Birdman (2014) - Dir: Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu (Babel, Amores Perros)

I was looking forward to this movie. It's had quite the build-up. Everybody is saying how amazing it is and I was already aware that the director had made some impressive films leading up to this one, (which I haven’t yet got around to seeing.) So that has given substance to the myth that Birdman is a great movie. A lot of what has been said, is about Michael Keaton’s performance – his best yet, so they tell me.

I started watching the film with all this hype inside of me. Against my better judgement, I was ready to believe all of the positive voices. The start is jazzy, conversational like My Dinner with Andre but more of a character piece.

Since the film is very much about the theatre (though the story doesn’t explore anything about theatre,) the film’s style pays tribute to the theatre and the structure of the performances and story feel like a theatre piece; minimalist and well-paced, with slow-building tension and character; the story balancing on the emotional plot, with dialogue only coming from the characters as a result of their identities – no dialogue for its own sake.

I appreciate that this film is about a play, not about writing plays, making plays or directing plays – though it is a little bit about performing in plays. And the fact that, while not actually feeling like a play, it feels like it is a tribute to a play. However, I feel like it tries to say so much about the theatre and succeeds in saying very little. 

Inarritu has made here an American film that doesn’t feel arrogantly or self-importantly American – there is too much interesting style and focused storytelling to get all up yourself about your own corner of the world. Broadway is mentioned a few times and it is obviously set in New York, but that kind of attitude could just as easily be English or French. It’s about culture and culture is international.

The surreal daydream of the birdman (also played by Keaton, in a birdman suit,) feels gimmicky. And the progression of this part of the plot seems unnecessary, silly and jarring because unlike the rest of the story it’s unrealistic – which is especially unfortunate in the ending.

Keaton commits to his character absolutely. The character feels honest enough for the audience to become lost inside him. He isn’t a particularly interesting character, nor is he particularly grand as a person. The portrait of the character is boring. But we see the film from this character’s point of view and if you enjoy the story it is in large part because of this.

Keaton plays Riggan who became famous as a superhero character in a comic book movie and its many sequels. This film is timely as we are being hit with a slew of comic book movies and sequels – the only trend to equal this is remakes. There just aren’t many original ideas getting made because as we all know by now, the accountants control Hollywood money. This is one reason to appreciate Birdman, as an original idea amidst a ton of junk. At least the concept is original. But the movie itself is another movie about entertainment industry and culture, and if it did that well it would be enough.

I am particularly offended by one journalist’s line in the movie, that mentions comic books in the same breath as laundry detergent commercials. And while I appreciate that there is a certain art to advertising, your average laundry detergent commercial is miles from the art of your average comic book. Here was an opportunity for Riggan to defend comic books, but that’s not the kind of man he is. He’s lost in this world of promotion and marketing.

In the end the play is something of a success, but it doesn’t really matter anymore, because Riggan doesn’t care so much now. We are Riggan. He doesn’t really care about anything anymore, so when it looks like he’s about to finally jump off the roof/out the window, it’s all we care about.

Edward Norton as Mike has a large part in the play, a mediocre sized part in the film, but his hard-on is the most memorable thing about his performance. His erection is actually quite an interesting plot device. Norton’s character is not as complex as his character’s character.

None of the women are particularly interesting. Zach Galifianakis plays it straight as Jake and manages to put on screen a somewhat interesting, honest few beats for Keaton to play against.

Birdman will live or die through the critics, which is ironic. I didn’t like it much. But what do you care?

2 stars

CQ (2001) – Dir: Roman Coppola (The Darjeeling Limited, Moonrise Kingdom)

This is a forgettable film, despite having all the elements of an intelligent, satisfying art film. It’s about filmmaking. It takes a shot at scifi (so-called genre films) but it isn’t funny, so I wouldn’t call it satire. Gerard Depardieu and Billy Zane are featured fairly prominently in this film, but their performances are ineffective due to the overall lack of expression in the story as a whole.

The movie combines daydreams, dreams and movie scenes on the one side with footage from our protagonist Paul’s personal film and the real life plot, on the other. The structure and effect of this combination works, but doesn’t feel particularly impressive.

Paul (Jeremy Davies) is a film editor, he wants to be an indie filmmaker. He gets work on a bad scifi film, but the people who he works with recognise that he contributes a lot to the film. He comes up with some of the better production design ideas. There are complications: the misunderstood genius director (Depardieu) doesn’t know how to end the film; his replacement pikes on the studio. Paul’s name is floated as the new director.

This is the story of a small, young man among the grunts in the film crew, so not particularly high in the filmmaking hierarchy. It's true that editors these days get a significant amount of respect for the work they contribute to a film. However film editors are seen as today, this man, Paul is treated as ineffectual and irrelevant. His attitude is laid-back, kind, cautious and careful. He’s a nice guy, and this doesn’t change when he’s elevated to director – which is important, because power corrupts good men.

Even he doesn’t know how to end the film. But he begins to work on it and all along the way feels that his work is the most important thing to him. His girlfriend is beautiful, French and understands him completely – three things which together should make him grateful to be with her. But she doesn’t seem to appreciate his art, so he is almost ready to leave her, when he meets the actress – the star of the bad film that he has a job on, Code-named Dragonfly (Angela Lindvall.)

Then the film is attacked by Depardieu/genius ex-director, Andrezej – film reel with the new footage on is stolen and cut to pieces, and then another reel is stolen and there is a chase to retrieve it.

I don’t think this is a pretentious film, I think it’s interesting. The concept is intriguing. The speculation is intellectual. Unfortunately, the art is lacking; the expression is almost non-existent and the story is boring and not engaging.

Roman Coppola wrote and directed this piece. He has interesting ideas. As much as Wes Anderson annoys me, he makes interesting films as well. I think Roman Coppola should make more movies without Wes, he has his own style and he can grow into it, he can do better.

If this film had been a comedy, I might have appreciated it more, it would have been a fairly simple process to make it intelligently and consistently funny. What I would really have liked, would be to see the film express something, mean something. Tell a story with some kind of effective result, say something and say it loud.

They say respect your audience and make us care about the characters. I say fuck the audience; give me a good piece of work with an intelligent, creative, innovative and effective story – beautifully told. Express something, an idea or emotion and be thorough, eloquent and artful. But don’t do what they expect, don’t formulate mechanically, don’t give the audience what they want. This isn’t about them; it’s about you and your film.

2.5 stars

Dead Man's Shoes (2004) - Dir: Shane Meadows (This is England, Twenty-Four Seven)

Shane Meadows is an interesting voice for British film, and this is one of his best works.

Richard (Paddy Considine) returns home from the war to find that his little brother has killed himself. But there is more to the story, and Richard knows the truth.

Led by Sonny (Gary Stretch) a low level hood drug dealer/enforcer, a bunch of users and small-time dealers bully the retarded boy, Anthony. They urge him on to smoke weed and they force a girl to fuck him. When Anthony is high, Sonny starts screwing with his mind, verbal/mental torture. Sonny tries to get the kid to suck his penis.

All of this Anthony is unprepared for, he wants to go home. But these degenerates are pretending to be his friend, just so they can see what they can make him do.

How does Anthony end up killing himself? The crew get into a van and decide to drop acid. Sonny gives Anthony some as well. And then starts to really mess with his head. They take him to the devil’s house and wrap a noose around his neck. They force him to eat another tab of acid and they leave him in this empty, dead building, to rot in the mush of his mind.

Richard hunts down the men that attacked and tortured his little brother. He spikes their tea kettle with a huge amount of a-class drugs. Walks in while they’re high and shoots one of them in the head.

His plan is to hunt down, torture, maim and kill everybody who was involved. He’s a soldier, so killing is not new to him. His mourning soul feeds his rage, and ticking each villain off the list provides a satisfying relief. But there is a line between revenge and explosive raw violence; this line is murky for Richard. He still feels his loss so strongly, he still talks to Anthony. At some point, Richard begins to find that the villain of this story is not so clear.

Meadows has achieved a powerful, emotional story with interesting, shocking action and genuine reactions from the characters. When the men who tortured Anthony are being hunted, they realise as we do, the shift in the game; that now they’re the victims. As a viewer, we are given the opportunity to feel sorry for these men, despite what they did. And we start to see some vaguely interesting personality clashes, as the people beneath Sonny in the drug business hierarchy finally think for themselves and struggle to react to the situation.

The only obvious weakness of this piece is that most of the character development for the underlings doesn’t come about until the end of the story, so we don’t care very much as each victim is hacked and slashed, then disposed of.

Paddy Considine who co-wrote the script and plays the star of this film - Anthony’s big brother Richard, is able to sell the pain of losing a little brother, and of the cruelty at their hands; and attempting to stifle the anger of it all. He’s also able to sell how dangerous Richard is, that he stands up to Sonny, and everybody else. He’s fearless, callous, a walking weapon – and this time they’ve really pissed off the wrong guy.

3.5 stars

Bottom Live: The Big Number 2 Tour (1995) - Dir: Dominic Brigstocke (Smith and Jones, Ricky Gervais)

Rik Mayall as Richard Richard and Adrian Edmondson as Eddie present to the audience in this live format pure toilet humour and slapstick at its very best. The story is about two friends who share an apartment in England and have no money. Unemployed, pathetic, disgusting, and horny, but loyal friends – they have a strong bond, but no integrity (so either of them would sell the other for a blow up doll or a pint of beer.)

Neither of them is particularly brave, although they would both fight to the death for that one thing they value – for Rich that would be getting laid, for Eddie it would be alcohol.

Richard is Mayall’s very basic character, a thirty-something virgin with a small penis. He’s getting saggy and fat, not particularly good looking with no redeeming qualities. Eddie is a bit of a prick and revels in beating up Richard. They have been friends for most of their lives. What money they get on welfare doesn’t keep them going from week to week. Eddie is obviously a bit of an alcoholic so he manages to buy liquor.

Richard is the kitchen bitch, so he’s in charge of making food for them both. But the fridge is empty. Well, it’s empty of food. Anything that lives in there, is years past its use by date and growing a good length of mold.

Bottom is not The Young Ones, although Mayall’s character is similar to the anarchist wannabe he played in The Young Ones. They are both older, grownups with immature priorities and attitudes. Life moved on, and they got left behind. I would go so far as to say that Bottom is better than The Young Ones, the humour is more base, but the style is more fun and interesting. The Young Ones was punk and surreal, absurd storylines inspired by stoner sessions and student poverty. Bottom is minimalist theatre – we as writers challenge ourselves (says Mayall and Edmondson) to write about nothing.

The live version of Bottom is possibly in some ways better, more fresh. It’s funny when they screw up their lines, improvise for a few beats or break character. It being the length of a feature film, you get more substance than can be afforded in a 30 minute TV show. This sequel to the first live show is just as good as the first.

Some of my favourite jokes are improvisations that Edmondson does when Mayall screws up some lines. Edmondson is the clever one, but Mayall has the attitude. They are a wonderful team and they have provided here a gloriously entertaining story, well worth watching to the end.

The overall Bottom plot follows Eddie and Rich as their empty lives continue in a crap hole in a horrible part of England. British humour, it travels though. You don’t have to be an intellectual, English or an idiot to appreciate Bottom.

In this feature-length story, Rich is preparing for the Queen to arrive, and Eddie is helping – she is scheduled to appear on their street and Rich optimistically thinks that if he gets his willie out and flashes her from the window, and attracts her with fireworks she will take the time to visit their flat.

Everything that can go wrong potentially often does in Bottom, but the way it finally explodes is rarely predictable - you'll guess some things but only the parts that they want you to.

This play feels like a typical stage play, though I would compare it more to a movie or to the series that it’s based on. Some of the production design is very clever, with fart smoke and the odd prop. The jokes are literally more than a laugh a minute even if you don’t easily laugh out loud.

3.5 stars

Tromeo and Juliet (1996) – Dir: Lloyd Kaufman (The Toxic Avenger, Class of Nuke’em High, Sgt Kabukiman NYPD)

Lemi from Motorhead narrates a 90’s punk retelling of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, in true Troma films fashion – with lots of gore, deviant sex and silly humour. Feeling like America’s response to our own Bad Taste (1987) – but with a more thorough plot which arcs on our satirised heroes and feeds off the original play.

Tromeo Que (Will Keenan) is the hero of the story. In love with being in love, he must be a Pisces. He gets off on interactive CD Roms of naked ladies professing their love for him. His latest girlfriend is a slutty porn star-esque airhead with big boobs. She’s cheating on him with a Fabio lookalike. One wonders for what reason she is even bothering to date our Tromeo – he isn’t her type, he doesn’t have an incredible sex drive, he isn’t rich or famous.

Tromeo’s father is Monty Que (Earl McKoy) He’s black (Tromeo is white) and this isn’t discussed until late in the film in time for the big reveal. Benny Que (Stephen Blackehart) knows the history of the Que and Capulet war of the families. And Murray (Valentine Miele) pushes him into leaking the story when he’s really drunk one night.

Juliet Capulet (Jane Jensen) the daughter of Cappy Capulet (William Beckwith) has regular sex with the house cook, a skinny, young and attractive gothic lesbian with lots of piercings and tattoos. Juliet wants to be with a man but she is afraid of penises – monster penises fill her nightmares. But when she wakes up screaming she gets locked in the time out box by her abusive (and kinky) father.

Her mother (Wendy Adams) is barely a character – only chimes in at the end to finish the reveal – the mystery, the secrets of house Capulet and house Que.

My favourite scene is when Juliet’s cousin Sammy (Sean Gunn) gets his head trapped in a car window and is horribly injured when he breaks free – as the car is by this time going very fast.

The decapitated heads don’t look very realistic, which is a shame because a lot of the other gory effects work really well. They are disgusting and really sell the jokes.

Low budget FX movies are out there but the best and hardest working filmmaker of this niche is Lloyd Kaufman. Other heroes include Roger Corman and Brian Trenchard-Smith.

Sexual deviancy is a flavour refined in this film – though not as shocking as for example, Tim Roth’s The War Zone (1999) – it is merely played with here for the fun of it. Homosexuality, gay rape threats, incest, kinky abuse. But we only get a taste of it, perhaps because the plot is felt to be more important than the ‘exploitation.’

Lemi’s narration and the occasional old English prose dialogue is thrown fast and loose and can be at times difficult to understand. Much like live theatre of Shakespearean plays. However, these are dramatised so wonderfully that you can start to learn the language because you get the emotional context.

Tromeo and Juliet is punk and fun and silly and quite funny at parts, considering its low budget and the integrity behind the production - in a way, it is a perfect film for what it is. It serves the purpose of being silly and fun, grotesque and honest, introducing a new, A.D.D./MTV audience to the best of the oldest playwrights.

4.5 stars