Birdman soars high

Arguably the first true ‘film’ of the super hero genre, Alejandro González Iñárritu’s Birdman looks at the triumph, tragedy and awkward redemption of a man who would be hero. 

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): In today’s world, the term hero seems to take many meanings. Hollywood continues to look for new angles to our beloved super-hero genre. In Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtues of Ignorance) [full title], Riggan, a has-been actor who once played an iconic superhero onscreen works to overcome his own inner voices fueled by an emotionally unstable ego while side-stepping dysfunctional family turmoil as he angles to make a big theatrical comeback with a critically acclaimed Broadway play in hopes to reclaim the past fame and notoriety he sorely misses. The film boasts an original screenplay that spins a super-charged original screenplay. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Birdman is an original and offbeat story of a superhero actor trying to gain relevance by making it on Broadway. His journey to discover his place in the world of acting, after being a celebrity, is dogged by his troubled relationship with his daughter, rocky interactions with the other actors, and resistance to the ever present voice within himself screaming to be a hero once again… for real (or not).

CASTING, DIRECTING & ACTING 

AV: Pontificator, I can’t think of a better actor to portray the trails of a used-to-be super hero film great than Michael (“I’m Batman”) Keaton. The beauty of this film is the plethora of acting talent that reads like a who’s who of superhero film acting talent. Talent like, Naomi (King Kong) Watts, Emma (Mary Jane) Watson, and of course Ed (Hulk) Norton. Damian (Unbreakable) young with Zack (Hangover) Galafinakis. The director’s vision was potent, so unique so incredible, it is I would argue, the most important storytelling component of Birdman, wouldn’t you say Pontificator? 

TP: The tone of this film being one long gigantic take was refreshing and kept the story rolling along at a steady pace Vader. The acting was tremendous with stellar performances by the lead Michael Keaton, and supporting cast, Edward Norton, Zach Galifianakis and Emma Stone. Actors playing actors is always fun (especially when it’s Ed Norton playing the kind of actor he is known for being like in real life), but the delusion of Keaton (or not) is superb… as is the dysfunction of Stone (while recovering from, but getting, stoned).

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: The real ‘hero’ of Birdman is no actor though, Ponty. It is–by far–the visual direction and cinematography of the film. As the entire film presents itself as one continuous moving shot, I can honestly say I have not seen a movie like this before. The camera work is so flawless, there were times I actually caught myself looking for scene transitions where the editor’s could make cuts form one shot to the next. This is some the most inspired filmmaking I’ve ever witnessed. While this movie came in–reportedly–at a modest $22 million budget, it feels like it cost so much more. The end sequence features some stunning CGI and flying effects that are so seamlessly integrated, the viewer is immersed without knowing it. A real triumph of modern moviemaking, would you agree P-Man? 

TP: I’ll tell you Vader, this wasn’t a big budget special effects summer blockbuster film…but the little bit of effects it did have were absolutely awesome! The brief scene of Birdman and the giant bird destroying the city easily stands with other summer film effects and although the story was great with superb acting, I could’t help wishing there were more Birdman scenes in the film…purely from an effects point of view.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: It was a stroke of genius to have Michael Keaton in the starring role of Birdman. For the obvious reasons of his status in Batman and Beetlejuice, but also because he is an amazing actor. His comedy typecasting and family-movie roles from the 1990’s may have shrouded his real acting chops from the majority of movie-goers but Keaton’s portrayal of the lost Riggan cuts to the core of Keaton’s iconic standing. In truth, this movie–if we’re lucky–is the beginning of a whole new take on where movies take audiences in the super-hero arena. 

***SPOILER ALERT***

TP: From the very beginning this film has you questioning what is real and what is not. Riggan (Keaton) starts the film off levitating in is dressing room and continues with small and private displays of telekinetic power. This was fantastic.… except if you really pay attention, there are a plethora of clues to suggest he really doesn’t have any power at all, except the power to see and experience things and events that are not there or going on. This makes the story that much more interesting as Riggan’s struggle for relevance and self actuation through the desire to put on a broadway play, is really a struggle with his ego and coming to terms with how he has been defined by Birdman. The demise of Riggan has led to many theories, specifically at what point did he actually pass (assuming you are of the opinion that he did, and really didn’t suddenly gain real powers) and I have yet to settle on what exactly I believe… giving this film even more value as it continues to tantalize long after the screen goes dark.

ON SEQUELS

AV: To put it bluntly, this movie would be destroyed by a sequel though I for one do hope it is the beginning of a deeper exploration of the super-hero genre as a serious, viable realm of more serious super storytelling. Kick Ass, Watchmen and Sin City have all been (solidly successful) franchises that go there–with an honorable mention to Chronicle. We can have stories of super powered people that aren’t simply re-visited comic book content but tales that offer fresh new perspective on the modern vision of the hero’s journey. 

TP: I can’t see a sequel to this film… simply because the film doesn’t really leave any room to continue the story, just loads of room to ponder what was already given.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Birdman: A surprisingly charming film with a spot-on cast that would make any geek proud, Birdman will delight every movie goer. With some of the best original cinematography I’ve seen since District 9, this movie is an instant favorite of yours truly as it shares a very human perspective on the effects of stardom, fame, the fallibility of man and the road to redemption, no matter how awkward or unorthodox that everyone of us can relate to. Gripping, gritty and unpretentious, Birdman with delight anyone with half a brain and full love of experiencing the human condition. For that, Birdman hatches a solid nine (9) Busted Blocks and I cross my fingers at the hopes of more films like this in the near future.

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Birdman: A great film with superb acting and plenty of material to have you discussing it into the wee hours of the night, this film is profound as it is entertaining and delivers seven (7) feathery delusional blocks to take us soaring.

Birdman: 8 / 10 Busted Blocks

"I'd Buy That For (Just ) A Dollar!"

ROBOCOP Reboot Wins Fans, Fails It's Legacy

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): So a hard-nosed, hard-working Detroit cop gets a little too close to some ugly truths and gets a near-fatal dose of injustice. In order to save his life and/or turn a profit, fictional tech giant OmniCorp (OCP) creates a super-bionic android that who becomes a bad-ass bastion of 21st century vengeance in Robobcop. While this movie is hardly a down-the-line remake it holds significant links to the 1980's cult classic of the same name by Paul "yes I also directed Starship Troopers" Verhoeven. How did this remake hold up for you Pontificator?

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Let me just start off by saying that the original Robocop is a classic Vader. I thought is was a bit early to remake it, but with the advances in technology, I can see the lure. There is much this film takes from the original, but there are also a lot of differences that make it just as interesting, if not just as classic, as the original.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: This was a stellar cast that included silver screen giants like Michael "I'm Batman" Keaton, Gary "Commissioner Gordon" Oldman and Samuel L. "Mace Windu is Dead" Jackson. Michael K. “It’s Omar from the Wire” Williams also comes in and does  a stellar job as Detective Alex Murphy's streetwise partner, Jack lewis. Joel Kinnaman takes the lead of Alex Murphy and helps put us into a trance-like state with some below-the-bar acting in the lead role. Veteran foreign and indie film director José Padilla unveils a fascinating vision of the violent, not-too-distant future world of Robocop. That vision is powerful, frightening and beautiful all at once. The intensity of the opening scenes in Tehran are some of the best in the film and that was all in the cinematography. What did you see, Ponty?

TP: I don’t have much to say about the flat performance of Joel Kinnaman except that he was better as Robocop than he was Murphy. For some reason, I just keep seeing Bruce Wayne when I watch Michael Keaton and I don’t know if it’s a nod to his performance in that role, or a slight to his performance in this one. Gary Oldman, on the other hand, was believable as Dr. Norton and delivered his character. Of course, Samuel L. Jackson’s Pat Novak was just what I expected it to be…right down to the “motherf#@&er” exclaimed at the end. I do believe that word is in his contract, no matter what he does.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: With a few stand-out exceptions, this movie doesn't really move the needle on innovation in visual effects. What is eerie and exceptionally well done are the effects of Murphy's remaining body parts–namely his head, brain, lungs, heart, throat and right hand which are kept alive cybernetically and the visuals are disturbingly well rendered. A showdown with the ED209's near the film's climax is major and visually breathtaking. Highly polished and streamlined. As an added note in the win column for effects, the visual effects in the TV show hosted by fictional right-wing nut job, Pat Novak (Sam Jackson) are impressively fluid. Pontificator, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the effects. 

TP: The special effects were excellent. This wasn’t a case of bringing anything new to the game as much as it was doing everything right that has already been done before. The machines and robots were done very well and that one scene you mention Vader, in particular, had me wishing a for merciful death for Murphy when they showed the extent of the “alterations” they had to make to save him. If it were me I’d have to say “Umm…no thanks, I’m good”…but then again, it’s Robocop! Instead of the commercials ala the first film, they condensed all the television parts to Novak’s show which was superbly done. 

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: To be clear, I didn't hate this movie. That said, I didn't love it either. Simply put this movie just didn't need to be made. Robocop belongs to the 1980's as Paul Verhoeven's screenplay is witty, violent and timely with what was–for the time–leading edge effects. It was a freakish reimagining of Frankenstein’s monster and it worked. Not so with this reboot. As reboots go this was one of the better ones–so far this year–but that's where the praise stops. Main actor, Joel Kinnaman has a boring screen presence and the screenplay is just riddled with holes (ha-ha, get it?) with a host of continuity issues. But the story does entertain. Director José Padiha is rumored to have walked off set several time over studio meddling. If such rumors are true, it transferred into the final cut. But if you want empty-headed, visual effects action, then the Robocop reboot is your movie.

TP: Despite the light hearted attempt to remake Robocop with a PG-13 rating, there was a very profound underlying theme that did not escape me. The idea of replacing man with machine for dangerous work is not a new one. Indeed, the whole uproar over the real life use of drones underscores exactly what the film was dealing with. The film went a step further by showing the complete subjugation of another people at the hands of superior technology and in the name of providing “freedom.” What I saw was order, but not much freedom. The scary part was the argument being made to bring that same type of “order” to our cities. We have to ask ourselves how far off from this fantasy is our reality…and are we prepared to accept such a lifestyle, and if not…what are we prepared to do to stop it?

ON SEQUELS

AV: Like it’s predecessor, this movie would be fine if left alone. The story has already been told, no need to hammer us with it. Movies in the sci-fi action drama category tend to see lots of sequels even if they are duds. While at the core, this movie was decent, lets not overdue it here, Hollywood, ok? In the words of Robocop (1987) just, “Drop it!”

TP: It likely that Robocop is set to return in the near future. I can only hope that it comes with a better storyline, but with the same profound interest in it’s underlying vision.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Robocop: Not a travesty but far from a victory, Robocop (2014) offers nothing new to the franchise, the genre or the movie-going experience. You could do worse things with $10 then to go see this movie.With cool effects, decent star power and a story that just plain doesn’t matter, RoboCop (2014) bionically delivers five (5) busted blocks.

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Robocop: While it will never be the classic the original was, despite the better effects, it was very entertaining. It was just good enough to avoid being a total bomb, but not quite good enough to be a true blockbuster, only shooting six (6) busted blocks in the name of the law.

Robocop (2014): 5.5 / 10 Busted Blocks