Trainwreck

Not quite a Hatfield disaster, more like a 'leaves on the line' kind of Trainwreck for director Judd Apatow.

Since childhood, magazine writer Amy (Amy Schumer) has been schooled by her wayward father that monogamy doesn't work. Taking that learning, she has applied it to living a life of inhibited freedom, avoiding commitment of all kinds and generally doing what she pleases, when she pleases, with whom she pleases. Taking an assignment to write a bio on successful sports doctor, Aaron Connors (Bill Hader), she falls for his humble and honest ways. Feeling true love for the first time, she begins to question her life and debates whether now it the time to clean up her act.

First up, full disclosure: this did pass the Mark Kermode laughter test. I did laugh out loud at least five times, with many chuckles and smirks thrown in every couple of minutes. But, in the words of the previously mentioned doctor, 'here's the thing' - this film doesn't know if it's a crass ladette comedy or fairly traditional rom-com. There's too much drama for it to be the first and too many surreal moments for it to be the latter.

I saw Amy Schumer on Graham Norton a few months ago and had never seen or heard of her before but immediately liked her self-deprecating, sassy, quick fire response to his questions. They didn't feel rehearsed, she seemed to be one of the those genuinely quick and hilarious women we'd all like to have as a best mate. And the same can be said for the dialogue in Trainwreck as clearly the improvised lines drew the biggest laughs for me. 'No, he's not hot, he's like a Puerto Rican Gollum'.

However, Bill Hader is a bit of a odd casting choice for the romantic lead, as he's so well known for being the weird-out odd ball from SNL and I couldn't get beyond that. He's definitely charming, just not sure I want to see him smooching Amy (tongues and all) at the end of the film.

Taking up the 'odd ball' mantel instead if LeBron James. His fame was a bit lost on me, not being a basketball, (or for that matter sports), fan of any sort. Luckily, nether is Amy, so there is a bit of in-joke for some of the audience as she acknowledges she has no clue who he is. Nice to see a sports star without such a serious ego. His best lines are when he's acting like a teenage girl, interrogating her or Aaron about their blossoming relationship - 'when you feel the wind, do you hear his name? Well, do you?' 

Kathy Beale
But stealing the limelight is Amy's cold, cruel, callous boss played by... Tilda Swinton. Yup. The girl can do comedy. My goodness me, she's got brutally good timing for her lines. For about ten minutes I didn't recognise her, and convinced myself it was Kathy Beale. 'Fair play' I thought, 'she's broken into Hollywood' so unrecognisable is she.

Overall, this was ideal Friday night, irreverent entertainment, BUT, for the babysitters it was a bit long. I didn't really expect a rom-com to bounce the two hour mark, and frankly it didn't need to. Unlike Amy, who's 'real girl' figure is actually very trim and enviable, this film could have lost a few inches around it's baggy middle.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

What is the purpose of life? Or, rather Life. It's a nice pun that Water Mitty has to stare at each day as he enters the Time/ Life building with all the other 'worker bees' "To see the world, things dangerous to come, to see behind walls, draw closer, to find each other, and to feel. that is the purpose of life." Although, sadly this wasn't the official motto of the real Life magazine, it's a lovely message which forms the heart of this film.

Walter Mitty (Ben Stiller) is a negative asset manager at Life magazine, who spends each monotonous day developing photos for the publication. Hidden in his reclusive office, he is surrounded by photos of exciting adventures, fascinating people, beautiful vistas which are the fuel for his exciting daydreams where he lives out his heroic desires to escape the predictable boredom of his day. Stunted by family responsibility and social awkwardness he pines after his co-worker Cheryl (Kristen Wiig) unable to connect in real life and through the digital world of dating. With the magazine closing, Walter receives a rare opportunity to take a real adventure, to seek out and retrieve the final cover photo.

There are many, many great things about this film. Stiller has directed this with subtle and joyful little transitions between shots. But it's the cinematography and brilliant soundtrack which helps to expose the inner story of the character. We start the film with static camera shots, grey linear buildings, ariel panoramic of the transport arteries of this urban metropolis, where a crisp, clean, meticulous Walter is living in a soft grey, clinical world. Poor guy. It doesn't get much better at work as the set designers clearly took careful consideration to blend a unique combination of Mad Men era office furniture with 21st Century coffee stations and iPod enhanced conference facilities. In the background is the gentle humming of Jose Gonzalez, acting like a inner white noise for Walter trying to block out the dullness of his own world, where people tease him, patronise him and ignore him.

Once he's given the motivation to leave and find that missing negative 25, the mood of the direction changes - colours seem brighter, the camera moves freely, the music leaps into life with an anthemic number by Arcade Fire. Life is just beginning!

So, I could go on and on about this film, but here are a few bullet point thoughts:

1. The purpose of life - the motto is both a pun about the function of the magazine and what drives our human existence. It's interesting that the photographer Sean that Walter is chasing (Sean Penn) truly does life the motto's existence, free, seeking thrill, adventure and to live only in 'the moment'. Poignantly, in a world where every traveller seems to turn their back on the very vista which is intended to inspire them in order to thrust their selfie stick into the heart of it, Sean declines and explains his patience in nature "If I like a moment, for me, personally, I don't like to have the distraction of the camera. I want to stay in it."

Surely, for the traveller set, this is the warning in the film. Stop recording life so you can boast across social media. Rather, you should stop and preserve it, personally, privately for yourself. The film asks, who's got the patience to develop a negative, when you can photoshop your selfie in seconds. I think the film suggests that we lose a lot in the process - what do we really appreciate any more, when we spend literally seconds absorbing our surroundings.

I have lost count of the amount of bragging-photo-bombs which explode across FaceBook each time a friend of mine takes a trip abroad. We're all guilty. The best of these Instragram filtered digi albums are usually accompanied by some awful quote about 'living life' usually snatched from terrible fiction like 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

We're so busy finding the 'meaning of life' that we allow it to whizz past us, quicker than a lens shutter. We should be more like Sean, sit, patiently, reflect, meditate quietly to absorb, savour, soak in what's around us and share only a little. Only what's really important; the 'quintessence of life' as he puts it. We each have to find what that is for us - obviously, as a Christian, I see the beauty of God revealed in the epic beauty of our planet, and it's only though quiet reflective prayer, that you hear that small voice of response from the Almighty. You can't rush a reply from God. For secular thinkers, the film suggests you also can't rush to your own conclusion about the meaning of life.

Perhaps Cheryl sums it up best when explaining to Walter's what David Bowie's song Major Tom is really about "life is about courage and going into the unknown".

2. Analogue vs Digital: Walter is redundant. Literally, in both life and career. The world has moved on, and Sean's beautiful final cover image shows Walter at work in a deliberately grainy, black and white, analogue film stock image which is a heart-felt tribute to the hundreds of men and women who's skills in photography are now lost, gone and faded by the digital revolution.

Interestingly, it's only Kirsten Wiig in the film who whips out her iPhone, only for it to delay the sparkling conversation as it 'buffers' for information. A not so subtle poke at my generation's need to instantly find answers, rather than search within ourselves. Frank Skinner has a rule that he won't look up an answer he knows is somewhere in his head for three days. I think it's a good way to avoid the rot of our long term memory, but it's so hard to do.


3. Sean Vs Walter: who do you want to be? I think we're supposed to see that by growing a beard, wearing beaded necklaces and eating cinnabuns that Water has finally broken free from his prior grey existence. The Papa John's cups in Iceland finally broke him from his habitual money budgeting. Don't they say life is what happens when you're busy making plans. So Walter throws away his housekeeping book and appears free, confident and independent. So why do we also see, that Walter is compiling a CV and selling his Mother's piano to supplement his severance income from Life. What future is there for Walter? Is the film that optimistic?

Walter has loosened up, but he's not free like Sean. As he writes that resume, you understand he'll have to return to being a worker bee, but hopefully a happier one, with a partner, a kid, and maybe a holiday each year. Just like the rest of us lucky ones. Personally, I like that life, it's very fulfilling, as I value relationships in life more than being a lone wolf. I'd be rubbish on a desert island. I'd miss my family and cinnabuns and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not an idiot.

For some though, that's prison. Trapped by society. I'm sure the American Dream, the idea of freedom is in the cowboy image of Sean, the artist we all think we could be, living totally free of 'the man' by selling our talent to fund our own, defined lifestyle. Most certainly, nice work if you can get it. but for the most of us, we'll be Walter.

So perhaps we should envy neither, but rather, like Walter, accepts our place in the cog of society with a new found appreciation of what the world offers like relationships and of finding a balance between sensible household budgeting and the occasional blow out on holidays and 'frosted heroin' cinnabuns. Is that so bad?

4. Adult responsibility Vs Childhood Dreams
Obviously, there's a transition where Walter's dreams become a reality, and for a little while you're not sure if he really is in Greenland about to do a Navy-Seal style free jump from a moving helicopter. The films makes his transition from dream to reality deliberately ambiguous and there are moments which are intended, I think, to be half and half (shark fight?). What is interesting is why do we, as adults, abandon our childhood passions and dreams so freely?

Walter reawakens his dormant skills in skateboarding and we are treated to an exhilarating set piece where he wheels freely through an epic volcanic vista. How many of us are still indulging in the hobbies and passions we had as a child? Fortunately, I can name a few friends who have not given up on youthful pursuits, but there are many more who simply don't do it any more. I still write stories, though now I call it 'writing a novel', by best friends still likes drawing but she calls it 'her artwork' and my husband still noodles on the guitar for 'his music'. It's like we need to define and label these activities as constructive parts of adulthood rather than indulging in the sheer pleasure of it.

I love snowboarding and surfing, mainly because of the childish rush I get from being in the snow and sea. There's a sense of freedom when you're smashing face first into the elements. Realistically I can't do that every day, so I have to make choices to rediscover childhood joy when I can. Like making peppermint creams and fridge cake on Sundays, or doing handstands in the pool rather than pounding out laps. It's small things, each day which give us fun in life - that's what Walter realises when he returns.

I was pleased to see my 67 year old Mother has bought a colouring in book - laughably described as stress therapy. She even treated herself to a new pack of colouring pens. Now that's living.

Oblivion

I'm not sure the title to this film is spot on. The word oblivion tends to sum up cheerful images of dark voids of nothingness, a great depressing abyss stretching out, a primordial scream into space (where - as we all know - no one can hear you). So, the visuals in this film jar against the title. For a sci-fi, it's pretty unique - lots of bright, sunny skies, fluffy clouds and hours of daylight, 'another day in paradise'.

It's 2077 and no surprise, we human's didn't make it another 60 years, instead we escaped to the 'Tete' after winning a war where we obliterated the planet fighting an alien race. Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) works as a snappily dressed security repairman. He's got two weeks left on the job before he and his co-worker Vicka (Andrea Riseborough) can join the survivors on the colony which's shadowy presence haunts him in the sky's he protects. Reality takes a turn when a beautiful stranger Julia (Olga Kurylenko) arrives suddenly when her ship crashes into earth like a metriorite causing Jack to question everything he knows.

Module 49 is home to Jack and Vicka, and it's a comfortable, slick pod nestled in the sky with a handy add on see-through swimming pool. Clearly, the humans managed a trip to IKEA to kit it out before destroying the planet. Handy also, was the stylish wardrobe left for Vicka's work wear - complete with matching heels. Business as usual. 

So, there are signs that not all is 'paradise'. For one, I couldn't understand why Vicka hadn't gone beserk with cabin fever, forced to watch a computer and repeat stock phrases all day in their sky pod. There's not much of a view, and very little conversation. I kept wanting Jack to come home to find her slouched out in her grey tracksuit, crying into a bucket of icecream asking 'what's the point of it all' - but maybe that's just my Friday night. Afterall, she even manages an outfit change for dinner.

Also, there's Morgan Freeman, leader of the 'Skavs'. He's wearing sunglasses... but he lives in a hole in the ground? It's annoying - almost as much as when you see people in nightclubs wearing them. Unless you're registered blind you're solely indicating you're a moron. And his character kind of it. The production designer had clearly been watching a lot of Mad Max before taking their ideas to wardrobe, so the visuals clearly indicate a tribe of rebel humans, but there's very little rebellion. Not until (literally) a knight in faded white armour arives on his steed (or solar bike if you want to be pedantic). One issue is, how on earth the Scavs knew about Julia's ship and how to contact it with a rogue signal. Maybe that's what the sunglasses hide - rolling eyes from such an obvious plot gap?

Pace in this film is an issue. I found it exciting up until the big battle - but this tends to be a trend with big budget sci-fi films. I guess if you're paying for all that CGI you want to get your money's worth - but I just find them so dull. If you've got Tom Cruise as your lead man, the audience knows you're not going to kill him off, so any 'danger' is just a tedious set piece you have to wait through.

Also, with lots of sci-fi's you kind of have to leave your brain at the door, as there are lots of gaping plot gaps and frankly WTF moments in the plot. The biggest has to be, why doesn't Jack 49 tell the Skav's of his lovely lake home which he squirrels Julia away too when he heads off to save the world in the big finale? Her secret pregnancy shows some twin 3 year olds running about greeting a knackered troop of Skav's who've just arrived. 3 years! Pretty harsh Jack not to tell them. Also, that's not Jack 49 playing Dad with Julia. It's Jack 52. Thinking about it, where are all the other Jack clones? Still buzzing about in their quadrant's fixing up drones? Who knows. Who cares. Maybe they all rock up eventually to the Lake and Julia can have 51 other Jack's to hang out with. Shudder.


The Theory of Everything

Be prepared to have a 'what if I end up like that' conversation after this film. Mine ended with my husband, eyes full of concern, looking deeply into mine and stating with confidence: "don't worry, I won't put you in a home. I'll wheel you off a cliff first." Crass jokes aside, it does provoke discussions about care and expectations, about how we help those who need it in society about the advances in medicine and ethics - I'm not sure this film provides any answers, but it's good to spark debate.

It's 1960s and at Cambridge University it is crystal clear that Austin Powers and his 'swinging' buddies haven't reached the dorms of this studious town. Rather we see future physicist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) racing along on his obligatory bicycle (I think they are standard issue on entering the Uni) with fellow undergrad Brian (Harry Lloyd). They arrive at a party and he is introduced to future wife Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones). Tragically at 21, Hawking learns he has incurable moror neuron disease (helpfully explained as Lou Gehrig's disease for the US market). Rather than accept defeat, he gets married and begins an ambitious PHD studying time. Against the odds, he lives on to discover new and controversial findings in science, achieving more than he or Jane imagined.

That sounds rather cosy, much like the tweed jackets and old fashioned pints of ale Hawkings and his buddies drink in the college bars. However, as we all know, it doesn't really pan out like that. I had a vague notion that Hawkings marriage didn't last, I knew he had children, and obviously, I knew he is still living, way beyond the predicted two years he had in the 1960s. This film explains the path of his life in a rather plodding linear way (the least exciting aspect of time) so it's really all about the acting, and I agree the performances are deservedly Oscar worthy. It creates moments of great pathos and sadness, but it felt a little too sketchy and rose tinted to be real enough.

My thoughts...

 - Firstly, every undergraduate is impossibly good-looking at Cambridge. Their end of semester formal's would put Cinderella to shame for ostentatious gilded glitter and glam. I've had friends who went to Cambridge, and I love them, but when I visited, there were a distinct lack of model good looks on the campus. Also, at the balls, people wore ill fitting DJs, drank cheap wine and danced to poor pop music. No ensemble jazz quartets did I see. However, Visit Cambridge must be tickled pink as the cinematography makes the city look stunning and ethereal. First class.

- Love: We see Jane as a naive undergraduate, hopeful with love and admiration that she can care for the boy she loves, and watch it unravel as the boy turns to a man, whose needs are ever more demanding. I thought Felicity Jones' performance was excellent as we see her fray under pressure and frustration, but stoically keep plodding on. As she laments to him 'I did love you. I did my best'. I think it's a fair, heart breaking comment. The film is balanced in the way it shows her resisting the temptation of a 'normal' life with family friend Jonathan but also her belittling behaviour when she speaks on Stephen's behalf.

- Women: Sadly, this film presents women in an obvious dichotomy of madonna/ whore. Or rather in Stephens case: matron/ naughty nurse. Elaine Mason (Maxine Peake) is the fun-loving, confident speech therapist who exposes Jane's role as Mother as being dull, prescriptive and cold. She provocatively states, 'you must worship the ground he walks on' exposing the obvious irony to Jane. The following montage of mucking about, laughing and private jokes enhanced by a sunny camera filter, is in stark contrast to earlier grey scenes with a frustrated Jane attempting to finish her PHD while Stephen destroys the house playing with the children.

- Academia: In my experience of working with academics, the most eminent also appear to be the most selfish and arrogant. We don't see a lot of that in the film, but I'm sure it must have been there in real life. There is one moment where he delivers his key speech to a lecture hall of international colleagues. He seeks Jane's encouragement at the start, but by the end, when he is accepted triumphantly, she is left to catch a glimpse of her husband being wheeled away from her. A metaphor perhaps for how his work will take him away from her, their home, their relationship.

- Technology: I realised if Stephen Hawking had been born twenty years earlier, he may have never been able to communicate his work and that thought triggered a chain reaction of 'what if' other disabled people in the past were capable of such progress but were trapped by their illness' to convey their ideas. A tragic thought. I think 'Mirosoft Sam' should be renamed 'Microsoft Stephen' because if you ever hear that antiquated, digital voice it's distinctly Stephen Hawking speaking - no one else.

- Religion: thankfully this film is agnostic in it's comments on faith. Stephen holds to science like Jane holds to the Church of England, and both are seen to be mutually respectful of each other's beliefs.

Money Never Sleeps

Following on from V for Vendetta, I caught Oliver Stone's 'Money Never Sleeps' the long anticipated sequel to infamous 80s Yuppy flick 'Wall Street'. It seemed like fate was leading me down a path of films that critique society and our 'lust' for money. Here Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) is back but seemingly 'cured' of his love of money, he exits prison and starts a tour of motivational talks about how greed it no longer good, but rather 'legal'. Hmm... from the moment he leaves prison and stands alone and unimportant in the world you know this is another Gekko rouse.

I would summarise the plot but it left me scratching my head. I'm all for films that flatter the audience by assuming they're intelligent enough to follow complicated plots (thank you Christopher Nolan) but this movie needed one of two things, either for protagonist Shia LeBeuff to slow down his zippy NuwYourka dialogue, or to hand out a guide to financial services abbreviations. I do not, nor ever will, work in 'the city' and I found it pretty hard to follow the details of the tale. And a moral tale it is - I know that because it's Oliver Stone - but I'm not wholly sure I understood the lesson objective.

So this is what I took away from it. Gecko is not the worst thing in Wall Street, since he's been inside a new, super rich, super immoral breed of b*stard bankers (Bretton James played by Josh Brolin) has taken over. This breed like to use a lot of war metaphors to show that it's not about the money, just the thrill of conquering others. Jake (Shia LaBeouff) is a plucky trader, who's impressive money making talents are used solely to fund green energy, that little halo of his doesn't stop shining there, as he spends the film seeking financial revenge for the death of his mentor Louis Zabel (Frank Langella). His savvy city skills are blindsided by a smooth taking Gekko who manipulates him to take a job with mega bank run by Bretton all part of a bigger plan to reuinte with his daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan), Jake's fiance.

There's some weird things which are never fully resolved in this plot:

1. The idealistic, righteous Winnie hates her father and doesn't trust money, yet she agrees to marry a Wall Street trader - Freud I'll leave that up to you
2. Jake's mother pops up occasionally (played by Susan Saranadon) as a strange metaphor for victims of the property boom, to show how the 'little' people have greed too.
3. Gekko is supposed to be a terrifying metaphor for all that's wrong with the finance world - but at the end he's a soppy Granddad, smiling and cooing at family BBQs, which kind of crushes the critique.
4. There's too much 'bad daddy' symbolism to keep up with: Gekko and Jake, Jake and Louis, Louis and Bretton. It's a roundabout of relationships that was dizzying to focus on.
5. Charlie Sheen rocks up reviving his role as 'Bud Fox' for a swift cameo to show he's now rich... and bland, and boring, and incapable of acting as demonstrated by his stunted reaction to Gekko. He should have stayed in the 80s.

This is a director who has focussed on exposing the political edge of America, but like Gekko, he clearly has mellowed with time. As sadly, for a film where 'money never sleeps', Stone presents a movie where there's no moral wake up call for any of the characters and their cavalier actions.

Nightcrawler

As a critic of the media, this film doesn't so much as subtly highlight the immortality of our news broadcasters, rather it points to them in a shaming, flashing, neon finger. We get it. Media is bad. Very bad if your state-side and I have to say, it did make me grateful for the less sensationalist and balanced view of Auntie. In a world where a shady metal merchant won't hire 'a thief' but the local cable network will snatch his hand off, we wonder who's the true criminal?

Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a petty thief eeking out a living in LA during the day, while ingesting hours of motivational business talk online at night. He stumbles into a new career of being a 'stinger' crawling LA at night with a camcorder to capture the latest horrid crimes on film to peddle out to the local news broadcasters. Desperate news director Nina Romina (Rene Russo) can't resist the chance to boost her station's ratings, so encourages Lou to seek out new material at increasingly dangerous lengths.

This film starts so well, it creates a wonderful atmosphere about LA drawing a craving from me to return again and explore this exotic city. You really get a sense of summer heat, mystery and an oppressiveness which makes this coastal metropolis an appealing location. Like Drive, Nightcrawler starts by making LA another character in the film, as we are guided through a series of impressive ariel shots before landing in closely on Gyllenhall stealing metal, metaphorically on the wrong side of the tracks. Unlike Drive, the cinematography in Nightcrawler seemed to die out to a series of stock imagery which left me feeling a bit 'meh'. If I was feeling generous I might think it was a comment about how the media drains authenticity from it's world. No. I think it's just lazy editing.  

Rene Russo's character is sadly a bit one dimensional: flat and singular in her purpose in the movie. The risk of losing her job in the ratings war eclipses her need for professional journalism. Her remit is to sell a version of the news that sinks deep into the public's morbid curiosity. As she states matter of factly, every story is 'a woman in a rich neighbourhood running screaming down the street'. We can't criticise her cynical and depressing style to broadcasting, as sadly it's one that's lapped up by so many consumers. 

Gyllenhaal has a tough role in this film, as his character is constantly playing a character. The affable, friendly local man, who works hard, and repeats business speak mantra like a robot, exposing the benefits of the American Dream like a blind cult follower. There's only one line that gives away his obvious real personality when he responds to his co-worker that "what if it isn't that I don't get people. I just don't like them." I really feel he needed more scenes by himself where we could glimpse an insight into his true sociopathic mind. Occasionally watering a plant, doesn't really signal this. It meant that Gyllenhaal becomes a bit flat and robotic and ultimately I didn't care if he succeeded or failed.

So out of these two media peddlers, who is worse? Lou provides this material because she buys it: she pays for it, because he's got it. Essentially they both want success, but the irony is they become worse as people, justifying their immoral actions in order to be perceived as 'better' by society. The smiling interns at the end demonstrate how 'normal' these malpractices have become.

Ostensibly, this is a film about spin and that any tale can be rewritten: personal life story or the 9 o'clock news. Whatever sells. At any cost.

Interstellar

Best not hang about in space
I've never been a big science nerd, I struggled to get my GCSE Physics and from the moment I threw down my biro and walked out that exam hall I proudly thought I'd never have to deal with any of this stuff again. It was like the final scene from The Breakfast Club - hand in air, liberation from science. Then they make this film. Oh boy. Look, if you like your astrophysics reviewed in detail, then look away now. As I confess, even with that hard-earned B grade, like many Christopher Nolan films, I feel I need to see this film a few more times to really get my head round it. 

So, in the 'some-time' future, Earth has been rendered a giant dust bowl by a global crop blight which is slowly choking the life of out the planet. Professor Brand (Michael Cain) is a NASA physicist who is secretly working on a formula to transport the planet to a new home by manipulating gravity and pushing us all through a wormhole. Simple. Well... not quite. A team of researchers let by former NASA pilot, now small time farmer, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) and Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway) must zip through the wormhole and explore the new galaxy to find a planet suitable for mankind's new home.

That summary doesn't really do this film justice, as it's not really about that. Time is linear, and so is that plot, but the themes and ideas in this film extend, manipulate and bend further than gravity around a black hole.Turns out, it's all about love. Sheldon from Big Bang Theory will no doubt be disgusted. 

Here are my thoughts on it:

- 'They' have saved us. But it's not what you think, it's not extraterrestrials, neither is it an omniscient God, but rather, it is us. Humans, from the future, who have mastered time and space to communicate messages to save us via a Tesseract contained within the worm-hole. Helpfully, they made it look like that back of Murph's (Jessica Chastain) library bookcase. Personally, this feels a bit like hubris - can we really be confident we are alone in the universe? That we are the pinnacle of evolution that nothing greater exists past, present or future? Meh. Some of the humans I know, could win a Darwin Award, so I'm still hopeful we have time to evolve further. Dare I hope, evolve so far that we don't need to ravage our planet and each other?

 - Mocked by many, Andrew Lloyd Webber had it right when he wrote 'Love, love changes everything'. Who knew? Quite literally, it is the only force which can extend beyond our framework of physics. As Brand (Hathaway) comments, 'why do we love people who have gone' as she laments the potential loss and potential hope of being reunited with a fellow NASA nerd Edmonds who's pioneered the trip ahead of them. I liked this idea and it struck a cupid chord with me - love is a force which cannot be proven or explained by science - you can't prove it, but we all believe it. We willingly accept this, but not the idea of a God, or the concept of Tesseracts shaped like libraries - we are a contrary bunch.

- The metaphorically named Dr. Mann (Matt Damon) demonstrated the extent and desperation for our will to live. For me, his unapologetically selfish actions throw open a new debate about euthanasia. How can you really tell someone wants to die, as in those fading final moments, our will to survive can lash out like a primeval animal instinct in us.

 - As a Christian it make me think a bit more about how ideas around creation might not be so 'crazy', now I've got my head around the concept of relativity (three hours on one planet in one galaxy is 27 years on another planet in another galaxy). What's a hundred billion years to an omniscient being - could be 1 day in our time frame? But that's a whole other bag of cats to contend with so I'll leave it there...

This has just scratched the surface of a rich and interesting film. I'm still not entirely clear on the point Nolan is making, but it's a beautifully shot film with a suitably oppressive soundtrack by Hans Zimmer, (who ever since True Romance has not missed a step for creating perfect atmosphere). It's worthy of second or third watch, but immediate impressions are pretty stellar (sigh) and it could rocket (sigh) with cult success as I can imagine Blue Ray and DVD sales will skyrocket. Okay. I'm done now.