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.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Analysis and Review

And this is where it all went wrong

The pressure is admittedly on. Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe is ever-expanding that with Guardians of the Galaxy it will literally become a universe instead of a Earth and a small portion of the galaxy. Sony went through great efforts to ensure that the rights to their most profitable superhero property remains with them. But with Marvel expanding and Fox deciding to finally broaden their X-Men universe, what is Sony to do? Everything it takes. For better or for worse.

Plot

Peter Parker/Spider-Man finds himself at a crossroads in life. He wants to be with his the one girl he love, Gwen Stacy, but is haunted by the promise he made to her father: Stay away. But when the return of an old friend triggers events that would make Spider-Man's biggest fan into his greatest enemy, things begin to spiral out of control.

Analysis

The need to compete with the big boys is obvious. It shows from what Sony studios plans to do with their Spider-Man franchise. And while it may please comic book fans that they are finally expanding their horizons and thinking bigger, that is not exactly a good thing. Or it can be if thought out with a clear head. And would be great if it had been stretched out and explored in other films. But for one film to accomplish so much, it is not possible.

This film suffers the same syndrome of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3: putting too many things into a plot that clearly wasn't designed to hold all of them. It was clear from the start that this was intended to be a one on one battle between Spider-Man and Electro. That's the way it was promoted at first and that was the way director Marc Webb had talked about wanting to do. Whether or not that storyline would've been amazing is questionable though. So questionable to a point where it is where they started then immediately started adding on a storyline that arguably seems to be more interesting than the one originally intended. But it almost seems like Webb and his team didn't want to let go of what they said they would set out to do. So they tried to find a way to make those plots work. But then of course there's a certain event from the comics that happens in this movie that really starts bring up a lot of questions. Did they think any of this through? They obviously did because the filmmakers seemed to have come up with something that could've worked. Could've. But let me just get to the review.

Review

I am probably one of the few people out there who really enjoyed Marc Webb's first Amazing Spider-Man film. It had a serious tone with a sarcastically playful Spider-Man going up against a dull villain. It had its problems but it definitely worked. I always felt like something was missing that would've made the film special. Something that the Sam Raimi films had. I wasn't sure what it was but I knew it was missing something. With this film I hoped that whatever it was missing would be there. Well... I guess what I was missing was entertainment, because I was entertained by this film. But at the same time I was cringing.

The film has so many good things about it, but at the same time so many horrible things about it. A good thing thing that I have to put out there right now is that Andrew Garfield IS Spider-Man! In this film he completely disappears into the role becoming the iconic superhero from the comics. He literally does everything a comic book fan would hope he would, making him a far superior Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is phenomenal. She is the whole package in terms of what guys hope to fall in love with. She's everything a guy would want in a girl and she does it well. Usually in a superhero film, the love interest storyline can feel so forced but in this film the relationship between Peter and Gwen is one of the standout highlights of the film. The whole time I believed these two really love each other and it was the most real thing about this movie. Sally Field does a very well performance as Aunt May who goes through an emotional arc in this story. Dane DeHaan does a good job as Peter's long lost friend, Harry Osborn. And then there's...

Now let me just say this. Jaime Foxx and Paul Giamatti are fantastic actors. Incredible actors. And they act the hell out of the roles they are given. The problem? The roles they are given. In a film that established as being the more real and grittier take on Spider-Man, Foxx's Electro and Giamatti's Rhino are cartoon characters. Not the awesome cartoon characters from the gone too soon Spectacular Spider-Man TV show. I mean cartoon characters from a Looney Toons skit. Well, Foxx's Electro was cool. But before becoming the electric Dr. Manhattan, Foxx had to play Max Dillon. A caricature of the pathetic loser that people want to feel sorry for if he wasn't so creepy. It was a cartoon character but after becoming Electro he become a one dimensional stereotypical evil character. Giamatti's role for Rhino was such a big Russian stereotype that it was annoying. He's not even a player in the film, more like a glorified overused cameo. And with these characters lie the problem.

The tonal shift of the movie is sporadic. The prologue dealing with what happened to Peter's parents matches the serious tone established in the first film then suddenly shifts to an entertaining tone during the first act. This isn't a bad thing for a Spider-Man film to be entertaining, but the tone shift between serious to entertaining to cartoony to serious to romantic are all over the place. There are some tones that go hand in hand but the cartoony take on the villains combined with the entertaining tone makes it seem out of place from the serious tone rather than a relief. It makes every amazing scene that promises an incredible film get immediately followed by a terrible scene that shows that this could've been a horrible film. Believe me, it shows you this could be amazing then immediately shows you it could also be horrible.

I blame the tone shift and the incoherent multiple story plots on Sony's need to compete against Disney Marvel, Fox Marvel, and now even Warner Bros. DC. The problem is that trying to accomplish that all in one go can prove to have devastating effects on the quality of the film.

Final Thoughts

Believe it or not I still enjoy this film. Will I go out and buy it? No. Will I go out and buy the complete Blu-Ray box set that is bound to be released once all their run on Spider-Man is done? Yes I will. It is a fun film that doesn't know what it wants to be. There is enjoyment from the film but there is also cringe inducing moments. Surprisingly the romance story is not one of those cringe inducing moments. Valiant Effort to establish a universe all in one movie. Let's see how DC does with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

SCORE: 6.9/10 - It's fun, but not electrifyingly amazing