Today's Review: The Man Who Knew Infinity

Took a while (vacation will do that), but here's a long overdue review for your approval:

The Man Who Knew Infinity - recensie

Mathematics is generally considered by mainstream audiences as a rather dull topic, but movies about mathematicians often have little trouble finding an audience. There's an odd fascination with the socially awkward minds of geniuses who spend their entire live crunching numbers, or so the success of A Beautiful Mind or more recently The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game has proven. However, with the success of such films, there's a risk of such biopics finding themselves limited to a specific formula. A misunderstood genius+a harsh, unaccepting society+British acting talent=boxoffice success, such a formula might state. Problem is, these geniuses in question were anything but formulaic people so there ought to be a little more to it than generic writing to make modern audiences fully appreciate their work. Case in point, the legendary Srinivasa Ramanujan and the feeble The Man Who Knew Infinity.

The mathematical wonder Ramanujan was born a poor Indian with an uncanny gift for understanding numbers and dreaming up formulas way beyond the comprehension of his social environment in the early 20th Century. It took a while for his talent to be recognized and even longer for it to be put to good academic use, when he finally moved to Cambridge. There he baffled the minds of his fellows in the short years that remained to him. What made this incredible mind tick? The Man Who Knew Infinity unfortunately is more concerned with focusing on the culture of discrimination Ramanujan faced at academia. In the movie, the misunderstood genius spends most of his time being subjected to racist exclusion rather than getting any work done. And so he stays mostly misunderstood to the audience, who can't begin to comprehend just how unusual his formulas were and what grand ramifications they had for the world of mathematics. Ramanujan is just repeatedly stated to be a genius, and that's that.

Dev Patel portrays this specific genius and does an adequate job carrying the movie as such, but his talent is basically wasted as the ongoing victim of racial slurs who just keeps looking miserable and unhappy. As the genre's conventions have it, it's up to the assembled British talent to keep the movie alive beyond that. With Jeremy Irons as Ramanujan's close friend Hardy, the film does have one great card to play in keeping us interested both in Ramanujan's plight and mathematics in general. The movie is as its most interesting when Irons graces the screen, guiding us and the protagonist through the academic world and mathematical lore of the early 1900s and sharing many an intriguing anecdote about both. These scenes make for the film's most interesting moments, which are constantly hindered by Ramanujan facing yet another insult regarding his cultural roots or skin colour. We get it, racism is bad. Unfortunately, more emphasis is put on this particular message than we would care to hear. Suffering is after all a trope of the genre and worked for its predecessors: as Turing struggled with his homosexuality in The Imitation Game and Hawking with his debilitating condition in The Theroy of Everything, so Ramanujan is subjected to the racism of the day.

Which is too bad, since an unusual mind like Ramanujan's didn't deserve to be explored in such a generic period piece as The Man Who Knew Infinity. The movie carefully stays within the boundaries of the genre rather than, like the man it honours, exceeding such boundaries. It drones on endlessly about the poor man's plight rather than making us fully appreciate his work, his field of expertise and his lasting legacy. The Man Who Knew Infinity, sadly, is rather a predictable and dull movie, which hinders general moviegoers to consider mathematics something other than just that exactly. Well, at least Jeremy Irons tried...

Today's Review: The Program

Second review for FilmTotaal released this week (but penned last month):

The Program - recensie

Whoever considers this 'the Lance Armstrong' film is wrong, despite it being the only non documentary feature film about the former sports legend thus far. Thing is, at its core it's not about the seven-time Tour de France winner. It's about the journalist who exposed him after years of persistent digging. It's even based on the guy's book. So naturally, Armstrong isn't depicted in a flattering way and that's putting it mildly. The infamous cyclist is portrayed as an absolutely single minded, appalingly arrogant fraud throughout the piece, with little to no redeeming character qualities. Simply said, a total dick. Now, of course nobody will deny that aspect of his character exists. But it can't have been all he ever was/is. After all, he became an inspiration for millions. With the solely negative traits he's endowed with in this film, it's not likely he would ever have been that widely admired. But to the brave, heroic journalist who risked his career and maybe even his life to bring the man down, Armstrong was utterly evil. So that's the Armstrong we get on screen. An Armstrong devoid of nuances, a character from somebody else's pages rather than his own book of life. Which rules The Program out as the biopic it claims to be. But then, history is written by the victors. Which Armstrong himself ultimately didn't rightly turn out to be.

More was to be expected from director Stephen Frears. His previous work showed him most interested in the human side of things, the choices and thoughts that make people who they are, rather than who they seem to be to the rest of the world. The Queen is the best example, where he showed the Queen of England to be just as limited a human being as the rest of us, and therefore a relatable character. The same doesn't hold true for Lance Armstrong, who is portrayed far too one sided and excessively obsessed a character to feel really real. Good performances not withstanding, since Ben Foster does an intense job at playing the star cyclist. Perhaps too much so, going over that top rather than staying right under it. Of course, Chris O'Dowd gives less of a notable performance, thus making him feel more real in the role of the intrepid reporter, which also makes him feel more human than his antagonist, as is the film's intention. And when you say O'Dowd, comedy is the first thing that springs to mind. The Program often feels like it is just that, especially in its first half. After all, we shouldn't take one of the greatest frauds ever too seriously, the film suggests. Too bad, I would have loved to have seen a movie that explains just why Armstrong did the things he did, rather than this film which only shows what those things were (which we basically already knew), rather than their motivations. But why would we need to know why a total dick does what a total dick does, right?

Today's News: Machines, martial arts and alien invasions

Ordinary week in terms of news, with nothing mindblowing to report. Just a few tidbits like these:

Nieuwe trailer Ex Machina

This film is growing on me in terms of anticipation, though I remain skeptical (just not as strongly as I was initially). The fact it was chosen as the opening film of the upcoming 31st Imagine Film Festival makes it score some points, since those folks don't just pick the first genre film that comes their way for that honour. This second trailer also indicates this is more than just a repeat of last year's The Machine, and that it may actually be a better film as well (hence this receiving a theatrical release in the Netherlands, while The Machine sadly did not). However, any bits of ingenuity seem to be found mostly in execution rather than innovation, since this trailer makes no mistake this is again a movie about a robot gone bad, which has been done countless time since the Fifties got that ball rolling. It's the way in which the artificial intelligence goes awry that makes it more distinct. This AI appears to get under your skin on an emotional and sexual level, rather than by its mental superiority (though the fact it utilizes such basic human instincts against its creators goes to tell something about its intellectual capabilities as well). Of course, that too is an age old theme (Metropolis, for example), just not applied as often. I wonder what this machine's ultimate goal will be. Surely it won't be something as grand as world domination, since we already have Avengers: Age of Ultron to remind us of some other reaons why we should never fully trust our technological innovations.

Nieuwe Trailer Avengers: Age of Ultron

Speak of the devil, that particular anti-robot film got a new trailer this week as well. Promises to be quite the superhero spectacle, but we already knew as much. The particular preview shines a bit more light on the motivations of the main antagonist. Save the world by killing the human race, it appears. That's one way to do it, sure. The easy way out, which makes for twodimensional baddies and clear-cut black versus white conflict. But hey, it worked on the first Avengers movie just fine. If you want an ingenious story, you know better than to look for it in this type of flick. This is all about fun characters and explosive action. First film showed both elements are in ample supply from this creative team and so it continues to work its merry magic for this second installment. There's plenty of Joss Whedon type humour to be found here, especially centred around the characters interacting. They just don't like each other all that much but they're sort of stuck with one another, and it makes for relatable scenes of humanity amidst all the superhero shenanigans. Just how the new characters relate to the old guard remains to be seen. It appears debutantes Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are somehow involved with Ultron initially, which is not that surprising since they're supposed to start off as bad guys themselves. As for Vision, quickly thrown in at the end of the trailer (and probably the film proper, too), he's no doubt the anti-Ultron AI, reminding us that not all technology is evil. Considering all the technophobia recently running rampant in the movies, there's a positive message for a change. After all, if we're gonna save the world, we'll need some technology to make it happen.

Eerste casting Independence Day 2 onthuld

And if it isn't evil robots, we'll need to save our planet from extraterrestrials with sinister intentions, too. A bunch of all-American heroes did so nearly 20 years ago, and since Hollywood never forgot the financial benefits involved then, they'll have to do so once more. But will audiences pay to see them do just that once more? It's not like we know the story is gonna be anything but repetitive. Everybody knows there's gonna be more aliens out for our planet and some dudes have to get together and kick their asses, the American way. It would be a huge surprise to everybody if there was anything more to it than that, but that's not gonna happen for sure. The suits behind this film obviously want to play it safe, so they're going with the same characters as before, and if they can't get them because the actors don't feel like doing the exact same thing (good for them), they'll want the next best thing. So Jeff Goldblum is back (which I don't mind since I like him) and Bill Pullman likely is as well. Will Smith thought he could make better use of his time (doing After Earth 2 or stuff), so they cast somebody else to play his son, to literally follow in his father's footsteps. Are we glad they didn't opt for Jaden Smith, that would have been a huge turn-off for everybody that still hopes this will be any good. Jaden is probably too involved with the likes of After Earth 2 as well. In case Pullman passes on the project after all, they got Liam Hemsworth ready to go as his character's son-in-law. Apparently the point ID4 2 tries to make is that heroism specifically runs in the family, rather than running in everyone. As for making good movies, we'll find out sooner or later, whether we want to or not. Or we can try and ignore this project altogether and just get our anti-alien fix from watching the first film again.

Biopic Bruce Lee in de maak

I've honestly never seen a Bruce Lee picture. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in watching a picture about the man himself. But don't give me any of that 'only his relatives know what he was all about, so everybody else can't make a good biopic' crap. That's directly stating 'we're cashing in on the memory of our father' to my mind. It's not like there's no books written or documentaries made about the martial arts legend that involved thorough researching of all the documented facts, including earlier testimony from those same relatives. Of course the previous biopics got some facts wrong, that's a simple biopic staple. It's very likely a biopic made by his descendants is bound to turn some actual events around just as easily, if not more so. You think they'll address the negative aspects of the man's life (and there's bound to be some of those, especially taking his early demise into account) in any objective way? Yeah, that's gonna happen... I tend to be much more skeptical about biopics that do involve the direct family because a certain degree of subjectivity is unavoidable. And I figure the same thought applies to many people. I just don't think that many people will bother to concern themselves with the people behind the production of such biopics. To be quite honest: who really cares as long as the movie is good? If it isn't, at least we'll know who to blame for tarnishing Bruce Lee's memory.

Today's Triple News: interstellar African Ben-Hur

A new crop of news posts:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157290/meer_posters_interstellar_uitgebracht

2001 much? Interstellar not only reminds me of Kubrick's classic in a visual way - in terms of both the look of space and the design of the featured technology - but also in the way it connects the vast recesses of outer space to things closer to home, that wonderful human condition, like mankind's destructive process of evolving and the emotional and psychological ties we share with the home that is our Earth. No artificial doorways to other realms here though, this time it's wormholes that do the same trick (unless they're artificial wormholes, which also wouldn't be a novel notion). It makes for a striking picture nonetheless, as this new poster above reveals. Surely stuff worthy of IMAX, unlike the few pitiful titles released in that format in the months prior to Interstellar's release. And hey, if Interstellar echoes 2001 strongly enough, at least they won't feel the need to pointlessly remake that much beloved movie.

Unlike this next classic...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157256/jack_huston_wordt_ben-hur

There is some Jewish blood running through Huston's veins, but not enough to warrant him playing an ancient Jewish nobleman in that regard. Fortunately Huston is also a very talented actor, so that should put all other issues to rest in my mind. So far, Huston has astonished me with his grand performance of the battle scarred WW I veteran/skilled hitman Richard Harrow on HBO's Boardwalk Empire, while I've also enjoyed his parts in movies like American Hustle and Night Train to Lisbon. It'll be very interesting to see what he makes of Judah Ben-Hur, tormented by his Roman childhood friend, subjected to brutal slavery and enlightened by Christ. I could do without the latter component of the story, but it's hard to deny it's an essential ingredient to the story. It can't be delivered any worse - though some would say 'uplifting' instead - than the way it was in the 1959 film, and I still love that film despite it's in-your-face religious overtones. It will be even more interesting to see what Timur Bekmambetov makes of this as its director. This fairly straightforward epic doesn't really seem suited for his flamboyant, if not downright outrageous, visual and narrative style. Then again, considering the fantasy elements delivered by Ben-Hur's Christian subplot coupled with Bekmambetov's experience combining both the historical and the fantastic genres (see Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, The Arena and the Night Watch films), it seems the studio has made the perfect directorial choice.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157289/angelina_jolie_regisseert_africa

The elephant plight is in desperate need of some worldwide attention, as these magnificent animals (and rhinos, too) are now in more danger of extinction than ever, due to the alarmingly increasing levels of poaching caused by the Chinese hunger for ivory and their complete disregard for wildlife. So I'm glad someone is tackling the subject and I hope it will be released in time to turn the tide. As for Angelina Jolie as the director, it's a solid choice considering she's serious about the need to highlight disturbing subjects like these to the public mind. I for one believe her work as a UNESCO ambassador is certainly more than just another movie star calling to attention the plight of others merely as a hobby. I don't deny her a sense of resolve. However, her directorial talents are still somewhat under dispute. So far only one of her directed features has been released (it was In the Land of Blood and Honey, if you recall), and it wasn't a particularly good film. Her upcoming movie Unbroken seems more promising though. And hopefully it will fulfill those promises, so Angelina will use her growing knowledge of the ins and outs of the directing craft to even better use for Africa. The elephants really would benefit from a movie about the ongoing butchering inflicted upon them, and it would only be to their advantage if it turned out to be a good one.

Today's Triple News: amazing dragon jobs

Let's put an end to MovieScene news posts by my hand accumulating indefinitely right here, right now:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155304/danny_boyle_beoogd_regisseur_voor_biopic_steve_jobs

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155276/eerste_vijf_minuten_how_to_train_your_dragon_2_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155262/x-men_in_aftiteling_amazing_spider-man_2

Good going, Fox and Sony... As if the situation with the various Marvel properties isn't complicated enough for non-fans to grasp, you two just had to go and muddy the waters some more. This is bound to be getting people's hopes up needlessly. The X-Men and Spider-Man are never gonna team up in a movie. Period. Like Marvel big-shot producer Avi Arad said only last week, interstudio team-ups are a last resort for when the studios have run out of ideas with their franchises. And considering the amount of work currently being done to ensure smooth internal crossovering, there's simply no room yet for adding characters of other franchises to the mix for at least two decades or so. Fox is too busy making sense of the larger X-universe and looking for ways to also incorporate the Fantastic Four in there somehow, while Sony is reworking the Spider-Man legacy to explore ways of producing spin-off movies without the webhead himself, like Sinister Six and Venom. At this point, the whole notion of Spider-Man joining the X-Men in a mutually shared adventure just makes no sense, and putting a scene for an upcoming X-flick in the end credits of the latest Spider-flick ought to be considered false advertising. Better to introduce an exclusive clip from Days of Future Past in advance of screening the actual Spider-film, so lay people understand it's not connected at all, as it isn't. Sony's cause would be better served including a teaser for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 in their latest blockbuster, as the studio did in the case of its predecessor (even though in hindsight, judging from the second film that particular scene now raises more questions than it answers, which might point at Sony's long term strategy not being so clearly envisioned as the studio would have us believe). So far, indications seem the X-clip in question is not part of the Dutch release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Good thing too, since I don't feel like snapping all those clueless cinemagoers going in to see Spidey and coming out hoping for his showdown with them mutants out of their big Marvel dreams. That would be cruel, even though I'm not to blame for this poor marketing move on the studios' part.

Coherency seems better handled in the How to Train Your Dragon franchise, judging from the first few minutes of the new film which are now widely found online, two months prior to the film's actual release. A common strategy as we've seen of late, as other big budget movies took the same route in the hopes of convincing people to go and check out the rest of the film soon. This opening of the sequel bears more than a minor similarity to the start of the first film, which is of course the idea. It parallels the former status quo wherein dragons were a threat to the inhabitants of Berk to the new situation in which both parties have formed a mutually beneficial alliance. A symbiosis which of course comes under threat from the movie's new antagonist, who's out of the picture here just yet so as to not spoil what the movie is actually about, other than providing us with some more adventures of Hiccup and Toothless to get us interested. How to Train Your Dragon 2 seems a typical sequel to its original, which is not a bad thing at all as that was a fun, high spirited family film with a heartfelt message of looking past differences and promoting universal understanding of others. At least this movie won't claim random ties to  computer animated films from rival companies where non exist.

Speaking of companies, Steve Jobs co-founded a notable one (bad segue, I know). Now he's dead and apparently Hollywood isn't done just yet telling the story of the man who created Apple. One biopic isn't enough, especially as jOBS apparently didn't do justice to the great man. Now Sony attempts to draw in the bigger names in order to produce a more prestigious film about Mr. Jobs. Danny Boyle is in the spotlight as director after David Fincher left the project, while Leonardo DiCaprio is sought to replace Christian Bale portraying the main character. Strong names all, but is there a real need for another Jobs film in so short a time span? Or is Hollywood still trying to cash in on the demise of the man? Granted, jOBS was a fairly low budget film and did bring in thrice its budget at the box office, but it still didn't draw huge crowds, despite the continuing popularity of Apple products. It seems those big shot names are more suited for enticing the audience to come see the film. In DiCaprio's case, if it worked on a sleazy fraud like Jordan Belfort, who's to say it won't do the same for a revolutionary inventor/entrepreneur like Steve? Guess DiCaprio needs to show off he can run a company in a responsible manner as well.

Today's Mini-Review: Behind the Candelabra

Behind the Candelabra: ***/*****, or 7/10

After having immersed himself in one world of extreme showmanship and male relations in Magic Mike, Steven Soderbergh tells another, not quite so dissimilar version of the same topic when he tackles the love life of Liberace in Behind the Candelabra. Based on the autobiographical novel by Scott Thorson (played in this movie by Matt Damon), Soderbergh explores the stormy six year relationship, starting in 1977, between the famed pianist – already an older man at that time – and the much younger man who he sweeps into his world of excess. A naive boy uncomfortable with a life of glamour and glitter, you'd think Thorson knows better than to simply accept Liberace's invitation into his effusive lifestyle, but the call of adventure and glory is too much for any young adult to ignore. What starts as a seemingly genuine love affair between the flamboyant musician and his younger bisexual paramour generally devolves into an untenable situation as Thorson, victim to various cosmetic whims of what is basically his benefactor, fears himself just a fling, easily replaced if Liberace so desires. Eventually their relationship unravels and tragedy ensues. Even more so in later years, long after the legal dust has settled between them, as Liberace suffers from AIDS and once again calls on his former romantic partner for reaching an understanding. It may be Thorson's story, but thanks to a fabulous performance by Michael Douglas (which has unmistakably written 'Academy Award' all over it), no quarter is given to the fact that this is Liberace's movie. The historical character drives every scene from the get-go, even when not physically present, while Douglas dominates every sequence with his superb acting which all too carefully balances character and caricaturism. Despite being an insufferable, arrogant and commandeering presence, often driving Thorson to extremes for his own pleasure, there's also a definite poignancy and heart to Liberace as he searches for someone to hold on to during all the madness of his life as a totally over-the-top artist. Douglas successfully makes you love and hate Liberace. Damon, though certainly not lacking the necessary chemistry duelling this opponent and holding his own when it matters, is unsurprisingly outstaged at all times, but this is naturally unavoidable as you can't outshine the likes of Liberace and Soderbergh knows better than to have his supporting cast try to do just that. Nevertheless, Damon proves as brave as Douglas when it comes to making the expression in the flesh of the love between Liberace and Thorson feel convincing. Though dealing with heavy themes of lust, betrayal and passion gone awry, Soderbergh isn't afraid to employ a lighter tone for much of the film, making us enjoy Liberace's various campy acts as much as his contemporary audience did, while also relaying the sheer absurdity of a man who was so clearly gay, but who vividly denied his nature at every turn to the point of suing people who openly commented on his homosexuality: if you watch Douglas' playing the part it seems incredulous people ever actually believed such continuous denials. The greatest fun the movie provides comes with courtesy from Rob Lowe playing Liberace's plastic surgeon, who is commisioned to turn Thorson into a young duplicate of the celeb. Here the joy gradually turns to disgust (and not just because of several explicit surgery shots!) as Thorson all too easily drops his resistance to please his lover who's asking things of him no sane human being would allow, with detrimental results to his face and in the longer run, his mental health. However, it was perfectly clear from the start the relationship between the two was doomed to failure and would only cause harm. In principle, Behind the Candelabra is no different in any way from hundreds of other films dealing with an inexperienced younger person who is drawn into a world of fame and passion which turns out a web of lies in which he is devoured unless he breaks free and returns to his roots: in fact, Magic Mike's plot line was similar in all too many ways. However, neither Mike nor all those other films in the same veign had the benefit from Michael Douglas' delightful but ultimately heartbreaking performance, which makes up for any of such narrative predictabilities. Douglas delivers, as Liberace lives again.

Today's News: Rasputin rises again

Just off the MovieScene hotline:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/147842/leonardo_dicaprio_wordt_raspoetin

I wrote a paper on the infamous Mad Monk in high school, so I'm versed well enough in Rasputin's history to know there's plenty of material in there to make for a smashing movie. Intrigue, religion, social upheaval, class conflict, war and loads of saucy, steaming sex, Rasputin's life had it all. Not to mention a hint of the supernatural is available, if the people behind this movie choose to explore that particular aspect of his persona. The latter is doubtful, though his bizarre death certainly cannot be ignored: few people get poisoned, beaten, mutilated, shot, drowned and finally frozen without such a harrowing end being considered the stuff of movies after all. However, considering the names so far attached to this project, I'm convinced this movie will go for an intelligent, historically responsible approach to portraying the starets instead of overindulging in the sensationalism of his wild existence.

Speaking of names, Leonardo DiCaprio, really? Don't get me wrong, Leo has proven himself a formidable actor capable of handling any number of wholly different types of roles over the last decade. Still, a lot of movie magic is required to make him look and sound anything like the historical Rasputin. This one will take quite the metamorphosis, as it's unlike anything DiCaprio has ever done before. I always imagined Rasputin to be played by the likes of Benicio Del Toro, Mickey Rourke or even Jeremy Irons. Nevertheless, I know DiCaprio will succeed in making for a compelling Rasputin, and I look forward to seeing him die a violent, brutal, overly long and painful death.

The Aviator

Rating: ****/*****, or 7/10

Martin Scorsese's biopic on billionaire Howard Hughes witnesses the second collaboration between himself and Leonardo DiCaprio, who finally definitively sheds his up until then dominating stigma of a 'pretty boy' superstar in favour of a classification as a true top actor. DiCaprio successfully plays the noted industrialist as a man ruled by his various personal ticks and impulsive weaknesses from the late 1920s up until his last few years living as a hermit in a hotel room. Lavish production design includes a phenomenal look at the Golden Age of Hollywood as Hughes took control of RKO Studios to direct his own movie, and various classic air planes constructed by Hughes as part of his most notable passion, his love of aviation. Scorsese also tells of Hughes' romances with star actresses Katharine Hepburn (a fantastic Cate Blanchett, who rightfully won an Oscar for her contribution) and Ava Gardner (a less convincing Kate Beckinsale). Overall, Scorsese does a good job at explaining this otherwise unfathomable man, though the film does drag on too much in the long run, especially when it comes to the affairs revolving Hughes' 'Spruce Goose' dream plane project.

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale

Directed by Martin Scorsese

USA: Forward Pass, 2004