Birdman review

Watching Birdman is equivalent to watching a plane crash. Things and people of great stature colliding in a fiery inferno of ego and madness. Like the plane itself, these people are not aware of their folly. They go on and on with their self-destructive manner, not realizing the damage being done. Yet, it does not come across as some violently sickening act of destruction. It is much more of an apocalyptic waltz. To quote Pynchon "it is not a disentanglement of, but a progressive knotting into." We are watching the fall of the Roman Empire, but from our perspective it looks like the emergence of the Persians. A phoenix rising from the ashes-fitting. The subtitle for Birdman is "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance." A joke on both the characters of the film and the audience. In some perverted way, their is virtue to be found in the depths of ignorance. It's just not the kind anyone is looking for. At the end of the movie, the main character Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), seems to have gotten everything he has wanted throughout the film. In reality, he's actually gotten the opposite. His ignorance and bullheaded stupidity masquerading as celebrity have made him the antithesis of his goal throughout the film. In some ways, it is a very depressing film even if it does not present itself as so. It is an indictment of show business while simultaneously being a celebration of it. Doing so in a way that is not hypocritical, but admirable. These characters are self-obsessed and theatrical lost puppies who come onto the scene screaming and raving in carefully practiced speeches because they have all lost the ability to just act like regular people. Maybe they aren't regular people, but a race of space aliens who landed on Earth and used E! news, Vanity Fair, and the biography of Corey Feldman to learn how to act like people. Even the movie's most "honest" character, Riggan's screw-up drug addict daughter (Emma Stone), has her lapses into self absorption and vanity. This a film steeped in utter madness. A loud and infectiously exciting barrage of drums accompanies the movie. In Riggan Thomson's most insane stretches of being, the constant beat of drums thrums along with it. The score reflects all of the character's neurotic and constantly frightened personas. One of the most present and important characters in Birdman is the camera filming it all. The director, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, has made a very bold and audacious decision to film all of the movie in a series of long takes, edited together in a way that makes it look like the entire film is in one endless shot. The main plot of the film revolves around Riggan, a washed-up actor who once played a superhero in a series of successful superhero films (very reflective Keaton in real life), who is now vying for artistic merit with a Raymond Carver short story he has adapted and will act and direct in. The method of using the constant long takes and tracking shots that Inarritu has adopted here is supposed to make it look like it is a play itself. The actors don't film one close-up and then have a smoke break, they are constantly on. This reflects the vain theatricality of the characters in the film. They live their life like they are in a play: loud, wordy, flashy, and full of dense dialogue. A directing decision that could have devolved into a tiresome gimmick is used for real artistic value here. The wonderfully awe inspiring decisions on Inarritu's part and the ace work of the actors can easily make one forget about the film's noticeable flaws. The script has some rough edges. There are a few jokes that don't quite land and there are some lines that feel incredibly mean-spirited and misguided. There are times when it seems like the screenwriter feels worried the audience won't get the message he is trying to convey and that he must continually expound upon what he's trying to say tirelessly. Those particular moments made me cringe. Yet, when stacked up next to the rest of the movie, they seemed minuscule and not even worth mentioning. My only true problem with the film was its ending, which I won't spoil for anyone. Let me just say it could have (and should have ended a few scenes earlier). Besides all that, Birdman soars higher than Superman on helium. It is a massively entertaining meditation on show business, madness, and the deformed sick elephant we all call "fame." Anyone who scoffs at the current state of Hollywood, pointing out the mind-numbing barrage of formulaic superhero pictures that gets pumped out every year, certainly isn't wrong in doing so. But you only have to look so far as to Birdman to know that there is hope for cinema yet. Do not despair common folk, Keaton has landed and he is here to help.    

The Grand Budapest Hotel review

The Grand Budapest Hotel is quite 'grand'. Although I am trying to be funny and use a pun with the movie's title, it's still a fairly accurate thing to say. The Grand Budapest Hotel is Wes Anderson's most ambitious movie to date. It's grand in its scale and vision. It has a large and epic story, spanning years, yet feeling very small indeed. The film is like some strangely wonderful adventure film that one would get if they were to mix North By Northwest and The Thomas Crown Affair and then stick it in Wes Anderson's subconscious. It succeeds on all counts. Mainly because of the artistic genius of writer/director Wes Anderson. Anderson is one of my favorite filmmakers. I put him up there with greats like Martin Scorsese, Spike Jonze, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Woody Allen. He's great at capturing quirky little slices of life somewhere, and then infusing it with his wonderfully distinct style I've come to know so well. I love every Anderson film, mostly because of how much I enjoy and appreciate his style. His most critically lambasted film, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, is actually one of my favorites. Partially because of how evident his style is in it, and partially because I felt it had so much to say. Too often, Wes Anderson's movies are called 'light' or 'fun but meaningless'. This couldn't be further from the truth. Every one of his movies has tons to say. The Grand Budapest Hotel has a lot to say. But it's also really entertaining, incredibly well made, imaginative, and filled with that awesome Anderson style. The film starts out with a young girl opening a book titled "The Grand Budapest Hotel". Then it shows an old writer, played by Tom Wilkinson, talking about his time at the hotel. Then it goes to years earlier. The writer is much younger (now being played by Jude Law), and talks to the hotel's owner named Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham) about his time at the hotel in its prime and how he came to own it. So begins the expansive and exciting tale of M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) and a young Zero throughout pre-war Europe. Involving murder, intrigue, love, art thievery, prison break, and of course, The Grand Budapest Hotel in all of its Anderson-esque glory. As you may be able to tell, I absolutely loved The Grand Budapest Hotel. I may even call it Wes Anderson's best film to date. Here, Anderson has crafted a pitch perfect and wonderful film that is so much fun to watch. But it's also about pre-war troubles and fear, love, and imagination. What's really great here is Anderson's wonderful sense of ambitious vision. He has created a concise and beautiful world, that isn't actually as beautiful as it looks at second glance. Ominous soldiers, roadblocks, and eerie and murderous strangers (played classically by Willem Dafoe). The world of 'Grand Budapest' is sort of like the hotel itself: Pretty and grand on the outside, with it's own seedy underbelly. Anderson makes it all work so damn well. With The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson has succeeded with everything he failed to do in 2004's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and 2009's Fantastic Mr. Fox. Don't get me wrong, I adored both of those movies with all my heart and rank them as some of my favorite films, but every issue they have Anderson addresses and fixes in this picture. The Life Aquatic was ambitious and action packed and made great use out of Anderson's auter style. Yet, the film occasionally dragged and some of the sequences felt off. I loved it, but it wasn't perfect. The Grand Budapest Hotel is as imaginatively and technically ambitious, if not more so, as The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. But it's done in a much better and more efficient way. It's character's are also more developed and much more interesting than the other ones in his films. The casting certainly helps. The film is chock full of celebrities with everyone from Jude Law to Tom Wilkinson. It's filled with Anderson regulars like Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman, and also great actors new to his films like Ralph Fiennes and Jude Law. Ralph Fiennes give's a terrific and commanding performance in the movie's lead. Newcomer Tony Revolori is more than decent as his sidekick. Harvey Keitel shows up for a funny and very entertaining role as a bald and tattooed thug. 'Grand Budapest', while large in scale, also manages to create a small dollhouse type atmosphere that is evident in other Anderson films. But it's done better. It is done very, very well. The Grand Budapest Hotel is the work of an experienced filmmaker who is more creative than all of Hollywood put together. And it is a wholly wonderful film. It would be worth seeing just for Harvey Keitel's small but great performance. Luckily, Anderson adds so much more to see. If you want to rewatch a film, halfway through watching it the first time, it is probably a damn good movie. And yes, I think I do believe this is Wes Anderson's best movie. I am certain this will make my favorite films of the year list, and I highly recommend you see it. If you have already seen it, maybe go see it again. I give The Grand Budapest Hotel 4.8 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing!

You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. 

Salinger review

What a phony.
J.D. Salinger is one of the most famous American writers of all time. He wrote on of the most famous American novels of all time, The Catcher in the Rye. This documentary is all about him. Yet, it seems to completely miss the point of J.D. Salinger as a man. Salinger was a man who hated all the spotlights and falseness of Hollywood. This movie forgets that and makes J.D. Salinger out to be some heroic writing god. He wasn't all that. Salinger said himself that he's just a fiction writer. Yeah he wrote a fantastic book that really personified the feelings some people had but he was just a great writer. At first glance the film seems like it might be trying to make the point that he was just a man, but it quickly goes off the rails and makes him seem like some sort of Jesus figure. J.D. Salinger would've hated this movie. I think Holden Caulfield would've hated this too. It's just as phony and cheesy as all the things Catcher in the Rye was against. Every damn frame of the film is followed by swells of classical music, the end of the movie felt so saccharine and syrupy that I almost puked. The film doesn't even explain most of the man's life. His childhood is barely even mentioned, it just dwells on how messed up the guy got from WWII. They have all these celebrities lined up talking about how damn great Salinger and his works are when really the famous people are just there to catch your eye and distract you. Also, why the hell did Shane Salerno direct this out of anyone in the movie world? The guys written such astounding classics as Savages and Alien vs. Predator: Requiem. I was being sarcastic as you probably know but I didn't want to cause any confusion. Savages had the worst ending I've seen in any movie in a while, and AvP is just crap. And this is the guy we're trusting to handle our J.D. Salinger documentary. The whole thing just feels shoddy and fake. A lot of the interviews are shot with unnecessary and obvious green screen that takes away from everything some of the people are saying. The synopsis was saying that the documentary was absorbing. That couldn't be further from the truth. Salinger is boring, misguided, and overall pretty dull. The whole thing seems as if some overexcited high schooler made this for his school project, except had a much larger budget. At many points during the film I had a strong urge to just walk away from it or take out my phone. I actually found myself getting angry at the movie. As I said before, it's so stupid and phony. It's nothing like it should have been. Maybe if this had been made as a biopic with lots of talent attached, like The Aviator, it would've been better. This sorry excuse for a documentary disgraces the Salinger name. I know that sounds like a bit much, but this movie really bugged the hell out of me. It didn't inspire me or make me feel anything. Except for contempt. The only thing this film made me want to do was write an angry letter to Shane Salerno and reread Catcher in the Rye to try and forget this phony movie. Some people may like the documentary, I am not one of them. At the end of Salinger there's a long credits sequence which is basically a "subtle" commercial for some of Salinger's works that will be published soon. I get that these books are going to be famous and groundbreaking but please don't put a dumb message at the end of this dumb movie hitting you over the head with the notion that maybe you should read the books. J.D. Salinger would not approve. I saw a trailer for this movie a few weeks ago. It's already on Netflix. No wonder. This crappy doc should have never been released in the first place. I loved Catcher in the Rye. It's probably in my Top Five favorite books. This movie takes all the greatness of Salinger and his writings and does what never should have been done. Hollywood-ized it. I'll say it once and I'll say it again. This film is phony. I give Salinger 1.5 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing (just not of this). You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies!