“Birdman” (Film Review)

Tags

2014, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Film, Michael Keaton, Movie, Review

By Shane M. Dallmann

The first film I went to see in 2015 was one of the best films of 2014–one that’s been around for quite a while but one which I just couldn’t manage to get to earlier. Last year we were utterly inundated with superhero films both terrific and terrible. Now, I’m never going to lose my affection for the comic-book genre (no matter how hard an AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 tries to get me to do so); but ANY movie year like 2014 really NEEDS to wrap up with something like BIRDMAN–both to put things in perspective AND to utterly defy mere description–including mine. Now, THIS is a MOVIE!

I imagine you’re quite familiar with the premise by now. A perfectly cast Michael Keaton stars as “Riggan Thomas,” who enjoyed the height of his cinematic popularity in the early 90s playing the superhero “Birdman.” Now sixty-ish, Riggan is gambling what’s left of his personal fortune in an attempt to open his dream project (an adaptation of Raymond Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” in which Riggan will star in addition to scripting AND directing) on Broadway. Our protagonist’s previous celebrity antics have already cost him his wife (Amy Ryan) and his relationship with his daughter Sam (Emma Stone), but they’re both in close proximity to the project all the same. A desperate attempt to replace a thoroughly unsuitable co-lead with a guaranteed draw brings “Mike” (Edward Norton) into the picture, but Mike’s prima donna antics soon threaten to shove Riggan out of the spotlight altogether (I couldn’t help but think that Val Kilmer would have been equally amazing and even more ironic/iconic in the role, but I can’t suggest for a second that Norton is anything but excellent here). And the nation’s most influential theatre critic has already promised to destroy Riggan AND his play just because she doesn’t think that a spoiled Hollywood has-been has ANY business trying to take Broadway…

…oh, and all the while, Riggan’s previous cinematic identity continues to “egg” him on as a voice in his head (soon to become something even more substantial), urging him to give up “Art” and return to “Commerce.” And Riggan might also be telekinetic.

If you haven’t already seen BIRDMAN, you might have thought you had a handle on the material up until that last bit. Trust me. You didn’t. Sure, you’ve got the comfortable themes and the seemingly effortless casting (also including leading lady Naomi Watts, Riggan’s current “love” interest Andrea Riseborough and Zach Galifianakis as Riggan’s lawyer/best friend/voice of “reality”). But all that means is that anybody (including those currently existing on a diet of nothing BUT Hollywood effects blockbusters) can walk into this and understand the story without fear of being put off by what they might perceive as “art film” pretensions. Oh, but they’ll get so much more if they do. There’s the technique of director Alejandro González Iñárritu which, combined with all of today’s technical advances, conveys the illusion that the entire film was shot in one take (even though common sense tells us that this wasn’t even remotely possible). There’s plenty of laugh-out-loud comedy and straightforward, accessible drama to take in even as the rules bend around us. Is the constantly busy musical soundtrack an addition to the film or does it have an on-screen (or on-stage) source? Are the fantastic elements purely in Riggan’s imagination or do they affect others? There must be an answer–this isn’t a ‘first-person’ film like Cronenberg’s VIDEODROME, after all–BIRDMAN spends plenty of time with characters Riggan couldn’t be observing at the time…

Yeah. I dropped the “C” word for a reason, and I feel like dropping a few more names, but the more I go on, the more I fear I’ll just be telling you what to look for rather than letting you take BIRDMAN in as a fresh experience. But I’m going to try to tantalize you all the same.

Final shot of VIDEODROME. Final shot of TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME (which I viewed the previous evening in an event of sheer coincidence). Final shot of MAGNOLIA.

BIRDMAN could have signed off in so many different ways. But it found the PERFECT conclusion. What a capper for the year.

Advertisements

“Maps to the Stars” (Film Review)

Tags

2015, David Cronenberg, Film, Julianne Moore, Movie, Review

By Shane M. Dallmann

MAPS TO THE STARS is the first David Cronenberg film I missed on the big screen since I saw VIDEODROME in 1983. Hell, I’m one of the twelve who actually saw COSMOPOLIS in a hardtop, okay? So let me tell you what happened. I had ONE day off last week and I wanted to see the new Cronenberg movie with my wife. But I thought we had time for a quick burger-and-beer ahead of time. We didn’t. By the time we were served, we were already ten minutes late for the movie. But we got to meet Prince the Pibble near out outdoor table, and he loved us. And we got to take a walk to the candy store. And the movie was gone the very next day (just like COSMOPOLIS). But it was playing simultaneously on demand. I ended up watching it by myself. And it’s just as well… my wife would probably have HATED it.

Cronenberg ended his run of genuinely fantastic body-horror stories with THE FLY, but his work continued to enthrall me even as he moved away from the genre. I was intrigued by his insistence on filming “unfilmable” novels such as NAKED LUNCH and CRASH, and when he served up A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE and EASTERN PROMISES in succession, I was finally convinced that eventually one of “our guys” was going to win Best Director. But… A DANGEROUS METHOD was one of the few that left me with no particular urge to want to see it again. On the other hand, COSMOPOLIS fit in quite nicely (even if nobody else saw it), and I can see MAPS TO THE STARS (Cronenberg’s very first film shot at least partially in the U.S.) taking place simultaneously with both old-school and new-age Cronenberg–in fact, it has a piece of pretty much every movie he’s made to date. But did I LIKE it? I’m still not sure.

About all I can do here is introduce you to the characters and the essential situations. Top-billed Julianne Moore is Havana, a fading Hollywood star who’s desperate to take the lead role in a proposed remake of a renowned art film–starring her own mother. She’s got plenty of unresolved issues with her mother (who died in a fire) and her mother’s ghost is showing up at the most inopportune moments for Havana’s sanity. Havana is receiving therapy (including BDSM, so there’s your DANGEROUS METHOD link) from wildly successful author/motivational speaker John Cusack. Cusack and Olivia Williams are the parents of the insufferable, drug-addled, rehab-struggling teen star Benjie Weiss (Evan Bird). Benjie is seeing ghosts, too–only these are children’s ghosts, some of whom he recognizes and some of whom he couldn’t possibly have known. Oh, and Benjie has a sister, but nobody’s supposed to know about Agatha (Mia Wasikowska). But the burn-scarred Agatha has freed herself from her own therapy and has now arrived in Hollywood… and since she knows Carrie Fisher (played by herself), she gets a job as Havana’s personal assistant. Oh, and her boyfriend is a chauffeur played by Robert Pattinson (who HAD a chauffeur in COSMOPOLIS).

Agatha’s going to introduce herself into certain lives and RE-introduce herself to her family. And awful, awful, awful things are going to happen.

Who on earth managed to get this film listed as a “comedy” in our local listings? MAPS TO THE STARS is a lot of things, but “comedy” certainly isn’t one of them. And it’s certainly not a poorly-made or poorly-acted film… far from it. The cast is exemplary: Moore continues to shine as a truly fearless actress–and Wasikowska? My goodness… I suggested that I found STOKER a tad over-directed, but she was fantastic in that, and under Cronenberg’s eye she is simply phenomenal. And this is the very first time I’ve praised a Cronenberg film on the merits of its lead female performances (I’ll spare you memories of Kiera Knightley in METHOD), so I can’t forget to mention that, although the guys are just as impressive (particularly Bird–you’ll detest his character even as you take your hat off to the actor himself).

The material is frank and confrontational throughout–including plenty of scatological conversation and a sex scene featuring an extended shot that I never, ever thought I’d see the likes of in anything with less than an NC-17 rating (I’m still baffled as to how this qualified for an R). The desperate sex (including a scene in a limo) invokes CRASH, there’s the gunplay of NAKED LUNCH… well, the list goes on, but the bottom line is that this is Cronenberg’s most painful family-trauma film since THE BROOD.

My (potential) problem with MAPS TO THE STARS isn’t the lack of concrete explanations for everything that happens on screen (I could scarcely be a Cronenberg fan if I had that problem). To a degree, it certainly has something to do with where Bruce Wagner’s screenplay will and won’t go in order to disturb the viewer. I’m singling out a scene filled with slowly-building and palpable dread that drops the ball the second the dog shows up. “Oh, well, now I KNOW what’s going to happen next.” It does. And it DOES set up an even more horrific bit of action later… but we’re let off the hook after the fact with “He’ll be okay.” Enough said.

But what I’m still asking myself is exactly why this particular story needed to be told. There’s got to be more to it than “People suffer whether or not they deserve to,” right?

Look, the jury’s still out. Cronenberg movies are rarely “one and done.” If you see MAPS TO THE STARS, you’ll witness provocative filmmaking and fine acting. But will you be glad that you did? Let me know.

“Chappie” (Film Review)

Tags

Fantasy, Film, Movie, Neill Blomkamp, Review, Science Fiction

By Shane M. Dallmann

As I’ve suggested earlier, here’s an item that seemed to be a different film with every permutation of the trailer.

When I first became aware of CHAPPIE (I’m not going to go to the trouble of perpetually spelling the title out as CHAPPiE, as it appears on screen, sorry), I saw little more than a cute robot discovering what it means to be alive. And, having the entire decade of the 1980s amongst my formative years, I didn’t flash back to WALL-E. No, indeed–I went back to “No disassemble!” and figured we had a new Number Johnny Five on our hands. But from Neill Blomkamp? (Notice how they still say “From the director of DISTRICT 9” instead of “From the director of ELYSIUM?” Sorry–I never saw that one, either.)

Then we went from “This film is not yet rated” to an “R” and I paid closer attention to a trailer that made this look like another take on ROBOCOP.

And only LATER did I find out that such bankable names as Hugh Jackman and Sigourney Weaver were even IN this movie!

Just what the hell was this CHAPPIE all about, anyway? I knew that I had to find out (especially as I’m playing a robot myself in THE EGO MACHINE, opening Friday, March 20th at Paper Wing Fremont, which is exactly where I expect to see you).

Well, when it comes to the story AND much of the look of the film, the answer is “…all of the above. And not.”

To my eyes, CHAPPIE is very much an updated 1980s film. And it really does consist of SHORT CIRCUIT crossed with ROBOCOP (strange as that may seem). And I don’t believe it’s a coincidence for a split second–the similarities are simply too many to ignore.

The robot that eventually becomes “Chappie” started life as a police droid (Johnny Five was a military weapon as conceived). His creator, Deon Wilson (Dev Patel) has also developed an amazing artificial intelligence program, but his company (headed by Weaver) has no interest in such things and forbids him to test the program… even on a damaged police droid. (Johnny Five’s best human friend–well, eventually–was ALSO of presumably Indian descent as played by Fisher Stevens, who took over from Steve Guttenberg as the human lead in SHORT CIRCUIT 2).

Now, as for ROBOCOP? Well, the film takes place in a future Johannesburg in which crime is so out of control that robotic policemen have been deployed to deal with such matters. Oh, and Hugh Jackman is quite upset that the (oh, just say it) “robocop” project was accepted over HIS behemoth enforcer droid named “Moose.” And yes, Moose looks like ED-209. And there’s a vicious criminal gang causing trouble for EVERYBODY.

Through a series of complications I’m not going to waste time spelling out (just trust me that CHAPPIE starts with a bang and moves relentlessly), Wilson is shanghaied by a trio of desperate crooks (“Ninja” and Yo-Landi Visser play characters named for themselves, while Jose Pablo Cantillo–yes, the guy who headed up the villainy in the CRANK movies–plays their “Yankee” compadre) who force him into reviving his damaged droid with the A.I. program so that they might use him for criminal activities and thus buy off an even WORSE bad guy (Brandon Auret as “Hippo,” with an accent thick enough to require English subtitles).

Two complications (three if you count the fact that Wilson is somehow allowed to walk away alive after this). First: “Chappie” (name assigned by the affectionate Yo-Landi), though capable of rapid learning and development, begins life in infancy and has to be trained as a child. Second: the aforementioned damage makes the replacement of Chappie’s battery a physical impossibility, and he only has five days to “live.”

And there’s the rub. One simply can’t describe CHAPPIE without making it sound like the rehash that it sincerely aspires to be. The only way to appreciate it is to actually see it and take in the amazing performance of Sharlto Copley in the title role as he’s aided and abetted by the very latest and greatest advances in special-effects technology. You’ve seen Andy Serkis bring primate characters to life without ever showing his human face… well, now watch Copley bring humanity to a mechanical apparition as Chappie learns about life, death, happiness, fear, crime, consciousness and even (and most impressively) forgiveness.

Ultimately, that’s what makes CHAPPIE such a difficult sell. It’s got the charm and pathos of such family-friendly films as SHORT CIRCUIT (and even E.T.) but it takes place in a vicious, hyper-violent ROBOCOP world (and yes, we’re talking the 80’s ROBOCOP, not a rendition that could safely be cut down to a PG-13). It’s a captivating and exciting film that deserves your attention, but you really ought not to bring the entire family.

It’s not “perfect” in my eyes (one too many epilogues ended things on a note that was a bit too AVATAR for my liking), but seasoned fans of emotional science-fiction are hereby steered.