Month: November 2014

Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (R)

9 Stars

The viewer is a salmon.

Swimming up streams of consciousness, occasionally leaping between parallel tributaries to follow movements of different characters.

That’s right, folks – the old head-hopping narrator.

Extra thought provoking because the voiceover only chimes in to pester the protagonist.

What’s most noteworthy about Birdman is exactly that: Creative and original storytelling techniques.

Another example is the stylistic editing: The film has the appearance of all occurring within one take.

Therefore the cutting is minimal. Which is incredibly refreshing.

Big names are visibly acting in the same space, oftentimes physically interacting.

There’s no ‘cut to close-up’ as characters deliver dialogue, which makes for a more organic viewing experience.

(Sidenote: Hollywood should ban the ‘cut to close-up.’)

Birdman isn’t going to be your favorite, but it’s still great.

The writing is strong; the protagonist’s plight is timely and moving. The characters interact compellingly. The subject matter is thought provoking.

Although this term is overused, it takes a ‘gritty’ in-depth look at stage acting.

The metahumor is consistent and pointed. Even the casting is ironic.

Michael Keaton playing the washed up retired superhero. Edward Norton as a pompous know-it-all veteran.

Wanna know who’s excellent? Naomi Watts.

She delivers a stellar performance as Lesley; in a role that somewhat calls back to Mulholland Drive, in which she plays a sexually conflicted up-and-coming actress.

Emma Stone is ten types of terrific, but they shouldn’t have spoiled her monologue in the trailer.

Turns out Zach Galifianakis can play off-type extremely well, which comes as no surprise.

Andrea Riseborough is lesser known, but holds her own.

Finally, Amy Ryan plays a totally different character from her role in Gone Baby Gone and fits in perfectly with a slew of other great performers.

Although the trailer spoils most, the special effects are decent enough.

The surreal portion is a welcome addition to the common cinematic experience, and contributes uniquely.

Birdman’s a visual treat, as they say.

People seem to enjoy this flick. After all, what’s not to like?

It’s still in limited release, but you shouldn’t have trouble finding a screening nearby.

Expect a moving dramatic piece about the thespian business and you shouldn’t feel disappointed.

As always, the best advice remains the same.

Be a salmon – expect nothing, and eventually, you’ll feel something.

Resonates nicely with the subtitle, no?

Big Hero 6 (PG)

10 Stars

I’ve debated this rating for a week.

The reader may find it trivial, but the temptation to give it 9 stars is strong.

As great as Big Hero 6 is, it’s not as good as Frozen, Brave or Wreck-It-Ralph.

This is a subjective distinction, however. It’s a top-notch animated flick.

The animated short preceding, Feast, is a heartwarming delight.

Which is particularly suited to the full-length BH6, this year’s best animated feature. Unless this reviewer’s unaware of another cartoon slated for release, here’s the final list.

Top Five Animated Films of 2014
1. Big Hero 6
2. The Book of Life
3. Mr. Peabody & Sherman
4. The Lego Movie
5. How to Train Your Dragon 2

I attended the movie with three friends, all in our mid-twenties. Three males and one female; illustrating thorough enjoyment across the board.

Leading to the conclusion that everyone will enjoy Disney’s latest.

Plus, the group’s in agreement on seeing it in 3D; it only adds to the experience.

The story encompasses a number of elements from science fiction, and tackles the three major themes. Every cinematic trope resonates with classic films.

Theme 1) Robotics

There weren’t any cyborgs, but everything else is heavily scrutinized. Nanobots, artificial intelligence, computerized medical systems, digitized armor, rocket propulsion, etc.

Baymax is a cuddly Terminator, an anthropomorphic medical bed from Elysium.

Theme 2) Space Travel

There’s no alien life or venturing free of the Earth’s atmosphere (so specifically no outer space travel) or even time manipulation. But interdimensional exploration and wormholes are utilized.

You folks have heard of Interstellar, right? How about Event Horizon, in which a man-made portal between dimensions is constructed?

Anybody remember the in-between realm of Pacific Rim?

Theme 3) Superhumanity

Don’t expect any mutation or the development of superhuman abilities, but a completely grounded story of superheroes.

Big Hero 6 derives its greatest strength by constructing a superhero universe, bound by the dictates of humanity’s current understanding of reality.

There are no aliens, because we have yet to prove their existence. There are no superpowers, because no evidence suggests humans have a biological capability for their development.

One scene pays homage to The Hulk and the protagonist’s name, Hiro, seems like a tip-of-the-cap to the TV series Heroes.

In honor of cinematic themes in 2014, the film even features a time-lapse of Hiro innovating in a manner akin to Tony Stark. A digitally animated time-lapse is thought-provoking, at the very least.

People use the word ‘Disnified’ as if it’s a bad thing. The connotation is that something has been purified of all negative emotion, thereby creating an unrealistic product.

The irony in this is laughable.

Disney constructs a highly educated story while exemplifying a preference towards optimism.

Which equates to one of two criticisms.

The action is a little light.

The budget for this movie is $165M, so I was hoping for more elaborate fight sequences.

A final criticism is odd.

In my review of last year’s Frozen, I mention the helpfulness of a non-specific trailer.

The teaser featured dialogue-less frozen pond antics between Olaf (the snowman) and a moose (who never shows up in the actual movie). Therefore the viewer learns nothing specific regarding plot details.

Big Hero 6’s trailer spoils several beats and somehow I failed to avoid another important detail in the first sentence of somebody’s review.

Therefore, let’s chalk up the slightly underwhelmed feeling to the unripe ideas.

After all, the humor is solid and consistent. The characters are likable and original.

Especially T.J. Miller as Fred, the comic book enthusiast.

Unlike all characters from other superhero team-ups, Fred embraces their engagement with the lifestyle choice. Therefore, he’s a satirical narrator who highlights all of the important moments during Big Hero 6’s origin story.

It’s impossible to dislike Aunt Cass, voiced by Maya Rudolph.

A sequel is sure to follow. Personally I can’t wait for Big Hero 7, or better yet, Small Villain 5.

Imagine that. A supervillain team-up prequel might be the best way to go.

Although I wouldn’t mind the introduction of a ‘Green Ranger’ trope. Wink.

Overall, Big Hero 6 is really great.

It distills the complexities of helping a loved one after a tragic loss. It takes a grounded look at the far future, and illustrates the true potential for superheroism.

Expect minor weeping, especially if you’re a softy like me.

Stick around for a number of intriguing bits during the rolling credits. Comic fans, particularly, don’t miss the stinger that follows.

Once again, thanks to Disney, I can add a pleasant memory to the list.

Dumb and Dumber To (PG-13)

6 Stars

Does it need to be outstanding?

If so, maybe save the sequel for a future rental.

My mother was kind enough to attend the theater with me, and we mostly enjoyed Dumb and Dumber To. It’s good.

Definitely not ‘great,’ but still good.

If you’ve seen the trailer, some jokes are spoiled. Yet another reason to wait and rent.

The scatological humor is never strong.

Quite a bit is distasteful.

Which may be due (partly) to the rating. Gotta dial down the cursing and ratchet up the scat to nab a PG-13.

I guess?

Consider the following list:

Top Five Comedies of 2014
1. 22 Jump Street (R)
2. Neighbors (R)
3. Let’s Be Cops (R)
4. The Skeleton Twins (R)
5. Dumb And Dumber To (PG-13)

One might argue it’s generous not to swap it out with Chef (rated R).

This review’s only going to frustrate fans, and I feel bad for Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey who do an outstanding job returning as Harry and Lloyd.

But the Farrelly brothers were never strong filmmakers.

The original D&D is the only great entry in their entire filmography. Everything else ranges from bad to meh.

The common theme is revulsion. There’s Something About Mary, Osmosis Jones and Me, Myself & Irene all initially trigger memories of disgust.

Now, looking back on the long-awaited sequel, it’s difficult to separate the gross from the chuckles.

This is not to discredit the banana peel antics – that stuff’s hysterical.

Anything involving a zamboni (especially when combined with tree limbs) – hilarious.

Shoving people into bushes, and pointing and laughing – gets me every time.

The double-point-and-laugh is classic.

The callbacks are mostly solid; some hit home better than others.

Reused snippets from the original score resonate strongly.

Favorite bit parts, like ‘Billy in 4C’ and Seabass, make cameos.

But, again. Was it funniest to increase the morbidity factor with the blind kid? The joke’s edgy enough in the first movie.

And why…

Why, why, WHY…

…do we need close-up shots of the cat’s anus?

During post-production, how many adults watched as feathers are rocketed from a cat’s asshole, and agreed it’s an essential cutaway?

Perhaps the viewers hadn’t realized from the mutilated bird corpses what’s just taken place.

I’m not trying to hate on this movie, but that’s only one of three revolting moments. I’ll spare you the rest.

To finish on a high note, a few words on the acting.

Jim Carrey is incredibly funny. His delivery is spot on.

Watching Lloyd’s facial expressions is enough to keep the viewer in stitches.

Jeff Daniels is just as chucklesome as Harry Dunne.

He’s a terrific actor.

Rachel Melvin is an excellent addition to the cast of ‘dummies.’ It’s not easy to play stupid in a convincing or funny manner, and she pulls it off with finesse.

Jennifer Lawrence is somewhere in this movie as Young Fraida. Which is odd.

If it’s her making out with Lloyd, what a strange cameo…another scene must have gotten cut out. Or something.

Anyway.

Be sure to stay through the credits for the following stinger. The images accompanying the rolling are enjoyable as well.

Dumb and Dumber To is not a disappointment.

But it’s nothing to write home about.

John Wick (R)

9 Stars

I’m done marginalizing film tastes in terms of gender…

…is originally how I began this review.

Yet it’s the antithesis of my gut response to John Wick:

“Highly recommend for mainly male moviegoers,” my heart mentions as the credits roll.

The cranium cogs start whirling.

“Isn’t that rhetoric unproductive? Shouldn’t we discourage that type of thinking?” my intellectual side fires back.

Thus prompting the rough introduction.

While reviewing J. Wick on The Screen Rant Underground, two of the hosts offer a counterargument in mentioning their wives’ dislike. One goes so far as to say she ‘hated it.’

(Side Note: The words ‘hate’ and ‘boring’ are the two most overused descriptors in the English language.)

‘Violence’ and ‘Romance’ occupy the extremities of the gender Venn diagram.

Men prefer fighting; women prefer feeling. Simple as that, folks.

“It’s a social construct! The best movies lie in the diagram’s center! To mention the pattern is to perpetuate it!” the brain chimes in.

The inescapable reality is: The paradigm exists.

Whether I like it or not.

To put an untidy bow on my point: Isn’t it stilted claiming a movie is excellent (better than great), but for male audiences only? Doesn’t that imply John Wick is terrible, if viewed by a female audience?

Surely there are women who enjoy gun-fu. Shouldn’t they feel insulted by the suggestion?

Anyhow; you catch my drift.

Here’s my Top Five Movies with the Protagonist’s Full Name as the Title –

1. Donnie Darko
2. Annie Hall
3. Forrest Gump
4. Happy Gilmore
5. Billy Madison

John Wick is similar to Denzel Washington’s character from last month’s The Equalizer.

Both protagonists are similar to Tom Cruise’s Jack Reacher, who is also an ex-CIA agent.

Say what you will about his surfing abilities in Point Break, Keanu Reeves is terrific as the leading hombre.

Keanu’s John’s less virtuous, and less lady-magnet than Tom’s Jack, but they both can drive in reverse like champions.

Which marks the first of three lessons I learned from J.W. about firearms.

Lesson 1) If you must drive at enemy gunfire, do so in reverse.

Keanu’s acting is great. Soft-spoken and pragmatic; sympathy sits with him quite nicely.

Plus he does all his own fighting and stunts.

In the hand-to-hand combat; the viewer can tell he’s absorbing all the blows. He falls off a balcony!

Keanu’s just terrific.

The action scenes are phenomenal.

Throughout the entire film, the epic fight sequences rival the best in cinematic history.

The gunplay is realistic and grounded. You’ve never seen such concrete shootouts.

Lesson 2) Due to recoil, handheld assault rifles can only be fired in bursts.

Wick manages to dispatch a number of thugs in an organic fashion.

It especially illustrates the possibilities for less cutting, and more believable action in the film industry.

Lesson 3) Those who wield a pistol at the ready (like a cop entering the home of a serial killer) live longest.

The stuntwork is absolutely spectacular; far too much fiddling with convention to mention.

During an explosion, there is an actual stuntman in the foreground nearby the exploding material.

He catches fire! It’s awesome!

Who doesn’t love John Leguizamo? Talk about reliable.

Alfie Allen catches critical heat for playing a similar role on Game of Thrones, which is unnecessary. He does a fine job for what he’s cast as.

Good to see WCW’s Kevin Nash playing a small part.

Ian McShane is terrific as always. Somebody’s not paying him enough.

Willem DeFoe plays a man who serves vegetable puree rather than booze at a meeting of criminal wits. Yet another shiny bullet on DeFoe’s lengthy list.

Adrianne Palicki plays a solid murderess.

Ironically enough, the only time I was ‘taken out of’ the movie is during footage of her stunt double.

Finally, the off-type villain is performed excellently by Michael Nyqvist.

John Wick may be the poster-child for breaking cliché; which is shaping up to be the number one theme for cinema 2014.

Catch it in IMAX while it’s still in theaters.

There’s no stinger after the credits roll.

But hey. I’d be down for a sequel.

Nightcrawler (R)

10 Stars

Oddity is an antidote for the jaded.

The off-putting, unsettled feeling of irksome circumstance.

The exploits of nightcrawlers, independent salesmen collecting footage of post-crime carnage, bear much estranged fruit.

Second only to Gone Girl, Nightcrawler is the best motion picture released in 2014.

That distinction, however, is ultimately subjective. Both are must-see.

Govern expectations accordingly, because it seems folks are hoping for more action-packed horror.

Nightcrawler’s a dark dramatic thriller.

Expect twisted spookery, but in a more subtle and realistic manner.

Overall, this film is very smart.

It’s a tale of moral ambiguity about the mysterious creepsters who provide found-footage for nightly television news.

It’s set in L.A and completely divorced from the creative filming industries.

The very setting, albeit typical, is oddly off-type.

Which is similar to the pacing and scene construction. Dan Gilroy, the writer/director, displays an exquisite proficiency at defying narrative conventions.

Along with montage, time lapse and alternative credits sequencing, breaking cliché is a cinematic theme of 2014.

Another setting-based narrative strength is the relative lack of sunlight. The protagonist’s eyes are never naked to unfiltered rays.

The infrequency is certainly purposeful.

Another example of the writing strength is the humor: Subtle, unexpected and consistent.

This film’s success is also due (in part) to the spectral visual style.

The shooting, editing and cinematography is masterful.

On the flip side of sense perception, the sound mixing and score is excellent.

Nightcrawler owes a hefty portion of its success to the acting.

Jake Gyllenhaal’s unseemly characterization is fantastic.

Jake is one of our finest actors working today. Source Code, Donnie Darko and last year’s Prisoners are three of the best in cinematic history.

Here he crafts an original antihero in Louis Bloom.

[Quick side note: The similarity between the name of the protagonist in James Joyce’s Ulysses, Leopold Bloom, must be purposeful, no? Especially if one considers the nickname antics involved in the two stories.]

Louis Bloom embraces his role as an opossum, monetizing the carrion of human sophistication with the utmost efficiency.

In the strangest way, his attitude is highly admirable.

For example, his belief in honest negotiation and dedicated apprenticeship endears the viewer.

On the other hand (which I won’t spoil) some of his behavior may be considered reprehensible.

Who knows?

See it and find out.

As a final note, Bill Paxton is terrific. He plays a completely different character from his role in Live, Die, Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow, a July release which still remains one of my top ten movies of 2014.

Pax tears it up no matter what.

With too many great movies in his filmography to mention (including a number of classics from great directors like James Cameron, Kathryn Bigelow and John Hughes) I’ll just say he first debuted in 1974.

So he’s been killing it for forty years. Keep it up, Bill!

Check out Nightcrawler if you dig smart flicks.

By the by, there’s an homage to The Usual Suspects.

High-fives for those who notice.