← Back to Reviews
in
This movie was originally released back in October. And I was actually pretty excited to see it. Until I read this article.
Link here
In the article Birdman director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarrito says he is not a fan of comic book movies. Which is fine, they are not for everyone. If it had just been that I would not have cared. But when a guy uses words like “poison” and “cultural genocide” to describe the latest Marvel or DC movie, I get a bit confused. I got even more confused when he said,
“And they are honestly very right wing. I always see them as killing people because they do not believe in what you believe, or they are not being who you want them to be. I hate that, and don’t respond to those characters.”
Maybe it is because I am a fanboy, maybe it is because he has clearly not seen the awesomeness that is The Dark Knight or Guardians of the Galaxy, or maybe it is the fact that when something or someone gets labeled “right wing” even though no evidence is presented this incredibly stupid statement led me to be less enthused about this movie. Which is a pity since I try not to let celebrity and movie politics hinder my enjoyment of a film. Hell, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of my top 10 favorite flicks, and I know me and Dr Thompson will see little eye to eye politics wise. But it is not always easy. So last October I decided to not see Birdman unless it got some Oscar nominations. It got a crap ton of nominations, so I decided to buckle down and see it. I went in with an open mind, and tried to let the movie speak on its own. What did I learn? Sometimes you got to let the director make stupid comments, ignore it, and then see the movie because this was brilliant!
So Michael Keaton is an actor trying to make a comeback in an daring artistic venture after he starred in a huge comic book movie franchise in the late 90’s and then was generally forgotten. Let me rephrase that; IN THIS MOVIE Michael Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, former star of the hit Birdman franchise who is now out of work. He is trying to show the world he is an actor and not just a movie star by adapting a short story by Raymond Carver called What do We Talk about when We Talk about Love into a stage play. Riggan is pouring his heart, soul, money, and even sacrificing his sanity to make it go right. He is in the play with a first time Broadway actress named Lesley played by the Naomi Watts, Riggan’s girlfriend Laura played by Andrea Riseborough, Riggan’s agent / lawyer and best friend played by Zach Galifianakis, Riggan’s daughter Sam played by Emma Stone, and Ed Norton is an actor who is anal retentive, obsessed with detail, and is a pain in the ass to work with. LET ME REPHRASE THAT AGAIN! In this movie; Ed Norton PLAYS a guy named Mike Shiner who is an over obsessive method actor who is so dialed into method acting that he can only get a hard on when he is on stage in a love scene because “that is what is real.” Talk about pretention and first world problems.
Riggan is bombarded on all sides by production issues. His initial co-actor sucks, his replacement Mike is a pain in the ass, his daughter is out of rehab, his daughter hates him because he was a crap father, his girlfriend may be pregnant, Laura is close to a break down (and is dating Mike), Riggan is going broke pouring money into the play, he has a HUGE inferiority complex with a need to be loved, fights with his ex wife, fights with Mike, fights with a theater critic, and all the while his sanity is going down the tubes with a voice talking to him in his head that is probably his ego and it takes physical form as Birdman himself. Needless to say the dude has issues, and the whole film is spent following Riggan and company as they deal with getting this play off the ground as well as tackling issues of success, media, celebrity, show business, and self worth all while commenting on Hollywood popcorn flicks and stars versus artists and their art.
Before I comment on the film, can we just give the best actor Oscar to Michael Keaton already? I know I have only seen three of the five nominees, but how the hell are you going to top this? Loved Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, I have not seen Foxcatcher yet, and if Eddie Redmayne wins this award I will make him a cripple for real as well as punch every member of the Academy straight in the dick. But Keaton was not the only great performer in this movie. The whole flick was a tour de force of great actors. Naomi Watts was on point, Ed Norton is his usual self, Emma Stone shocked the hell out of me how good she was, and an even bigger shock was Galifianakis. I always had him pegged for a fat funny guy with limited range. Well he shut me up. Each actor deserves their due credit but Inarrito as the director deserves a great deal of credit as well; not only for his direction but in his camera work too. Seriously he and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki did a fantastic job with the camera work! They did what Hitchcock did with Rope and made it to where the film looked like it was just one long cut! Crazy good technical filmmaking! The film’s mood is as dark and intense as the actors and so is its humor. From Keaton’s parental prospects, the Norton’s method antics, to some of the stuff Galifianakis says. The movie makes me laugh at some pretty dark stuff. It is not laugh a minute material, but just enough that I can consider this a dark comedy.
Now I am not going to say the film is perfect. My biggest issue is with the film’s ending. If it had ended maybe 10 minutes earlier on what I would describe as a “Kubrick” like ending, then I would hail the film as a masterpiece. Instead we get a more (dare I say it) Hollywood-esque ending. Now I say Hollywood-esque, but this movie does not end like It’s A Wonderful Life or anything. The ending is still pretty dark and messed up, but I think if you shave off a few minutes the flick would have ended so much better. But that is just me as a pseudo internet critic.
Speaking of which there was a very interesting scene in the film where Keaton’s character TEARS into a theater critic. I mean intense hate filled rage leaves of spite. Which I found to be rather ironic since it is the critics and not the general audience who seem to go crazy for his movies. Let’s face it when the majority of your films are being out done by Kevin Smith’s Cop Out, you know you have an issue with getting butts in seats. Another ironic statement in the film was when Ed Norton’s character screams at Keaton about his role in the fictional Birdman franchise and even uses Inarrito’s own phrase “cultural genocide” to describe his work. And given what I read about the movie, I thought maybe Norton’s extreme artist was maybe a stand in for Inarrito himself? I do not know but it does make for an interesting theory.
Now I REALLY disagree with Inarrito when it comes to comic book movies. But then again I know of other celebrities whose works I have seen and enjoy that have said even more bone headed and downright insulting things in the press and or public. And that should not deter someone from seeing this movie. It is an experience to be seen. So much so that while I am still upset Ralph Fiennes did not get a nomination, I now know he would not have won it anyways. And the best picture and director race just got a lot more interesting for me. I hope that this film gets some Oscar love.
This movie was originally released back in October. And I was actually pretty excited to see it. Until I read this article.
Link here
In the article Birdman director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarrito says he is not a fan of comic book movies. Which is fine, they are not for everyone. If it had just been that I would not have cared. But when a guy uses words like “poison” and “cultural genocide” to describe the latest Marvel or DC movie, I get a bit confused. I got even more confused when he said,
“And they are honestly very right wing. I always see them as killing people because they do not believe in what you believe, or they are not being who you want them to be. I hate that, and don’t respond to those characters.”
Maybe it is because I am a fanboy, maybe it is because he has clearly not seen the awesomeness that is The Dark Knight or Guardians of the Galaxy, or maybe it is the fact that when something or someone gets labeled “right wing” even though no evidence is presented this incredibly stupid statement led me to be less enthused about this movie. Which is a pity since I try not to let celebrity and movie politics hinder my enjoyment of a film. Hell, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of my top 10 favorite flicks, and I know me and Dr Thompson will see little eye to eye politics wise. But it is not always easy. So last October I decided to not see Birdman unless it got some Oscar nominations. It got a crap ton of nominations, so I decided to buckle down and see it. I went in with an open mind, and tried to let the movie speak on its own. What did I learn? Sometimes you got to let the director make stupid comments, ignore it, and then see the movie because this was brilliant!
So Michael Keaton is an actor trying to make a comeback in an daring artistic venture after he starred in a huge comic book movie franchise in the late 90’s and then was generally forgotten. Let me rephrase that; IN THIS MOVIE Michael Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, former star of the hit Birdman franchise who is now out of work. He is trying to show the world he is an actor and not just a movie star by adapting a short story by Raymond Carver called What do We Talk about when We Talk about Love into a stage play. Riggan is pouring his heart, soul, money, and even sacrificing his sanity to make it go right. He is in the play with a first time Broadway actress named Lesley played by the Naomi Watts, Riggan’s girlfriend Laura played by Andrea Riseborough, Riggan’s agent / lawyer and best friend played by Zach Galifianakis, Riggan’s daughter Sam played by Emma Stone, and Ed Norton is an actor who is anal retentive, obsessed with detail, and is a pain in the ass to work with. LET ME REPHRASE THAT AGAIN! In this movie; Ed Norton PLAYS a guy named Mike Shiner who is an over obsessive method actor who is so dialed into method acting that he can only get a hard on when he is on stage in a love scene because “that is what is real.” Talk about pretention and first world problems.
Riggan is bombarded on all sides by production issues. His initial co-actor sucks, his replacement Mike is a pain in the ass, his daughter is out of rehab, his daughter hates him because he was a crap father, his girlfriend may be pregnant, Laura is close to a break down (and is dating Mike), Riggan is going broke pouring money into the play, he has a HUGE inferiority complex with a need to be loved, fights with his ex wife, fights with Mike, fights with a theater critic, and all the while his sanity is going down the tubes with a voice talking to him in his head that is probably his ego and it takes physical form as Birdman himself. Needless to say the dude has issues, and the whole film is spent following Riggan and company as they deal with getting this play off the ground as well as tackling issues of success, media, celebrity, show business, and self worth all while commenting on Hollywood popcorn flicks and stars versus artists and their art.
Before I comment on the film, can we just give the best actor Oscar to Michael Keaton already? I know I have only seen three of the five nominees, but how the hell are you going to top this? Loved Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, I have not seen Foxcatcher yet, and if Eddie Redmayne wins this award I will make him a cripple for real as well as punch every member of the Academy straight in the dick. But Keaton was not the only great performer in this movie. The whole flick was a tour de force of great actors. Naomi Watts was on point, Ed Norton is his usual self, Emma Stone shocked the hell out of me how good she was, and an even bigger shock was Galifianakis. I always had him pegged for a fat funny guy with limited range. Well he shut me up. Each actor deserves their due credit but Inarrito as the director deserves a great deal of credit as well; not only for his direction but in his camera work too. Seriously he and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki did a fantastic job with the camera work! They did what Hitchcock did with Rope and made it to where the film looked like it was just one long cut! Crazy good technical filmmaking! The film’s mood is as dark and intense as the actors and so is its humor. From Keaton’s parental prospects, the Norton’s method antics, to some of the stuff Galifianakis says. The movie makes me laugh at some pretty dark stuff. It is not laugh a minute material, but just enough that I can consider this a dark comedy.
Now I am not going to say the film is perfect. My biggest issue is with the film’s ending. If it had ended maybe 10 minutes earlier on what I would describe as a “Kubrick” like ending, then I would hail the film as a masterpiece. Instead we get a more (dare I say it) Hollywood-esque ending. Now I say Hollywood-esque, but this movie does not end like It’s A Wonderful Life or anything. The ending is still pretty dark and messed up, but I think if you shave off a few minutes the flick would have ended so much better. But that is just me as a pseudo internet critic.
Speaking of which there was a very interesting scene in the film where Keaton’s character TEARS into a theater critic. I mean intense hate filled rage leaves of spite. Which I found to be rather ironic since it is the critics and not the general audience who seem to go crazy for his movies. Let’s face it when the majority of your films are being out done by Kevin Smith’s Cop Out, you know you have an issue with getting butts in seats. Another ironic statement in the film was when Ed Norton’s character screams at Keaton about his role in the fictional Birdman franchise and even uses Inarrito’s own phrase “cultural genocide” to describe his work. And given what I read about the movie, I thought maybe Norton’s extreme artist was maybe a stand in for Inarrito himself? I do not know but it does make for an interesting theory.
Now I REALLY disagree with Inarrito when it comes to comic book movies. But then again I know of other celebrities whose works I have seen and enjoy that have said even more bone headed and downright insulting things in the press and or public. And that should not deter someone from seeing this movie. It is an experience to be seen. So much so that while I am still upset Ralph Fiennes did not get a nomination, I now know he would not have won it anyways. And the best picture and director race just got a lot more interesting for me. I hope that this film gets some Oscar love.