu.  To start with, Keaton's central performance is particularly impressive - at times it is unselfish, as he allows the actors around him to portray whatever anger, fear, or upset their character is expressing.  Yet when he needs to, he is able to dominate the screen as he shows Riggan wrestling with his own anger, doubts, fears or regrets.  The rest of the cast is universally great, always finding genuine humanity in what could have been cookie-cutter stereotypes; but for me a pleasant surprise was Galifianakis - seemingly type-cast as oddballs in other films, here he shows he can be a good actor when given a role that demands it.

Iñárritu knew what he was doing casting Keaton as a firmer Superhero actor, and Norton as a 'difficult' actor...

Technically this film is fantastic, mostly filmed so that it plays out as though one continuous shot - although if you watch closely you can see where the cuts are between each scene, the film flows seamlessly.  Shots were filmed with mirrors on full display, leaving you to marvel at the effects work that kept cameras and crew out of the reflection, leaving the focus solely on the actors.  Furthermore, when the film goes deeper in to Riggan's imagination for a couple of fantastical and fantastically realised scenes; if Iñárritu were ever tempted to make the sort of spectacular blockbuster he satirises here, it would look fantastic and be genuinely thrilling.

This film may not be for everyone.  If you want a straight forward drama you may find the fantastical sequences an unwelcome distraction.  Although it is shot through with a wry, sometimes off-beat sense of humour, if you prefer straighter and more clearly defined laughs then you probably won't take to it.  Also, the continual jazz drumming that under-pins the score might become repetitive (I play drums though, so I found it weirdly interesting..!).  But if you're a fan of movies in general, you will admire what is a great piece of cinema - philosophical, thought provoking, technically stunning, visually fantastic, and superbly acted by an excellent cast.  If 'Birdman' sets the standard for movies in 2015, then the bar has been set very high.

Monthly Marvel Musings - What should Marvel Studios do with Spidey when they get him back?

Monthly Marvel Musings time!  Due to the Christmas break there hasn't been too much in the way of Marvel news - aside from the confirmation that Mike Colter will be playing Luke Cage in the Netflix series, and the release of the teaser trailer for Ant-Man.  So in this article I've put some thoughts down suggesting how Marvel Studios should approach Spiderman (if recent rumours following the Sony-hack turn out to be true).

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

What should Marvel Studios do if they get Spidey back?

I mentioned briefly last month that, following e-mails leaked during the Sony hack, it has emerged that Sony have had conversations about sharing Spiderman, in some capacity, with Marvel Studios - potentially allowing the character in to forthcoming Marvel movies such as Captain America: Civil War, and Avengers: Infinity War.  Well, since I posted that article there were more revelations, leading to rumours that Sony were looking likely to give Spiderman back to Marvel Studios - and then counter rumours suggesting a third Andrew Garfield starring Amazing Spiderman film would be going ahead, despite this.

Whatever happens, it does seem very likely that at some point - perhaps as soon as this year, but maybe more likely towards the end of the decade - Marvel Studios WILL be getting the rights to Spiderman; and seeing as how the last few Spider-man films have, for the most part, been fan disappointments (even if the box office hasn‘t reflected this), combined with Marvel's own track record for getting their character rights, this will be greatly welcomed.  Having said that, integrating Spiderman in to the MCU won't be straight-forward - Marvel Studios would be foolish to simply re-boot the character a third time, from scratch, as this would further harm movie-goers' regard of the character (remember, this past year Spidey was out-grossed at the US box-office by the less popular Captain America, and the almost totally unknown Guardians of the Galaxy).

There is a need to move the character forward, but at the same time it feels disingenuous to not acknowledge that - even in the most flawed of his franchise's films - there has been some great things about Spidey's movies, and these things shouldn't be dismissed: how perfectly Raimi's first two films captured the heart and tone of the character; how great Andrew Garfield has been as a believable New York Teenager; and how fantastic and believable was the portrayal of his and Gwen Stacy's relationship in the Amazing Spiderman films, if nothing else.

Not that I would ever have the chance to pitch a new Spiderman film to Kevin Feige and the other executives, but if by some miracle I did, or was able to have the ear of someone who could, this is how I would suggest to Marvel Studios they should launch their own Spidey Franchise:

Firstly, Spiderman should be Miles Morales: in the comics there is a more 'mature' version of the Marvel characters published under the 'Ultimate' headline (in this sense, mature means that characters have been known to have incestuous relationships with siblings, or engage in spousal abuse).  In the Ultimate Spiderman series the writers did the almost unthinkable and actually killed Peter Parker; this wasn't the end of the series as a new character emerged, gaining Spiderman's powers, and taking on the mantle to carry one the fight against crime in New York city.  Miles Morales is the name of the young man who has gone on to fill Spiderman's, erm, spandex in the Ultimate series; at the time he took over the fact he's mixed race (Black-Hispanic) got the most headlines, but that's not necessarily why Marvel Studios should chose to focus their new Spiderman franchise on him (though it's a good reason!).  Doing this would create sufficient space from the previous Spiderman films, which have focussed on the classic Peter Parker incarnation of the character, which would help audiences to accept another new Spiderman franchise.  It would also allow Marvel Studios to focus on new stories and enemies for the character, without having to shoe-horn the Oscorp back-story in with it, as well as villains that have already been handled so memorably (e.g. Spider-man 2's Doc Ock).  If Marvel Studios had had the rights to Spidey right from the off, there would have been interesting potential for Oscorp to feature as a dark-mirror to Stark Industries, perhaps even building to 'Dark Avengers' storyline - but after all that has occurred (and is about to happen) in the MCU it might be too much of a distraction and a muddle to add this.  It's important to note, however, as in the comics Miles Morales is not totally disconnected from Peter Parker, and this is something that would have to be acknowledged.

Secondly, Miles Morales would still be following in the footsteps (or webs?) of Peter Parker: whilst the new Miles Morales-centred Spidey franchise should rightly distance itself in some ways from the previous films to justify a new version, at the same time I believe it should acknowledge the previous version(s) of the character.  I would suggest the way to do this is to use a plot device whereby Morales, who has only recently acquired his Spider abilities and is still getting to grips with them, is aided through this by someone who knew Peter Parker and tells Morales about Peter's highs and lows as Spiderman.  This would give opportunity to flash-back to great and defining Spiderman moments, such as his fights with his many great villainous foes, the loss of his girlfriend, his marriage to Mary Jane Watson, and throughout how his late Uncle Ben continuously informed his desire to live up to the responsibility of his powers.  Doing this would address the inevitable criticisms that Spiderman is best associated with Peter Parker, and therefore portrayals should only be based on him; at the same time satisfying fans' demands for more of the 'classic' Spiderman on screen.  This would also provide an opportunity to explore the legacy of the Peter Parker Spiderman stories, and previous films, if the character sharing these stories is a familiar one - I would suggest it is an individual identifying themselves as Harry Osborn, here a much older man.  I believe that these flashbacks would need to have a full commitment to moving on from Peter Parker to Morales - ultimately, they should depict Parker's death.  In the Ultimate comics he dies finally defeating his arch nemesis Green Goblin, aka Norman Osborne.  Showing this onscreen would not only allow the audience to finally see closure to the portrayal of Spiderman as Peter Parker, but enable to them to accept the need for Morales as the hero.  But this wouldn't be the end of Parker's legacy, as we'll see later...

Thirdly, these flashbacks should be of several years, a few decades even, before Morales' time: Spiderman dates back to the 1960's, and he's had many great adventures anchored in that decade and each that have followed.  As well as that, his franchise has so far spread almost 15 years.  I believe that a Morales centred Spiderman franchise should have him following on from Peter Parker many years after him.  This would allow the new franchise to further create distance from the previous versions, yet allowing them to be regarded as legitimate takes on Spiderman - they've not been totally retconned out of existence.  This would also help Marvel Studios address questions about why Spiderman wasn't present in the events of significant movies in the MCU - for example, it can be rightly argued that if Spiderman were around during the events of 'Avengers Assemble' he would surely have swung in to help stop an alien attack in his home city!  Also, why weren't SHIELD intervening in Oscorp's development of dangerous science, leading to the creation of many super-villains?  If the new Spiderman franchise shows that Peter Parker's adventures took place before the turn of the millennium, perhaps in the 1980's even, then it would account for no mention of Oscorp in the dealings of SHIELD from the time Tony Stark first suited up; they're already dealt with and filed away in SHIELD's archives.  Also, as the classic Spidey is associated with so much pre-millennial science and tech, portraying him at some point before the turn of this century makes further sense.  But perhaps the Oscorp business shouldn't be COMPLETELY tied up...

Finally, in a twist, 'Harry' would actually turn out to be Norman Osborn!  Towards the end of the film, having faced and overcome his own nemesis (in one story Morales discovers his uncle, who had been mentoring him as Spiderman, was actually a supervillain, which would be a good story to base his first adventure around), it is revealed that the person recounting Parker's story is actually the one and only Green Goblin himself! This would not necessarily be part of some nefarious scheme (doing so might cheapen Parker's death in the audience's eyes), but perhaps an example of the madness and personality disorders that frequently gripped Osborn during his tenure as the Goblin.  In this case, it could be that in recounting Parker's story he unblocks the amnesia that had made him forget that he was in fact the Green Goblin.  Doing this would allow acknowledgement of the character's portrayals in the previous films, by each actor (Morales can say something along the lines 'but you died fighting Peter Parker!' and the Goblin would tell him that was in fact his son, Harry).  It would also allow a triumphant end to the legacy of Parker as Spiderman if the Goblin was defeated once and for all by his successor - again, giving audiences another reason to accept the new version and move on from the previous incarnations of Spidey.

Could Spiderman be part of the next decade‘s Avengers line-up on the big screen?

Ultimately, going forward from this they will have given themselves freedom and scope to have Spidey doing whatever they want- joining the Avengers (or the New Avengers, as it may well be after the events of Infinity War); not to mention a potentially solid new franchise after the likes of Chris Evans, Hemsworth and Robert Downy Jr have moved on from the trademark roles of Captain America, Thor and Iron Man, respectively; with their contracts expired after Avengers: Infinity War, Marvel Studios will need some characters with the audience-pulling power to keep their MCU franchise going.


That's it for this month - by this time next month we'll have seen a new trailer of Avengers: Age of Ultron so expect som chatter about that, and the Ant-Man trailer, amongst other things!

Movie Review - The Theory of Everything: a biopic that doesn't go as deep as it probably could

Ahh, the second biopic of an important, genius-level-gifted individual, who has faced or had to overcome some kind of adversity, in almost as many months; it must be the dawn of Awards Season!  'The Theory of Everything', set between the 1960's and 1980's, focuses upon the relationship between Professor Stephen Hawking and his first wife Jane - from their first meeting as students at a party, through his diagnosis with Motor Neurone Disease, and his physical decline which does not prevent their marriage, and having three children.  This is despite being told at diagnosis that he would only live for, at most, two years.

There's little doubt that Professor Hawking's story is a remarkable one of triumph over adversity, of defying the odds - and the important role his wife Jane played in not only caring for him, but enabling him to fulfil his potential as one of the greatest scientific minds to emerge from our country - is one that deserves to be told.  Unfortunately, this film arguably doesn't quite do it justice - although Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, as the central couple, give their roles the best they can, there's an unshakeable feeling throughout that this film doesn't really do justice to everything they went through; how physically and emotionally taxing and draining the Professor's deterioration must have been on each of them, the emotional lows that must have been experienced in the way.  This is definitely the case for Jane Hawking - apart from occasional glimpses of frustration, such as indications she is unable to complete her PhD, or when she complains that they will never a 'normal' family, it's hard not to feel that this barely scratches the surface of how difficult the sacrifices she made for her husband were for her.  Even when the handsome widower, and local choir master, Jonathan (Charlie Cox - soon to be seen as Marvel's Daredevil on Netflix!) becomes a virtual live-in carer, sharing Jane's caring burdens, it is clear that they have feelings for each other - but aside from a family argument at the christening of the Hawking's third child, the opportunity to explore Jane's emotional turmoil is never really taken.

Redmayne and Jones give fully invested, respectful performances as Stephen & Jane Hawking.

Throughout everything is played out in a very plummy, upper-middle class, stiff-upper-lip, highly British manner.  I suppose given the backgrounds and circles the Hawking's came from and moved about in, this is to an extent appropriate - but watching scenes, such as when Jane begins trying to rehabilitate a despondent Stephen following a tracheotomy that meant he would never speak again, I couldn't shake the feeling that there could have been more genuine depth of emotion to this.  The one scene that does manage to pull this off is toward the end, when the pair finally acknowledge that their marriage should end - an almost heart-breaking scene which succeeds in no small part due to the performances of the central leads.

Speaking of which, this film has been mentioned a lot recently in relation to acting awards, and Redmayne's performance is the stand-out.  He portrays Professor Hawking's decline at the disease in a way that never feels showy or attempting to be emotionally manipulating.  And on top of that, not only is his physical imitation of Hawking's likeness astounding, as the film progresses he portrays the Professor's humanity - his sense of humour and mischief - superbly, often only with the look in his eyes.  If there are award nominations for Redmayne's performance here they will be well deserved.

Redmayne's performance as Professor Hawking is at times remarkable...

'The Theory of Everything' is a respectful and occasionally moving biopic, anchored by strong central performances, but one that arguably could have reached even deeper to make a far more affecting portrayal of the Hawking's story.  Whether it picks up the awards recognition many have predicted for it is up for debate when so many other films, likely more impacting than this, are also under consideration - but it's certain that Redmayne's portrayal of a brilliant man will be remembered and celebrated by all who see this film.