jafar-iqbal

Try explaining to somebody what White God is about and raised eyebrows tend to be the default response. I know this because I've tried; but, frankly, it's the somewhat absurd nature of the plot that drew me to it in the first place. Well, that, and the fact that this was Hungary's entry for the Oscars. Reason enough to get me into an auditorium on a mild spring evening.

So here's that somewhat absurd plot: when young teenager Lili (Zsofia Psotta) is forcibly separated from Hagen, her pet dog and best friend, the two end up on parallel journeys in search for one another. She defies her dad and pretty much the entire adult world in her search; and he ends up as the leader of a street-dog uprising, terrorising the streets of Budapest. Think of it as The Birds having a baby with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, only for that baby to get vomited on by Watership Down. Pleasant.

The idea of dogs launching an uprising is arguably pure fantasy and the story's biggest obstacle. But the movie gets around it by rooting the whole thing in a very harsh reality. Once Hagen is separated from Lili, we see him move from one despicable owner to another, each one subjecting him to awful acts of cruelty. It really isn't one for the faint-hearted – there are scenes of animal abuse and violence here which are genuinely distressing; but it works because, by the time he breaks free and begins the uprising, we're aching to see him gain some revenge. And, oh yeah, he does.

On the other side, we have Lili (a superb Zsofia Psotta), the heartbroken young girl who desperately wants back the only good thing in her life. Like Hagen, she too flits from one bad experience to another, trying badly to grow up in a lonely world. She doesn't have any other friends, her father (Sandor Zsoter, in another excellent performance) doesn't try to understand her, and nobody else cares. But her resolve stays strong and, like Hagen, we're right there with her to the end.

The film moves back and forth between the two characters, making it quite obvious that their journeys are very much the same. It's character development all the way for those first two thirds, before suddenly morphing into a thriller-cum-horror. I'd say it gets a bit predictable at that point, but I'd also say that doing the predictable thing is sometimes the right thing. We know what's going to happen in that final third, but it's what we want and they deliver. And it all leads up to an ending that is thoroughly satisfying in that it never really ends. It just fades to black.

I'm pretty sure this is the first Hungarian film I've ever seen, and it's a bloody good one to start on. You're not going to see too many films this year that are so strongly anchored by a dog and a 13-year old. But, really, do go in knowing that you're going to see some distressing scenes. It's not easy viewing, but it's powerful and bold and fearless. I couldn't recommend it highly enough.

Oh, and before you ask: no. I have virtually NO idea why it's called White God.

Foxcatcher is your typical Oscar contender. It's based on an extraordinary true story. It has a bunch of very accomplished actors, many of whom are performing at the top of their game. It has that central performance which anchors the movie. And, crucially, it's quite fun to watch. Put it next to the other contenders that have just been announced, and this Bennett Miller film fits in very nicely.

The story is definitely extraordinary, and hard to believe that it happened less than thirty years ago. Mark and David Schultz, who both won gold medals in wrestling at the 1984 Olympics, were recruited by reclusive millionaire John DuPont to train the next generation of Olympic wrestlers at his purpose-built training centre. Known as Team Foxcatcher, it was an unlikely alliance with even unlikelier circumstances.

You don't need me to tell you how all of this ended – a quick Google search will do a much better job of that – but I can tell you that a very solid job was done of bringing it to the screen. Bennett Miller is a director with proved success in biopics – Capote and Moneyball are both brilliant – and he continues in that vein with this. He's very good at making sure he doesn't take too many creative liberties, letting the truth of the story take precedence.

But when you look back on Miller's past successes, what he does best is get excellent performances from the unlikeliest of actors and, with Foxcatcher, he gives that privilege to Steve Carell. Arguably one of the best comedy actors of the modern era, Carell was a massive gamble for this role, but he is fantastic. The prosthetic nose and hairpiece already help to strip away any preconceptions, but it is a performance so far removed from his previous work that you can't help but be impressed. DuPont was the richest man in America at the time, but he was also a loner. Living in the shadow of his mother (a small but significant and vicious cameo from Vanessa Redgrave), he saw Team Foxcatcher as his way of getting acceptance. The way he goes about trying to achieve that is funny (in a twisted way), but Carell plays it straight. There's no deliberate attempt to amuse, and neither does it happen accidentally. Every time he appears on screen, Carell makes you uncomfortable, especially as his power increases.

The other two points of this triangle casting are a mixed bag. On the one hand, we have Mark Ruffalo, who is the MVP. While Carell is the one getting all the media attention, it's Ruffalo who quietly steals the show with a very understated and emotional performance. He is the moral compass of the movie and, like so many great performers before him, he manages to express deep, complex emotions just by shrugging his shoulders or laughing nervously. He is definitely up there as one of the best character actors of this generation, and a joy to watch. Channing Tatum, I'm not as sure of. He is a good actor, don't get me wrong, and he isn't bad in this. In fact, he surprised me with the maturity of the performance. But, the truth is, he's a good actor but not a great one; and as Mark Schultz, who the film is following most, it needed somebody who could match Carell and Ruffalo. And he couldn't. I sat there and kept wondering how different the film would have been if it was Tom Hardy up there. Similar builds, similar intensity, but Hardy is far above Tatum when it comes to acting chops. But we got Tatum, and he holds his own, so fair enough.

What people do need to know is that Foxcatcher isn't a film about wrestling; there is, of course, some wrestling in it, but it's there as a narrative device. In fact, one of the best scenes of the film is a wrestling 'match' between the Schultz brothers. It's a five-minute scene where the older brother (Ruffalo) is training the younger one (Tatum), but there is clearly some tension. There are barely more than four or five words spoken, but we pretty much learn everything we need to know about the sibling relationship in that five minutes. Tremendous. At its core, Foxcatcher is about two things. The want and need for power; and the consequences of living in someone else's shadow. Foxcatcher has rightfully got some great press, primarily because of Steve Carell's performance, but I don't think it's quite there as an Oscar-winning movie. Of the three leads, Ruffalo is the one most deserving of an award (and he's nominated for Best Supporting Actor), but there are other actors more deserving. Still, this is a really engaging, dramatic thriller which does justice to an extraordinary true story.

There was one little moment in 'The Theory Of Everything' that I really didn't like – while on stage in his wheelchair, Stephen Hawkins imagines himself standing up, picking up a pencil off the floor and placing it on a table. It's an odd fantasy sequence in a film that does so much to ground itself in the utmost reality, and I'm taken out of the moment. But why do I start this review straight off with a criticism? Because I figured I should probably note ONE criticism, considering that these thirty uncharacteristic seconds are preceded by two hours of exceptional cinema.

For those who don't know, 'The Theory Of Everything' is the biopic of legendary physicist Stephen Hawking. Told chronologically starting with his time at Cambridge University, the film recounts both the young man's rise to bona fide genius and the physical deterioration caused by Motor Neurone Disease. At the centre of it all is his wife Jane (who's memoir the film is adapted from), the rock that meant Hawking never stopped fulfilling his potential. As much as the film is about Stephen and his extraordinary life, it is just as much about her extraordinary resolve. And, above all, it's about the strength of their love (which is, yes, extraordinary).

I'll admit, I had my doubts about the casting of this film. Both Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones are undoubtedly very talented, but I wasn't sure they could pull off such complex characters. Man, was I wrong! The two actors are astonishingly good, and have a fantastic chemistry on screen. Even their scenes as young lovers, before the tough stuff, is great. We really believe that they were made for each other, despite the obvious faith and science conflict, and it's beautiful to watch. But it's when that tough stuff starts, when Hawking begins to break down physically, that the chemistry is electric.

As Jane, Felicity Jones proves a revelation. Her transformation from sweet young girl to steely-souled wife is brilliant, as she battles to keep herself together. Even when she finally breaks, we don't hate her – quite the opposite, in fact. Screenwriter Anthony McCarten makes sure to never paint her as a bad person – instead, she comes across as a woman who has reached the end of her tether, justifying her eventual decisions. Jones, to her credit, expresses that brilliantly. It's what she doesn't say that is most striking about her performance, with those tired eyes and awkward silences.

But let's cut to the chase; the real star of this movie is Eddie Redmayne. I should probably explain why I didn't like those thirty second at the end of the movie. Such is the magnificence of Redmayne's transformation that I forget it's him. At no point does it feel like I'm watching an actor play a role – this is Stephen Hawking – until he picks up the pencil and looks like Redmayne again. There is an everyman quality about Redmayne which makes him perfect for the character – yes, Hawking was a genius, but it never corrupted him. He was humble, charming, funny, innocent in his own way, and Redmayne captures that with his goofy grins and cheeky wry smiles. Even when he is at the point that he can't talk or move his body, when almost everything has shut down, he never stops trying. There is a wonderful scene where he meets his new nurse (Maxine Peake in a small but excellent cameo), which is both laugh-out-loud funny and tragic at the same time. Hawking is a man who had to fight everything - literally death itself – to achieve his potential. And he does. When you look back on previous Oscar winners – Charlize Theron in 'Monster', for example – the awards lot like to see those physical transformations. Well, you might not get a better one than Eddie Redmayne this time round.

Kudos also needs to be given to director James Marsh. Well, he got those performance out of the leads, so the plaudits are obvious, but he also does wonders with a strong supporting cast that includes David Thewlis, Harry Lloyd and a really lively Charlie Cox (though Emily Watson, a personal favourite of mine, is in it for what seems like a cup of coffee!). But his method of direction is brilliant. The film's style reflects Hawking's state – the first third is a lot of quick cuts and moving shots, almost overemphasising the natural agility and physical prowess Hawking had. Then, once he is diagnosed, the cinematography changes. The camera moves closer to the characters, right up close to Hawking's face and his body, almost unnervingly. It's a great tool, solidly executed.

A word commonly being thrown about when people talk about this film is celebration. I wish I could be original and think of something else, but a celebration is exactly what 'The Theory Of Everything' is. A celebration of humanity, of faith, of science, of love, of life. The fact that Stephen Hawking is still alive today, after having been given just two years left to live, is a testament to his greatness. If you don't want to watch it for how inspirational it is, though, just watch it for Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones' transformative performances. They deserve it.