Review: Birdman

I watched Birdman in the theaters on January 31, 2014. It was one of the most exhilarating film experiences of my life.

I don't feel equipped to review it before I see it again. Although I do feel fairly confident in saying this: Birdman is fantastic.

----------------------------------------------------------
Seen 1/31/14 and 2/2/14

4/4

Birdman is soaring; sweeping; visionary; gorgeous.

It is an immersion into a new world. The world is brutally and beautifully honest.

The film reel rolls with perfect smoothness. To experience this movie is to experience perfect flow; to succumb to its current and ride on its sweeping camerawork and seamless dialogue.

After watching this film, I can call Inarritu a mastermind. He puppeteers the complex characters, the dangerous humor, the realism/absurdity balance, and the overall artwork that is film masterfully. This is a ground-breaking movie, but not only that----it is executed brilliantly.

I will probably love this movie for the rest of my life. It has probably broken into my immortal top tier; the all-time favorites.

I am not saying that it is one of the "greatest" movies of all time, or will live in legend for eternity. It is, after all, a black comedy, with limited thematic scope. It may not even win Best Picture this year. But for what it is, it is brilliant, and I can connect with its beauty and truth to the highest and the deepest level.

Review: Che [Part I: The Argentine]

3/4

Che opens with a geographic representation of Cuba, establishing it as entertainment rooted in history. Part I closes with the main character's scolding of a few of his soldiers for stealing the enemy's car, identifying him as an ethical warrior.
The film is slow and methodical. It deals heavily in politics and history. But it also circles around a fascinating and legendary human being.
Ernesto Guevara is reserved, but strong. He is intensely rational. He has a clear and powerful mind. He is honest, civil, ethical, determined, compassionate, and as he claims is the most important characteristic in any revolutionary, loving. But he has no relationships in the film--he is devoting his entire existence to the revolution, and it is profoundly respectable in my mind.
The dialogue between he and the American reporter is intriguing and impressive. He answers questions with the perfect blend of philosophy and tactics, abstraction and application. He has many roles in the revolution, because he is simply so good at everything. He is a medic, a fighter, a leader, a teacher, a theorist, etc. It's all because of the quality of his mind. The Cuban revolution needed every one of its members to be like Che. The world needs everyone to be like Che.
Although, let's consider the context he chooses to put his mind in, which is war and brutal justice. As the film progresses, he seems to lose some of himself to the cause. After finishing the film, I am less zealous in praising him. Still, I am greatly interested in and hold great respect for him.
Benicio del Toro plays the revolutionary beautifully. His eyes tell the whole story; I am interested to see this actor in anything now.
This is quality filmmaking; the acting, directing, shooting... it's all there. My only problem is the film's lack of excitement, thematic material and reward. If you want history though, this is as good as it gets.

Che Guevara can be thought of as a controversial figure. After all, he is a guerrilla, a killer. So a significant part of interpreting this film is deciding whether or not Soderbergh is celebrating or condemning the man. Most of Part I is a celebration, but towards the end, I felt Che's image declining a bit. I'm anxious to see how he ends up in Part II; what Soderbergh's definitive view of his hero is.
As for me, I like Che. I can empathize with war, although it's not my preferred method of justice. And Che is a brilliant man, fighting for a good cause. So in my mind, so far, he really is a hero.

Thoughts on my favorite films

Synecdoche, NY        (written a few months ago... late 2014. For some reason, was unposted)

My favorite movie is long, sad, slow, confusing, strange, thoughtful, beautiful, gruesome, honest, brutal, brutally honest... I think that Synecdoche can be called the most [intentionally] depressing movie of all time. However, it doesn't feel depressing to me. I understand that death is the subject matter, illness is unavoidable, disappointment is inevitable, relationships are meaningless... I see that everything is gray, sex is ugly, people are sad... But I don't feel depressed watching it. I feel connected. The human experience portrayed, however mercilessly depressing, is relatable. I am not depressed, and never have been, but watching this movie still feels like watching real life in its truer form, seeing only what's lying under the surface. It feels like observing real life through a gray lens, through the eyes of an existentialist who is honest with himself. I don't feel dark-hearted as this movie passes by me. The terrible things don't poison my insides as one would expect; rather, I accept them. They are acceptable to me. Everything happens, and it happens. There is little emotion connected to the progression of events, as if everything were inevitable. Life is inevitable. "The end is built into the beginning", it goes. The sermon of the preacher is empowering--"and they say there is no fate--but there is, it's what YOU create"--but this happens in the middle of a hurricane of dreadful disappointment. The sermon doesn't belong--thus it doesn't feel like the tiny but unwavering light in the midst of darkness, but more so like an unreachable ideal. Caden looks at the message--he faces it, literally--and then continues on with his life. Caden is tragic. What can he do? He can't reach for the light, grab hold of his fate. The illnesses eat away, time pushes on like a massive beast, death is coming. At every moment of life, death is working its way closer. This is the truth for everyone. The matter of existence is second by second transforming from all-life to all-death. Creeping on, yellowness chemically becoming grayness.
The moment something becomes what it should be--the moment something becomes right--it is instantly lost. Rightness vanishes nanoseconds after coming into existence. This is Caden and Hazel. Caden and Hazel is what is correct, but the universe must be incorrect. The universe builds itself toward correctness but then upon reaching its peak restores its natural state of incorrectness instantaneously. The laws of the universe conserve incorrectness, as they conserve momentum, energy and mass. "The end is built into the beginning", the universe cycles itself in restoring absurdity.
This is the world of Synecdoche. Everything is off: medical professionals are absurdly rude, poop is weird, paintings are impossibly tiny, warehouses are impossibly large, the impossible is all around. Nothing makes sense. The world is impossible to make sense of. Life happens in patterns of chaos. We exist and then things happen to us and then we don't exist. There is no salvation-giver--nothing to pull us out of the chaotic pool. Not love, nor Jesus. Not reason. There is a dominant power over the universe, and it deals in chaos and nonsense. And this is belittling for humankind. We want to be lifted up, but instead we are subject to a powerful arm of fate. That is why this movie is depressing. Because humankind wants to be more than it is. It believes in itself, so it tries. Fruitlessly. But this is not sad; the universe has no empathy. Humankind doesn't lament over its position, but crying is just a natural reaction to the non-pity of the universe on man.
The defining quality of life is that it comes before death.
.
.
.

Review: Away We Go

3/4

Please do not characterize this as a romantic comedy. There is no "romance" here, as there is none in Eternal Sunshine, another film whose image is decimated by that putrid genre assignment.

Away We Go is a film rich with sweetness and human quality. It's been a couple of months since I saw it, unfortunately, but I can remember how great an impression the center relationship made on me. I was praying that I had a relationship in my life so beautifully accepting. Indeed, it is much more a best-friendship of quirks and commitment--not a commitment of love and hearts and passion and faithfulness, but of time. These two best friends give each other all of the time of their lives, because they want to. They don't stray from each other, don't consider another life, because they are so genuinely, wonderfully happy being by each other's sides. I suppose I should call this a "companionship comedy". They are simple, like inseparable elementary-school best buddies. Simple-minded and simple in their wishes. It's a very appealing kind of existence.....

Considering the quality I saw in the center relationship, and considering the quirkiness that I'm sure most viewers post up, somewhat shallowly, as the defining characteristic of this film, it is easy to overlook one simple fact: that...wow... Away We Go is funny.
John Krasinski murders the role of Bert, the best relationship comedy central man character of all time. (Let me clarify two things: "murder" is a positive verb, and Bert probably isn't actually the best relationship comedy central man character of all time. But he's up there.) Bert is hilarious and wonderful: blunt, earnest, kind, foolish, awkward, and genuine in every sense of the word. He's also reflective at times, he cares a lot about people and life. He's more relatable, more funny and more genuine than is the norm for these kinds of movies. That's why he's undoubtedly the best relationship comedy central man character of all time.
Maya Rudolph was less special to me, but she's there, and she does it fine. I kind of actually liked a passive counterpart to Bert's flamboyancy. She seemed a little more reserved...if I'm remembering the film fully...and I wouldn't have liked the relationship or the film had there been an actor giving the character a bigger personality. Now that I think about it, I liked Maya Rudolph a lot. We need her.

So this isn't so bad a review---maybe the idea of reviewing long after seeing has an upside: I'm able to give overarching impressions that would be overshadowed by details if I could remember any details.
I liked the film a lot. It was funny and very, very sweet. I think.

Hierarchies

Actors:

Ryan Gosling--(The Place Beyond the Pines, Drive, Blue Valentine, Half Nelson)
Philip Seymour Hoffman--(Magnolia, The Master, Boogie Nights, Synecdoche NY, A Late Quartet, Punch-Drunk Love, The Savages, The Talented Mr. Ripley)
Steve Carrell--(The Office, Little Miss Sunshine, Crazy Stupid Love)

Bradley Cooper--(American Hustle, Silver Linings Playbook, Place Beyond the Pines, American Sniper)
Leonardo DiCaprio--(The Departed, Shutter Island, Revolutionary Road)
Matt Damon--(The Departed, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Good Will Hunting)
Christian Bale--(American Hustle, The Dark Knight Trilogy)

Actresses:

Michelle Williams--(Blue Valentine, Take This Waltz, Wendy and Lucy)
Amy Adams--(American Hustle, Man of Steel [seriously])


Writers/Directors:

Paul Thomas Anderson--(Magnolia, There Will Be Blood, The Master, Boogie Nights, Punch-Drunk Love)
Charlie Kaufman--(Synecdoche, NY, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

Stanley Kubrick--(2001, FMJ, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Eyes Wide Shut)
Derek Cianfrance--(The Place Beyond the Pines, Blue Valentine)
Francis Ford Coppolla--(The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation)

David O. Russell--(Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle)

Review: American Sniper

2.5/4 (down from 3/4)

American Sniper is a solid film and not much more. I don't even feel like it tries to do a whole lot... Such is the nature of biopics, more often than not. I am frustrated by the genre as I am frustrated by adaptations of novels. American Sniper is both.
This is not to say that I can sympathize with Sniper, Eastwood in particular, for being handicapped by the genre he's working in. These directors fail to see the trap that adapting true stories or fiction from other mediums can lead to. It just doesn't fit. One cannot transcribe a story into another medium without extreme care, and a very talented eye. It just doesn't fit.
Besides those frustrations were the disappointments at the cheap, archetypal dialogue. The center romantic relationship was a cliche, in particular. The dynamic here felt like Godzilla: the awesome epicness and profoundness of the center plot plopped next to a lame romance that will keep Hollywood involved. I don't know about the rest of America, but I could do 2 hours and 15 minutes of solid combat, as I could do a whole movie of Godzilla-crap.
I cannot speak for whether the war-renderings were accurate--specifically, what matters most, the relationships between soldiers and the psyches involved--but I'd like more. I can't imagine that war is this... normal. It almost feels underromanticized. I have high expectations for emotion and thematic depth in films, because I know it's possible. I know Synecdoche and Magnolia. All other movies thus become weak.
I generally liked the tone of the film, which, like other Eastwood films, was primarily war-realism. The major weaknesses of the movie definitely came out off the battlefield, when Eastwood tried to create Hollywood human-life situations. We've seen those before.
The fighting was great though--but that's partially just me. I enjoy watching war; it is very interesting to me. Also, Bradley Cooper was very solid. He exited himself, perhaps for the first time I've personally ever seen. I didn't feel anything deep for his character though, oddly.
It was all good, well-done, fine and dandy. Some of it was powerful, some intense. If put in a setting other than war, though, I would have been dissatisfied.

Review: Pilot: Game of Thrones

3/4

Review: The Hobbit

2.5/4

Probably the only way that the Hobbit trilogy can hold much reward for someone is either if that person views movies from the surface, similar to a juvenile, or is heavily invested in Middle-Earth. Examined critically, The Hobbit does not have much significance in the cinematic world.

The story is less interesting than in the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, the characters less iconic and lovable--not just because the original is older and has had more time to sink into culture; the dwarfs as protagonists cannot hold a candle to Aragorn, Legolas, etc.--, the intricate universe less powerful and present. Everything is simpler, and less profound, though we may consider that this story WAS intended as Tolkien's YA-counterpart to the original trilogy.

That said, I enjoyed the three-part movie. The battling was epic. Bilbo and Gandalf were terrific presences, and of course any reference to the old movies sent happy tingles down my spine. But that's just it; besides my love for Bilbo and the quality battle sequences, I only really liked the Hobbit when it was put in respect to the other movies.

Review: The Lord of the Rings

3/4

The Lord of the Rings are not great movies. They're very cheesy to watch today, and life is generally idealized, and the story is told with the expectation that the viewer is already familiar with the content, and there are so many cliches.

But... they are extremely enjoyable to experience, especially if one dives in with total commitment. The world of Middle-Earth is complex beyond grasp by these movies alone, but it is exhilarating putting what pieces are given together. To finally have a grasp on what Elvish word refers to what gives rise to an awesome pride and fulfillment. Soaking into the Tolkien universe is a highly fulfilling experience.

And for all its juvenility, there also exists some real, quality content. Tolkien was an able philosopher and writer, so looking beyond the simple "hero's journey with loyal sidekick and comic-relief characters fighting against evil forces and saving the world" model we can actually find some profound themes, character actions, spoken lines and philosophical ideas. The trilogy is a  conglomeration of young-adult fiction and high-fantasy, both with juvenile and adult content.