The Imitation Game Review

When I reviewed Gangs of New York back in 2012, I asked readers what obscure bit of history they would like to see made into a movie. I said I'd love to see a biopic of Alan Turing. He was a pioneering scientist and mathematician who is considered to be the father of theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence. He was a remarkable historical figure whose life tragically ended early. I knew about some aspects of his life before The Imitation Game (2014) was released, but I didn't realize just how influential he had been and how many lives he saved during World War II. I'm delighted his life was depicted in film this way, and that it was an outstanding film besides.

During the winter of 1952, British authorities entered the home of mathematician, cryptanalyst and war hero Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) to investigate a reported burglary. They instead ended up arresting Turing himself on charges of 'gross indecency', an accusation that would lead to his devastating conviction for the criminal offense of homosexuality - little did officials know, they were actually incriminating the pioneer of modern-day computing. Under orders of Commander Denniston (Charles Dance), Turing had famously lead a motley group of scholars, linguists, chess champions and intelligence officers, including Hugh Alexander (Matthew Goode), John Cairncross (Allen Leech), Peter Hilton (Matthew Beard), and Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley). Together, the team sets out to crack the so-called unbreakable codes of Germany's World War II Enigma machine's algorithm so that future coded messages could be deciphered. Under nail-biting pressure, these geniuses helped to shorten the war and, in turn, save thousands of lives.

The story spans Turing's unhappy teenage years, focuses on his wartime work, and his post-war decline. It was far more interesting than one would suppose it should be. The bulk of the story revolves around Britain's greatest minds in the World War II era in a secret military base scrambling to crack a code. That doesn't really lend itself to thrilling scenes. Yet this is by no means a dull story. There is a sense of urgency throughout the movie as they literally race against the clock, trying to solve the code before midnight when the code's key is reset and they have to start over from scratch. Each time they fail hundreds, even thousands, of lives of the allied forces are lost. On top of that, Turing isn't well liked thanks to his social awkwardness and obliviousness to normal social cues. Often he did not have the support of his colleagues, and was often under threat of being fired for wasting Government money on a gigantic thinking machine that didn't seem to do anything but use valuable resources. There is a lot of tension, lies and secrets, character development, excellent plot twists, and, unexpectedly, a fair number of laughs.

The acting was superb! Admittedly, I'm not the biggest Cumberbatch fan, but you can't deny how amazing his voice sounds. This is the first time I've seen him in a starring role and he nails it. Much of the movie's humor comes from Turing's obliviousness to social cues. His literal mindedness tended to drive people around him crazy, and Cumberbatch portrayed Turing's aloofness perfectly. There's a scene when Turing is taking Joan Clarke's advice to try to endear himself to his team. He buys them all apples, shuffles around their work area awkwardly distributing them, and proceeds to fail at telling them a very lame joke, and then leaving. Scenes like this are where Cumberbatch's acting skills are most impressive. Acting out a character who's trying to be funny, but isn't, and isn't even aware how bad he looks and clearly doesn't get the nuances of humor can't be easy to portray. Moments when Turing is torn between revealing secrets in the name of national security and keeping secrets in order to keep working in the interest of ending the war are also well acted.  Cumberbatch skillfully plays a character that is so oblivious to normal social cues that he doesn't always realize he's been invited to lunch. Within this awkward character, he shows us the inner conflict of a man who isn't sure when to keep valuable information quiet and the sense of uncertainty it causes him. Cumberbatch portrays this character of superior intelligence and social obliviousness brilliantly. Cumberbatch doesn't play Turing so much as he inhabits him; bravely and sympathetically, but without mediation.

I can't imagine how difficult it is to visually portray a historical setting in film on a large scale, but some movies depict these periods with such efficacy that we feel transported to another time for the duration of the movie. The Imitation Game is one such movie. The costumes, hair styles, cars, buildings, technology, everything seems taken out of history books to illustrate the past for us. The movie isn't trying to showcase these props to us or convince us of how difficult it was to depict World War II era England, they were subtly incorporated with nonchalance.  And that sold us on the time period better than anything else. The sets were gorgeous, the props were perfect, costumes were spot on.

The Imitation Game showed us one of the most important stories of the last century and is one of the greatest movies of 2014. This is one of the year's finest pieces of screen acting, the characters were outstanding, and the story was fascinating and pertinent to us today. This was an outstanding piece of screenwriting as well. It's emotionally complex, tailored to perfection, while being delicately nuanced and tragic. While the main character is gay, there are no sex scenes. Regardless of your views on homosexuality, there isn't anything in The Imitation Game that I think anyone could find offensive. The movie isn't trying to sell you on a biased agenda or tell you what to think about homosexuality; that's not what the movie is about. It's about trying to end a war, and how sometimes people who think outside the box are important to overcome seemingly impossible problems, and that their sexual orientation is immaterial to the question at hand. I loved The Imitation Game, and I highly recommend seeing it. It's been nominated for Academy Awards in eight categories including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actress. This is worth seeing, and if you're a fan of dramas, it's worth owning a copy  as well.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Movie Review

Ever since the end credits started rolling at the end of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012), I've been chomping at the bit to see the sequel; The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013), and I was not disappointed. Even with a few flaws, there is more exciting action, more beautiful visuals, and easily the best dragon in cinema history!

After successfully crossing over and under the Misty Mountains, Thorin (Richard Armitage) and company continue their quest and must seek aid from a powerful stranger named Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt) before taking on the dangers of Mirkwood Forest. Upon reaching the forest, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) discovers "Black Speech" graffiti on an old ruin and abruptly leaves without explanation. If the dwarves reach the human settlement of Lake-town, it will be time for the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) to fulfill his contract with the dwarves and use stealth to retrieve the Arkenstone which will reunite all the dwarves. The party must complete the journey to the Lonely Mountains and burglar Baggins must seek out the Secret Door that will give them access to the hoard of the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). Meanwhile, Gandalf rejoins a fellow wizard of his order, Radagast the Brown (The Doctor Sylvester McCoy), to investigate a potentially greater foe that the Black Speech foretold.

As was the case with The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Hobbit movies are being filmed back to back and filming sometimes overlapped. It's all the same cast and crew. So to save space here, just go read my review of An Unexpected Journey; what I discussed there can easily be said about The Desolation of Smaug.  An Unexpected Journey was good, though it had some pacing issues. But holy cow! The Desolation of Smaug is amazing! I think this is more of the tone viewers were expecting with the first movie. This one really takes things up to the next level.

This movie assumes that you have seen the previous one. Seriously, you must not see these out of order. The movies starts off with some exciting action and doesn't really slow down enough to develop the characters that have previously been established. Sure, we get some new characters; Orlando Bloom reprises his role as Legolas the elf, Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) the Chief of the Guards for the Elfking, and Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans), and the Master of Lake-town (Stephen Fry). They all get developed to varying degrees, but the movie assumes you already know who Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, and the other dwarves are. That's often a downside to sequels; but since this is part two of a three part story, I can let it slide.

The Hobbit Trilogy is based on the book, the appendices to The Return of the King, and Tolkin's personal notes. There are extra scenes and characters I just didn't recognize at all. It turns out that there were scenes and characters included that were unique to the movies; Tauriel for example. I was suspicious that Legolas showed up in The Hobbit at all. He was not in the book, and I was expecting him to just make a simple cameo, nod to the fans, and be gone. Not so. He's actually a major character and that makes sense because his father plays an important role in the movie and the book. If you're going to shoehorn extra characters or scenes into an established story, it's important to make them meaningful, memorable, and amazing. That is exactly what Legolas and Tauriel were, and I loved it!

Smaug is easily the best dragon ever put on the big screen. I was a bit upset that we got to see him in one of the trailers. But no, the trailer did not do Smaug justice. If you saw the trailer, you have not seen anything yet. He is absolutely colossal. He's cunning, articulate, evil, ridiculously powerful, menacing, and dominating. I mean, you know when Bilbo enters the hoarded treasure chamber that you're going to see Smaug, but nothing can prepare you for it! You really feel the dread Bilbo feels upon first seeing this monster. Smaug would probably corner you without any kind of effort, kick your butt at a game of chess, and then incinerate you. I simply cannot describe how excellent Smaug is in this movie! This dragon is truly epic, and is going to be a memorable movie villain for ages to come; right up there with Lord Voldemort, Darth Vader, The Wicked Witch of the West, and The Joker.

The Desolation of Smaug isn't without its flaws. The music is good, but not nearly as memorable as the music in An Unexpected Journey. This isn't a movie score you're as likely to listen to repeatedly. The story is weakened a bit simply from being the "middle chapter" in the bigger story; there isn't much of a beginning point nor is there much of a conclusion. It just ended so abruptly. This is very much a special effects intensive film, but a couple of times the CGI looked rather overt. I felt like some scenes could have been polished up a bit more.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was fantastic! It's got some flaws, but I don't think they are deal breakers by any means. The director, Peter Jackson, seems to be slipping into the realm of fan fiction at times, but he manages to make his additions acceptable and lots of fun for the most part. Smaug is incredible; best movie dragon ever! We're left with a considerable cliffhanger, but it's made me all the more excited for the final installment. You must see The Desolation of Smaug on the big screen. Smaug will look much less incredible on a TV screen. Catch this in theaters, and then wait to buy the extended edition on Blu-Ray. It's worth owning.

All other movie dragons have now been dethroned, but before Smaug came along, what was your favorite movie dragon? I thought Draco the dragon in Dragonheart was pretty good. Comment below and tell me about your favorite!

Star Trek Into Darkness Movie Review

Back in 2009, J. J. Abrams took on the tricky task of not only appeasing a notoriously judgmental fan base but of winning over a new generation of movie goers with a relaunch of the 1960's cult classic TV series, Star Trek. Four years later we get a much anticipated sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), and it's quite a ride!

The USS Enterprise and her crew have been sent to a distant planet to observe a primitive civilization. Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) violates the Prime Directive when the life of First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto) is jeopardized, exposing the Enterprise to the planet's civilization during the rescue. Called back to Earth, Kirk is demoted to First Officer of the Enterprise with his mentor Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) resuming command. The two attend an emergency meeting at Starfeet Command to discuss the bombing of the secret Section 31 installation in London, perpetrated by former Starfleet agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). The meeting is attacked by Harrison who flees to the Klingon home world, Kronos, leaving Pike dead. Kirk is reinstated as the Enterprise Captain, and is given special permission from Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) to hunt down and kill Harrison with 72 long-range prototype photon torpedoes. This violates several of Starfleet's usual codes of ethics. With some trepidation, Spock, Uhura (Zoe Saldana), "Bones" (Karl Urban), "Scotty" (Simon Pegg), Sulu (John Cho), and Checkov (Anton Yelchin) follow Kirk as he leads the way to seek out Harrison, the one-man-weapon-of-mass-destruction.

Into Darkness picks up where Star Trek left off. In the previous film, the character driven plot revolves around Kirk and Spock being at odds with one another. Now the two have found a means of working together. They still have polar opposite personalities, but now they have an understanding that Kirk is the captain and Spock is the first officer and should have Kirk's back at all times. Spock does have Kirk's back but "Vulcans don't lie" and sometimes when Kirk breaks the rules, Spock is obligated to address that. It's a logical progression of the two characters' development and we get to see how this interesting dynamic brings the two of them closer together as friends. This relationship is the heart and soul of Star Trek; the ambiguous compound of rivalry, warmth, and interspecies misunderstanding. There are plenty of other characters who are well developed and make significant contributions to the story; it doesn't exclusively revolve around Kirk and Spock. The whole Enterprise crew gets multiple moments to shine.

The visual effects are brilliant. There are massive explosions, outstanding chases, beautiful scenery created through CGI, and the sets for the interior of the Enterprise look amazing. I loved seeing the Enterprise go into warp, buildings collapse, and space ships crash. Everything was shown in glorious detail. There were no shaky cameras to obscure details, and we got plenty of wide shots to show the magnitude of the damage. Into Darkness spares no expense on its stunning visuals nor it's riveting action.

There's an interesting theme that lends itself to a cautionary tale of real world politics. Yes, Harrison is a great villain, but I think the real "enemy" is the prospect of war, or rather how to best handle the onset of war. Kirk and Spock represent the two arguments about war; what is expedient and what is right. They have specific orders that are not in harmony with Starfleet's values, and would probably start a war with the fearsome Klingons. Spock readily puts forth the counter-argument to the crew's mission to destroy the fugitive Harrison; aren't they morally obligated to capture the suspect and bring him to trial instead? Our heroes are often set upon by the dilemma of choosing between moral ideals and making hasty retaliations. We aren't necessarily given a specific answer to the question, but it should make the viewer think about their country's stance in the face of contemporary international conflicts.

I think Into Darkness has a few more Star Trek references from the old TV show and movies than the first movie did. If you're a hardcore Trekkie, you'll notice lots throwback references throughout the movie. There's even some classic Star Trek lines delivered in new and unexpected ways, which was a very creative implementation. But even if you lived under a rock and never watched Star Trek before, you won't become lost watching Into Darkness. I watched Into Darkness with a couple of non-Trekkie friends and the only thing they were confused about is what a tribble was, and that is at best a detail of miniscule importance.

Star Trek Into Darkness was incredibly fun. I didn't think it was quite as good as its predecessor, but it was a good solid movie. J. J. Abrams knows how to construct a good blockbuster with a perfect blend of incredible action and meaningful characters. We are shown an excellent script which brought us some good dialogue. The visual effects are gorgeous and detailed, the action is exciting and well presented, and the classic Star Trek references are delightful. This will keep old school Trekkies and noobz captivated and enthralled.  Star Trek Into Darkness is worth catching on the big screen, and is worthy of a blu-ray purchase once it becomes available.

There are plenty of Star Trek movies out. Star Trek Into Darkness is the 12th. Do you have a favorite? Comment below and let me know!

Creation Movie Review

It seems that Hollywood is capable of giving any given event a romantic spin. To romanticize the story of Charles Darwin and his book On The Origin of Species is a fairly unexpected turn of events. The biopic Creation (2009) both tells a tale of romantic turmoil and respects the historical events.

Charles Darwin (Paul Bettany) has traveled all over the world studying animals. Several years back he settled down with his wife, Emma (Jennifer Connelly) and raised a family. In Darwin’s studies he came to conclude that more successful organisms survive better than the less successful ones; resulting in improvement of future generations. He called this process “natural selection.” It applied to all living organisms; mammals, insects, fish, birds, plants, etc. But did it explain Man? Even Darwin himself was hesitant to ask. Emma did not think it explained Man. She believed that God alone was the author of Man as described in the book of Genesis. This conflict of interests puts a strain on their marriage. It’s not until the death of their 10-year-old daughter Annie (Martha West) that Charles' faith in God is destroyed, yet the same event reinforces Emma’s faith. As Charles’ life begins falling apart, his colleagues Joseph Hooker (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Thomas Huxley (Toby Jones) urge him to complete his book which will one day change the history of science forever.

The subject of the theory of evolution stirs controversy even some one hundred and fifty years after the publication of On The Origin of Species. As such, Creation had plenty of opportunity to ruffle a few feathers. It could have preached the glory of science while besmirching religion, or vice versa. Even Charles did not want to stir up controversy. In one scene Huxley exclaims to Charles, “Congratulations, sir! You've killed God!” Charles looks horrified by this. There are also scenes where theology is touched upon. Emma is distraught by the divergence growing between her and her husband over his findings, she asks him, “Do you not care that you and I may be separated for all eternity?” The Creation focuses on the interests of Charles and Emma and doesn’t become preachy in favor of religion or science. It’s about the characters, not the bigger concepts. In fact, you won’t leave this movie knowing any more about evolution or religion than you did going in.

A nice device used in Creation is that the movie breaks away to show us some of the natural world and allows us to see the concept of survival of the fittest in action. It’s not forced or dramatized; it may as well have been from a nature documentary. It helps us see the world through Charles’ eyes and allows us to see his perspective, but allows us to draw our own conclusions from it.

You can buy the romance between Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly, as they work very naturally together. This is probably because the two actors are married in real-life. Both do a superb job with their roles. Charles is in a state of sadness and grievance for a lot of the movie, but Bettany’s acting maintains a nice balance of emotion without becoming melodramatic. The same can be said for Connelly. Martha West also did a fantastic job. Most children aren’t the best actors, especially not when it comes to dramatic roles. Yet Martha did a very convincing job, even during her death scene.

Creation was a decent movie; a nice historical dramatization with some romance stirred in. It featured some great acting, some excellent direction by Jon Amiel, and an interesting subject matter. No matter where you stand on evolution versus creation, you will still have reason to enjoy this romantic drama.

What’s your favorite movie based on a real person or event?  Comment below and tell me all about it!