BIRDMAN or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) - Analysis and Review

Is Michael Keaton okay?

Because this movie makes it seem like he's not.

The Plot

Riggan Thomsan (Michael Keaton), once known for playing the iconic superhero, Birdman, is now an actor trying to do something meaningful. And to him, that is adapting a Raymond Carver story into a play. But when the play loses a actor due to an accident that may or may not have been caused by strange abilities Riggan possesses, the production resorts to bringing in a notoriously hard to work with actor named Mike Shiner (Edward Norton). With Shiner's methods proving to be an antagonizing force in Riggan's production as well as his budget, Riggan puts up with everything in order to make the play work in hopes of leaving his past as Birdman behind. But in a world where superheroes are the big Hollywood ticket, Riggan's past continues to haunt him with what he could become if he made a comeback to the roll that made him famous.

Analysis

Overrated. It is a term that gets thrown around a lot without people realizing what it means or how to properly use it. When something is overrated, it could mean two things. One, overrated could mean that a person believe that a highly regarded movie is complete crap. And two, overrated could mean a person believe that the movie does not live up to the hype, but is still good.

The problem is, most people associate overrated with the former. And by associating, it is just a nice way for rebels to say they hate something. And this is how overrated has become a bad word. 

Say The Dark Knight or The Avengers is overrated to comic book movie fans, and they will automatically assume what you mean is you hate good movies. Say The Godfather or Lawrence of Arabia is overrated to movie fans, and they will assume you're nothing more than a lover Michael Bay films with not taste whatsoever.

So yes, overrated is a word use to describe extreme disdain for a movie. But the proper use of overrated is better suited for: Did not live up to my expectations... but I still liked it.

Review

I don't know if I want to call this movie overrated. That was the feeling that I had while walking out of the movie theater. But as I kept thinking about it, there were a lot of good things about this movie.

The first thing I have to mention is the cast. Just like Gone Girl, this movie sports an extremely talented cast. Everyone in this film was extraordinarily good with their roles. Zach Galifianakis does a subdued and smart performance as the troubled productions' Producer. It is a nice change from the roles he is usually associated with, and I wish he'd do more stuff like this. Then there is Emma Stone as the troubled daughter of a celebrity. She plays the character with a lot of ferocity and smarts that make her definitely a product of this age. Then there is Naomi Watts as the actress who finally made it to where she always wanted to be. She plays it as someone who has been through the grind and is definitely thankful for where she is. Then you have Andrea Riseborough playing the actress who is going through the grind without a care and is just happy to be acting. She's loose yet also has a sensitive side that she wants to hide, and Andrea plays it well. There are countless others in this film that are good, even if they're small roles. Especially a nice performance by Lyndsey Duncan as a theater critic who represents everything that people assume about critics. The cast is just near perfection. But they are nothing to the perfection achieved by Keaton and Norton.

Michael Keaton and Edward Norton are definitely the standouts of this film. For a very pure reason. They appear to be playing heightened versions of themselves. Keaton is definitely an actor who is still famous and has a celebrity status, but does not appear in that many movies anymore. Norton is an actor who is notorious for being difficult to work with, yet when becomes to play, he comes to play. Keaton's Riggan Thomson and Norton's Mike Shiner are definitely odd reflections of themselves. It seems like a stroke of casting genius choosing these two for these specific roles. Both of them excel with their character exponentially in a display that may be drawing from personal experience while at the same time really showing off just how talented these guys are. But Keaton is the standout between the two, as it is his movie, and he really makes you feel for his situation. His character is someone who could've been bigger than what he is now, and he totally sells it. This is the best acting that Keaton has done in a long time, but it will never put a shadow over his role as Batman... I mean Birdman.

But now comes the point where I explain why I'm juggling with the use of the word: overrated. Simply because of this. It did not play out the way I had hoped for. Which is a terrible thing for a film critic to say, because a film critic is just suppose to analyze the film as it is then maybe compare it to similar films if need be. But the thought of "not playing out the way I hoped for" belongs to a filmmaker. And I am one. The film is a commentary about celebrity status and blockbusters, particularly the superhero genre. The movie's title is Birdman, yet the superhero only shows up in two scenes in the movie. Yet I feel like there could've been more to that commentary. Sure, the amount of commentary was placed in the right spots, but I feel like I was robbed of something that really would've been revelatory to a mass audience. Because to film fans, we get the subtleties and the references right away, yet for some reason this may not seem to get the message across. Also it seems to be a bit confused on what side of the "celebrity" argument it falls under, because I wasn't quite sure what it is the film was trying to say about celebrities that the average person doesn't already know.

And another thing is the highly acclaimed long take technique used for the entire film. It is definitely unique in making the film appear as if it is all being filmed with one camera for two hours straight without cutting. The problem that I have with it is that I got dizzy and slightly nauseated. It does achieve this almost floating dreamlike quality, but when the camera shakes it really is disorienting. I had to fight my dizziness in order to watch the movie because I was so intrigued with Keaton and Norton's characters, but it did eventually make my head hurt. If it was done completely on steadicam to give it a nice flowing motion instead of switching to a handheld style most of the time, I probably would've tolerated it more. So yes, I acclaim it for the technical difficulty of filming and editing a movie to look like one take. But I can't deny that I may have came close to vomiting because of this.

And then finally, the story. Because it is extremely predictable in a sense. The reason why this film is acclaimed is for the acting and the commentary, yet the story is so predictable that in the hands of another director and different actors it could've been terrible. There was a point after the first hour of the movie that I felt bored because all of a sudden I realized how this movie was going to end. Also, at that point, I started to not care about the performances. This may be because I've already made up my mind from the first hour that these performances are amazing and so have nothing else to expect from the movie. And a part of me really wishes this movie was condensed to 90 minutes instead of the 2 hours that I had to float through. Granted, I love 2 hour movies, but this could've gotten its point across within 90 minutes. But frankly, because it was that long, and by the second hour it feels like two more hours pass by, it really wasn't a home run for me.

Final Thoughts

I still haven't decided if I want to use overrated. Because this film is an acting tour de force. Every single actor in this film is incredible, with Keaton and Norton elevated higher above the rest. Then there is the commentary that film lovers will get a kick out of but the average viewer will not fully get. There is the dizzy camera work that is getting praised as an achievement, where the only achievement it succeeded was giving me my first nausea in a movie theater. An overtly predictable story that ultimately serves as a vehicle to showcase powerful acting and a commentary on superhero movies that doesn't stay that interesting. It really is hard. But maybe I should just say it. Because while typing this sentence, I've now settled. This movie is overrated.

7.5/10 - I expected much more from this. A lot more. But well done, Michael Keaton.

Big Hero 6 - Analysis and Review

Balalala la 

That'll make more sense if you saw the movie.

The Plot

When boy genius Hiro Hamada (Ryan Potter) loses his brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney) in a fire, he discovers that the fire may have been caused by someone who stole his technology. With the help of his brother's greatest invention, a caretaker robot called Baymax, and Tadashi's classmates (Jamie Chung, Genesis Rodriguez, Damon Wayans Jr. and T.J. Miller) from an esteemed university, they all band together to stop this mysterious foe.

Analysis

This movie is not accurate to the comic book it is based on. Then again it is an obscure comic book in Marvel's plethora of properties. For all intents and purposes, this was meant to be the most anime inspired comic of the Marvel line. The artwork is very reminiscent to the manga art style and even draws from anime archetypes. The mecha, the boy genius, the samurai, the giant monster, the magical girl, and the tech suit hero. All of them are there. Yet for the film, they have been drastically changed.

Hiro, the boy genius, is pretty much the one who seems to remain in tact for the most part. Except he's not a snobbish kid, and he's not fat. Baymax is a mecha who can turn into a dragon with Hiro's dead father's mind acting as its's brain. However in the movie Baymax is a helper bot created by Hiro's brother. Honey Lemon is a sexy secret agent take on sailor moon who acts like a dumb blonde in order to hide the fact that she's the smartest woman in Japan. In the movie, she's a really geeky conservatively dressed girl who loves pink and chemicals. Wasabi is a samurai who can focus his chi (his soul) into creating energy katanas. In the movie, he's an organized OCD guy with a speciality in creating plasma technology. Gogo is an ex convict who was released under the condition that she uses her powers for good. In the movie, she's the tomboy no nonsense adrenaline junkie of the group. And Fred? Well, in the comics he is the descendant of the original inhabitants of Japan who can turn into giant monsters. In the movie? Fred is just a big comic book and kaiju fan who wears a modified monster suit.

So yes, very different. Yet I don't hear people complaining about this. Why? Because it is not a well known property. This allows the creators to take these characters and do whatever they want with them. They made all the characters science based and diversified their ethnicities. While it is the politically correct thing to do with giving them different ethnicities, it does kind of bug me that all of them are suppose to be Japanese. I admire the fact they kept Hiro and Tadashi Japanese, and possibly Gogo too. But what made this team special was them being Japan's only group of superheroes in the Marvel Universe. It would've been great to have all of them still be Japanese, but since no one will really care, it is completely fine. After all, what matters is if the movie is good and not how accurate it is to the source. So is it worthy of the name Big Hero 6?

Review

This movie is definitely one of the best animated movies of the year. A hell of a lot better than that trash called The Book of Life. This is what I look for in an animated film. It offers up adult themes and presents them to children in a way that they would understand. Themes such as dealing with loss of a loved one and learning to cope. While it is a theme that is often explored in animated movies, it is alway a welcoming one when the filmmakers don't hold back on what is going on and don't sugar coat it. And while that is definitely the underlying theme of the movie, there is another that is a lot more prominent. The idea that science and education is cool.

Another reviewer pointed out that science is usually portrayed as an antagonistic force in superhero stories. It is always the Mad Scientist who is the villain, and rarely are the heroes scientists. Sure, there is Iron Man, The Hulk, and The Atom, but there are more science villains than science heroes in both Marvel and DC. So it is really refreshing to have our heroes use science as a means to save the world. Sure, it seemed to have beat the message over the head by having the main character, Hiro, take a tour around the university to see the amazing things the other characters are working on, but it definitely would've convinced me to want to enroll. It is a nice way of saying that education is important, as well as showing just how amazing science can be with everything that can be done now.  And it really helps that it has great characters to make science cool.

Hiro, voiced by Ryan Potter, may be the stereotypical tech boy genius who has no drive, but it works so well in this film. Tadashi, voiced by Daniel Henney, is the catalyst of the film who helps Hiro finds his purpose by showing him the potential of what he can become if he had the education and the resources to do so. And while it is morbid that Hiro becomes a lot more relatable after the passing of his brother, he is still relatable from the beginning as a kid who feels he's got everything figured out. We've all felt like we know everything we need to know and nothing else, but the truth of the matter is we don't know everything and we never will. But trying to learn everything is part of what makes life interesting. And that is shown well through Hiro.

But obviously, the standout of this movie is Baymax. The lovable marshmallow robot that was created to help people is one of the many bright spots of the film. He is naive enough to be lovable, but not so much that we would think he's dumb. Because in the end, he's meant to be a symbol of Hiro's brother. He's everything that Tadashi strived for by using science in order to help make a better world. While I'm sure Tadashi never intended Baymax to be customized into a fighting robot superhero, it is still clear that his message and what Bayamax represent resonates with Hiro. He is the very representation of what science can do to change the world, as well as help Hiro cope with the loss of his brother. It is a nice combination in a movie that is promoting the themes of dealing with loss and the amazement of science.

And the visuals of this movie are amazing. They're not as good as Rise of the Guardians or How to Train Your Dragon, but for a Disney Animated film that's not Pixar, they are definitely top notch. The world of San Fransokyo is vibrant and colorful while also being neo noir at night. And the action scenes are spectacular. Which they have to be if this movie is going to be a superhero movie. A city and incredible set pieces are just two of the staples of superhero stories, and this film excels in them. But that doesn't mean there aren't any weaknesses.

The supporting cast of Gogo Tomago (Jamie Chung), Honey Lemon (Genesis Rodriguez), Fred (T.J. Miller) and Wasabi (Damon Wayans) were excellent with their one dimensional characters. And that is a major compliment in that their respective voice actors were able to make them feel alive, despite the fact they don't really develop. And they agreed to becoming superheroes a little too willingly. Then there is also the villain of the movie, which the filmmakers attempted to have a nice parallel with Hiro's character in terms of losing someone but going over to the dark side because of it. This could've been handled better, but it definitely was handled competently enough to where it does work.

Those may seem like big problems, but in the end they really aren't. Because the main focus of this movie is not on the ensemble, but rather Hiro's relationship with Tadashi which continues through Baymax. It is the story about a boy and his robot, who just happen to also wind up saving the city.

Final Thoughts

If you have kids and want them to be interested in science, please take them to this movie. It is a heartwarming film that has a great message all wrapped around a superhero adventure. It is not the best animated film of the year, but it is definitely one of them. There is so much to love about this movie and how much of an influence it can have on the younger generation. Science can definitely change the world, and can possibly save it. This is for the kids, while Interstellar is for the adults in terms of promoting the need for science. For comic book fans, it may not be accurate, but it is a damn good movie.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - A nice animated film that disguises "education is cool" in a superhero movie

X-Men Days of Futures Past vs Watchmen

CLASH OF THE RETRO ALTERNATE TIMELINES!!!

**SPOILERS**

This article spoils a great deal of both films. If you do not wish to be spoiled please look elsewhere. If you have seen one and don't care for the other then I can't really stop you from reading this. So, let's begin!

All out honesty, if I'm going to compare Watchmen to another film it should be The Incredibles. If you have seen both films, just think about that for a moment. Yep. Same story. Different execution. Different ending. And if I'm going to compare Days of Future Past to another movie it should be Terminator 2. Again, if you've seen both, think about it. So why compare Watchmen, the faithful adaptation of the greatest superhero comic of all time, against Days of Future Past, the inaccurate adaptation of one of the greatest and shortest X-Men stories of all time? Well that's because both films are set in alternate time periods. Well, 1/3 of Days of Future Past takes place in the year 2023 but a dominant portion still lives in the retro world. Believe it or not there are things that they have a lot in common.

COMPARISONS BEGIN

The Death of a Hated Figure brings doom

Bolivar Trask and Edward Blake

Both of these films are triggered by the death of someone. In Days of Future Past, that death was Bolivar Trask. In Watchmen, that death was Edward Black aka The Comedian. Both occur at the beginning of the story and propels the narrative. However where they diverge is that Watchmen is about finding out who killed The Comedian and Days of Future Past is about stopping the murder from happening. But the consequences of this figure's death brings about something apocalyptic. In Days of Future Past that would be the unstoppable Sentinels of the future. In Watchmen it is the death of 15 million people around the world. In a sense they are both apocalyptic with massive scale consequences. Though it could be argued that had The Comedian not died in Watchmen the ending would still happen, but this is more about his death sends the characters on their journey the same way preventing Trask's death put the X-Men on theirs.

We're not doing so good

Charles Xavier and Daniel Dreiberg

In Days of Future Past a young Charles Xavier has fallen from grace after feeling like he is no longer needed. In Watchmen a large majority of the former superheroes still find difficulty adjusting to their lives. While the former Nite Owl II aka Daniel Dreiberg may suffer from a psychological case of erectile dysfunction; which is not as serious as Xavier's drug addiction to get rid of his powers and walk; they both do have that sense of losing a part of themselves without realizing it is who they really are that will save them. Daniel realizes he can't live without being Nite Owl and Xavier realizes he can't live without the wheelchair. It is clear that Xavier is in a more darker place than Daniel but both of them still had to confront the facts: they are who they are and they should not change that.

Prison Break? That's illegal you know

This is more of a plot coincidence than an actual thematic similarity. But both movies do feature a scene where the heroes have to break out arguably the badass of their stories in order to progress the plot. Days of Future Past has the gang plus a newly recruited Quicksilver breaking Magneto out of the Pentagon. Watchmen had a sexed up adrenaline rushed couple break out Rorschach from prison. And yes, one looked cooler than the other. I'm not going to deny that. And you already know which one is cooler. Its just funny how they both have a prison break though, right?

The Badass never compromises

Rorschach and Magneto

You know who I'm talking about. No, not Wolverine. Young Magneto and Watchmen's Rorschach are the uncompromising "badass" characters in their respective films. Both of them have almost a black and white world view. Magneto does blur the black and white with shades of gray, but he still maintains the view that mutants are superior to humans. Rorschach on the other hand only and literally sees the world in black and white. His view is that evil must be punished, even if that means going to the extreme. Both of these characters are incapable of seeing anything different. When everyone else has fallen, they kept going with their causes. But that doesn't mean they're incapable of having friends.

Why can't we be friends?

I had to. Both films have a dynamic between a pair of characters with completely opposing views yet have a strange mutual respect towards each other. Daniel and Xavier can be viewed as fallen White Knights that have to pick themselves up again. And as I've stated before Magneto and Rorschach are the badass uncompromising Dark Knights that stay active in their cause no matter what. Yet both pairs need each other. Daniel and Rorschach both want justice but see different ways of going about it. Xavier and Magneto both want to ensure the future of mutant kind but have completely different methods of how to do so. Despite this, both pairs find a way to still remain friends. Though Daniel and Rorschach are not on opposing sides, the two of them are the only ones who can tolerate and understand each other. And even though Xavier and Magneto are on literal opposing sides, they do care about one another. But granted, if Rorshach and Magneto had to kill Daniel and Xavier, I strongly believe they would.

The "Villain" wants World Peace

Bolivar Trask and Adrian Veidt

Trask has similarities to The Comedian's intellectual rival: Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandias. Both of these characters want world peace. Trask wants peace for humanity by focusing all their hatred towards mutants rather than each other. Ozymandias wants to achieve world peace by faking an alien invasion framing the all powerful Dr. Manhattan with the deaths of 15 million people. Their methodologies of redirecting everyone's hatred and fear towards another party are very similar yet very logical. They're not evil, but they're not above creating an evil for the world to turn against. In a sense they acknowledge that good and evil are only concepts but concepts that everyone believes in. So if the way to unite people is to turn someone into the source of all evil, then of course people will unite for a cause.

It all works out in the end (?)

Both films have happy endings....ish. Days of Future Past ends with the dark future being averted and everyone who died in the original timeline comes back to life. But the change in the timeline may have awakened Apocalypse. While Watchmen ends with the United States and Soviet Union calling off their Cold War to preach world peace. But Rorschach's journal being found by a newspaper intern may trigger an unraveling of the conspiracy to save the world. In other words, both protagonists seemed to have temporarily averted disaster. But as we all know, peace never lasts forever.

Final Thoughts

If you've been following me you'll notice that this versus is completely different from my Godzilla versus and Prehistoric versus. Here I don't really delve into who did it better (except the prison break sequence) but more about what they have in common. I can easily make an argument how Days of Future Past is better than Watchmen. Just look at Rottentomatoes. But then I could've easily made an argument why Watchmen is a far superior film to Days of Future Past. At least they stayed true to the comics. But unlike the American Godzilla films that have similar goals and similar plots, these two films may have similar elements but completely different plots. One is about hope, the other is about reality. I just found it interesting how they match up in so many places and thought I'd point that out. Apologies if you thought this was going to be a complete bashing of one film over the other.

Because we clearly know who the winner is (> . >) X-Men Days of Future Past