Tag Archives: Edward Norton
Cinema, Comedy, Edward Norton, Film, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Kristen Wiig, Michael Cera, Movie Review, Nick Kroll, Sausage Party, Sausage Party Religious Commentary, Seth Rogan
via sausagepartymovie.com
"Sausage Party" is a brash, crude, and at times offensive comedy about anthropomorphised food finding out that their Gods don't love them and they're destined to die. It sounds bleak and maybe a tad crazy, but I loved it nonetheless.
A lot of audience members will leave the theatre after watching this movie and feel more than a little perplexed – they'll wonder what on earth they just watched and question why it was ever made in the first place. However, on the flip side of that coin there are people like me who relish comedies that push boundaries and cater towards a specific audience with confidence and without restriction.
via nytimes.com
"Sausage Party" doesn't censor itself at any point, and for that I commend everyone involved. Not because they've made a bold decision to forsake convention for the sake of artistic expression, because to even suggest that would be ridiculous, but because they just don't care what other people think – they make movies that they would want to see; nothing more, nothing less. They know that there's a fan base out there that will appreciate their style of comedy, and they also know that the voice cast is strong enough to entice a wider audience to park their bums on seats, so they can basically do whatever they want. This can only be a good thing, because although there's a chance of failure in the short term there's also a safety net which allows everyone involved in the creative process to take risks and make movies that we haven't seen a dozen iterations of before.
Moreover, for what it's worth I don't think that "Sausage Party" does anything particularly outrageous. The characters involved drop F-bombs like there's no tomorrow, but that's nothing new, and although they end up having an orgy towards the end it's not exactly abhorrent. The characters don't even have visible genitals so the sex scenes can hardly be called shocking!
Of course, I'd be lying if I said that this movie is completely innocent. "Sausage Party" unashamedly plays on stereotypes relating to religion, gender, and race, and it does so without remorse or restraint. But, it does this because the people making it don't care whether or not you're offended by cartoon potatoes!
Now, what I've written so far might seem slightly strange because it hasn't necessarily been a review of the film so much as it's been a defence of a certain style of comedy, but I suppose that what I've tried to do is address some of the criticisms that the movie has received in light of the fact that I feel very positive about it. So, with that in mind I should probably get on with addressing specific aspects of "Sausage Party" that I enjoyed, and others that I didn't, so that you get a better feel for whether or not you'd be interested in watching it.
The first thing I'd like to point out is that the tone from the trailer is preserved, but at the same time the film doesn't necessarily feel like an extension of the trailer. In the trailer various food products are excited about the prospect of leaving the store because they think that whatever is waiting for them is better than their current existence, but when they leave they find out that things are actually much worse, and many of them are consumed by their supposed saviour. This is basically the set-up for the movie and in fact the whole idea behind it, but the difference between the film as a whole and the slice that is cut out of it for the trailer is that the end product is pushing a message.
via cartoonbrew.com
In essence "Sausage Party" is a fairly transparent critique of religion, or more specifically belief in a God, or gods, without proper evidence. It isn't just a silly throwaway comedy, it's a film that pushes an atheist perspective of human life and ultimately death on its audience, so watching it feels very different than you might expect going in. The religious critique that the movie presents is pretty obvious throughout, as the food has been lead to believe that life will undeniably be better once it exits the store despite the fact that it has no verification for that fact, just as the majority of religions profess that life after death will, in a sense, be better than life itself.
Each food product believes that their leaving the store will result in happiness, freedom, and ultimately the fulfilment of their desires, and they suppress their urges to please the gods (people) in service of this future, despite the fact that all there is waiting for them is death. Additionally, the gods that the food products worship are completely oblivious to their existence, and they're happy to inflict pain on them as a result.
So, is this message a good or a bad thing (in my opinion)? I suppose that it could be interpreted as either depending on your perspective, and I think that whether or not the message ruins the film for you will depend on what you wanted going in. Personally, I liked the religious commentary in the movie and I was impressed with how often the writers managed to reference religion naturally through dialogue, but I don't think that the film necessarily needed to focus on the religious subtext. It could've been entertaining without any mention of gods or The Great Beyond, and indeed there are people out there who would've been less offended and enjoyed the experience more had any mention of religion been omitted from the film, but I still enjoyed the way that "Sausage Party" put its message across.
As far as criticisms go, I have to say that I don't have any huge complaints, but I did feel that one or two aspects of the movie were marginally off. The most annoying of these aspects was the inclusion of the Douche (voiced by Nick Kroll), who basically acted as an antagonist for the main characters within the store.
I understand why the writers wanted to have an antagonist in the film other than the entire human race, because it allowed them to create conflict within the store which in turn gave everyone a break from the movie's themes, but to me it felt slightly heavy-handed in its execution. Every time that the Douche appeared on screen I lost interest because he was a very one-dimensional character, and I simply felt that the movie would've been better without him. It's easy to say things like this in hindsight, but I feel that the movie would've been better as a whole if extra time had been spent with the characters that were killed in the trailer. I think the movie would've benefited from these characters being oblivious to their fate a little while longer, particularly if we saw them getting excited on the journey from the supermarket to the house.
To summarise, "Sausage Party" isn't what I'd call a perfect film – there will be people out there who absolutely detest it – but right now it's comfortably my favourite comedy of the year and also my favourite animated film. It wasn't necessarily laugh out loud funny, which might seem like a strange thing to say about a comedy, but it was deceptively clever with well-designed characters and an engaging story.
The Oscars: Actors Who Have Never Won an Academy Award
12 Monkeys, 12 Years a Slave, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Academy Awards, Action, Actors Who Haven't Won An Oscar, Alejandro G. Inarritu, American History X, American Hustle, Animated Movie, Animation, Babel, Batman, Batman Begins, Best Actor, Best Actor In A Leading Role, Best Supporting Actor, Bill Murray, Birdman, Black Mass, Brad Pitt, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Brother Bear, Caddyshack, Child 44, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Christmas, Christoph Waltz, Cinema, Coach Carter, Collateral, Comedy, Comics, Coriolanus, Dallas Buyers Club, Daniel Day-Lewis, Darkman, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Django Unchained, Donnie Brasco, Ed Wood, Edge of Tomorrow, Edward Norton, Edward Scissorhands, Emma Stone, Eyes Wide Shut, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Mr Fox, Fantasy, Fight Club, Film, From Hell, Fury, Gary Oldman, Geoffrey Rush, Ghostbusters, Gladiator, Goodfellas, Groundhog Day, Hannibal, Harry Potter, Her, I'm Still Here, In Bruges, In The Name of the Father, Inception, Indie, Indie Film, Inglourious Basterds, Inherent Vice, Instagram, Iron Man, J. K. Simmons, Jack Reacher, Jack Sparrow, Jackie Brown, James Bond, Jerry Maguire, Jim Gordon, Joaquin Phoenix, Johnny Depp, Jordan Belfort, Kevin Spacey, Kingdom of Heaven, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Lawless, Leon: The Professional, Leonardo DiCaprio, Liam Neeson, Lord of the Rings, Lost In Translation, Love Actually, Magnolia, Martin Scorsese, Mason Verger, Matthew McConaughey, Michael Collins, Michael Keaton, Mission Impossible, Moneyball, Movie Review, Mystic River, Nebraska, Nick Fury, Non-Stop, Ocean's Eleven, Philadelphia, Pirates of the Caribbean, Primal Fear, Public Enemies, Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino, Rain Man, Ralph Fiennes, Rango, Red Dragon, Richard Gere, Risky Business, Rock of Ages, Rushmore, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Schindler's List, Scrooged, Sean Penn, Seven, Shine, Signs, Sirius Black, Skyfall, Snatch, Sofia Coppola, Space Jam, Spectre, Spike Jonze, Star Wars, Step Brothers, Stop-Motion, Sweeney Todd, Taken, The Avengers, The Big Short, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Corpse Bride, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, The Departed, The English Patient, The Firm, The Fugitive, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Grey, The Hateful Eight, The Hulk, The Hurt Locker, The Illusionist, The Incredible Hulk, The Lego Movie, The Lord of the Rings : The Return of the King, The Master, The Oscars, The Outsiders, The People vs. Larry Flint, The Revenant, The Royal Family, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Royle Family, The Usual Suspects, The Village, The Wolf of Wall Street, Thriller, Tim Burton, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Tommy Lee Jones, Top Gun, Tropic Thunder, Twitter, Unbreakable, Walk The Line, Whiplash, William Shakespeare, Willy Wonka, Zombieland
In case you missed it, on Sunday morning Leonardo DiCaprio won his first Oscar. Everybody took to Twitter and Instagram to express their approval, treating the multi-millionaire like an old acquaintance rather than a stranger who would probably avoid them in the street. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against DiCaprio – he's a good actor and has been in some great films – but he isn't a man who has been victimised by the Academy because of some fictional bias.
Every year writers pen scripts, adapted from best-selling novels based on true events, and some of them strike gold. They do this with particular actors in mind, and they allow studios to buy the script with specifications/recommendations for which people should play their leading man/woman. So, when you think about the films that DiCaprio has been in over the last few years, don't attribute his performances to sheer ability – if DiCaprio was cast in last year's "Fantastic Four", I doubt that he'd have got an Oscar nomination. He works with the best directors around, taking notes from the likes of Tarantino, Scorsese, and now Iñárritu, so he'd be pretty terrible if he didn't put in a couple of quality performances here and there.
It's true that DiCaprio is a brilliant actor – he's been great in a number of films, ("The Departed", "The Wolf of Wall Street", "Inception", etc.), and to be fair to him he has chosen the right scripts. However, he hadn't won an Oscar prior to Sunday night because he's never been the best; it's as simple as that.
There are only two roles that I think he could've won an Oscar for, and neither of them are for his performance in "The Revenant". The two roles that I'm referring to are Calvin Candie in "Django Unchained" (a supporting role for which he failed to earn a nomination, as Christoph Waltz was nominated and won for his performance in the same film), and Jordan Belfort in "The Wolf of Wall Street". It's definitely possible to make a case for DiCaprio's performance in the latter, because he was undeniably brilliant, but I don't think that he had any right to feel hard done to – it was just a great year. He was beaten by Matthew McConaughey who gave an exceptional performance in "Dallas Buyers Club", and also would've had to take the award ahead of Chiwetel Ejiofor ("12 Years a Slave"), who was excellent in what was a Best Picture winning film.
With that in mind, and with the mystical injustice that the public has peddled in the run up to this year's Academy Awards expelled, I present to you ten actors who have never won an Academy Award, despite a number of fantastic roles.
'Goddamn it, Bill Fucking Murray!'
If you haven't seen "Zombieland" then please excuse the language, but come on now, the man is a bona fide legend! He's the leading man in the best Christmas movie ever made, as well as one of my favourite films of all time, so I think expletives are necessary! You might read his name on this list without feeling too surprised, because it was never likely that he would win an Oscar for his performances in "Groundhog Day", "Scrooged", or "Ghostbusters" – those films are bloody brilliant, but they aren't what I'd call Oscar-bait – but a film that he definitely, definitely, definitely (did I say definitely) deserved to win for was "Lost In Translation".
Directed by Sofia Coppola, "Lost In Translation" is one of the most beautifully soul-destroying whilst simultaneously uplifting movies ever made. An indie darling with depth and an understanding of the human condition, it features two of the finest understated performances you could ever wish to see, from leading man Murray, and the ever-reliable Scarlett Johansson.
Murray is fantastic in the role, and he shows that whilst he is a hilarious comedic actor with a lot of money, he's been through life like the rest of us and understands the difficulties that people face to get through the day. It's almost as though Murray plays a portrait of himself in the film; an actor who has been successful but is slowly fading away, trying to find purpose in a life that doesn't appear to have one.
"Lost In Translation" came out in 2003, and was up for Best Picture in 2004 against stiff competition. Not many would argue that "Lord of the Rings : Return of the King" didn't deserve to win that year, and neither will I, but I maintain that Murray should've taken Best Actor In A Leading Role ahead of Sean Penn, who won for his performance in "Mystic River".
Other notable films on Murray's filmography – "Caddyshack", "Fantastic Mr Fox", "The Grand Budapest Hotel", "The Royal Tenenbaums", "Rushmore", and "Space Jam".
Brad Pitt was 'Fury-ous' about being snubbed for his performance in "Fury"!
Where do you start with a man like Brad Pitt? He's been in so many great films, and given some fantastic performances, but in most cases these roles have been as part of an ensemble cast. As such, it's been difficult for him to stand out, which has meant that he hasn't gained significant recognition from the Academy.
He does have three nominations for his performances, one for Best Supporting Actor ("12 Monkeys"), and two for Best Actor ("The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" & "Moneyball"), but he's never really been in contention to win an award. Now, I'm not about to argue that he should've done so for any of the aforementioned performances, because in 1995 he was beaten by Kevin Spacey ("The Usual Suspects"), he wasn't exceptional in "Moneyball", and I don't even think he should've been nominated for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button".
Nevertheless, it's a shame that an actor with so much ability and an impressive résumé has been unable to put in an Oscar-worthy performance, and it came as a surprise to me when I found out.
Other notable films on Pitt's filmography – "Babel", "The Big Short", "Fight Club", "Fury", "Inglourious Basterds", "Ocean's Eleven", "Seven", "Snatch", and "12 Years a Slave".
You wouldn't like him when he's angry…
Yet another overlooked actor – Edward Norton is fantastic.
He could've and perhaps should've won for his breakthrough role in "Primal Fear", which is an unsettling thriller starring Richard Gere. In that film Norton plays a young man accused of murder, when it is revealed that he has multiple personalities; this allows Norton to show off his range, creating two wildly different characters and switching between them with ease. If you haven't seen "Primal Fear" then I really do recommend that you watch it; I won't spoil it for you with any specific details, but it's a tense film with two great lead performances that Norton could've easily taken home an Oscar for.
More recently, Norton appeared in Alejandro G. Iñárritu's "Birdman", alongside Michael Keaton and Emma Stone, and for me he stole the movie. His performance was so committed and genuine that you forgot that you were watching a film, and his delivery was spot on so that you could just about take him seriously despite how ridiculous his character was. In my opinion, he was desperately unlucky not to win the Best Supporting Actor award back in 2014, which he only lost because of how memorable J. K. Simmons was in "Whiplash".
Other notable films on Norton's filmography – "American History X", "Fight Club", "The Grand Budapest Hotel", "The Illusionist", "The Incredible Hulk", "Kingdom of Heaven", "The People vs. Larry Flint", and "Red Dragon".
Gary Oldman is about to blow following a string of ignored performances.
In my view, Gary Oldman is the most versatile actor in the world today, yet I don't believe that he's ever had a role worthy of winning an Oscar. If you take a look at Oldman's filmography then you will see that he's had a lot of excellent supporting roles; Mason Verger in "Hannibal", Sirius Black in the "Harry Potter" series, and Jim Gordon in "The Dark Knight" series, to name just three. However, he's never really done it as a leading man, and the Supporting Actor category is a very difficult one to stand out in when there are so many memorable candidates to choose from each year.
Oldman's only nomination for an Academy Award is for his performance in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", a film which critics enjoyed, but I felt was an absolute snooze-fest. This lack of nominations speaks to the fact that Oldman simply doesn't choose the right films if he actually wants to win an Oscar, but it also goes to show that you don't have to win an award to be considered a great at what you do.
Nobody could deny that Oldman is an excellent actor who can perform exceptionally in the right film; it's just a shame that he hasn't had the right role to truly show the world just how good he can be.
Other notable films on Oldman's filmography – "Bram Stoker's Dracula", "Child 44", "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes", "Lawless", and "Léon: The Professional".
If only there was an Oscar for Best Beard In A Lead Role.
Joaquin Phoenix is probably less familiar to the majority of people than previous actors on this list, mostly because of the type of movies that he chooses, but that doesn't make him any less talented of an actor.
Most people who have heard of Phoenix will remember him from films in which he plays a supporting role, such as "Gladiator" and "Signs", but recently he has held his own as a leading man in films like "The Master" and "Her".
Phoenix has been nominated for Best Actor twice (for "The Master" and "Walk The Line"), as well as Best Supporting Actor for his role in "Gladiator", but my personal favourite performance of his was as Theodore in "Her". "Her" is a beautiful film directed by Spike Jonze, which won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay back in 2014, about a man's relationship with an operating system. It's a fascinating movie that critiques modern relationships and asks questions about how far our obsession with technology will go, and it also explores what really matters in a relationship, as there is nothing physical between Theodore and the operating system, yet it does have intelligence and is able to have stimulating conversations with him.
Phoenix is great in the movie, displaying a true understanding of his character and allowing the audience to take the premise of the film seriously despite its slightly odd science-fiction elements. It's just a shame for him that that movie came out in the same year as "The Wolf of Wall Street", "Dallas Buyers Club", "12 Years a Slave", "Nebraska", and "American Hustle", so his performance failed to earn a nomination.
Other notable films on Phoenix's filmography – "Brother Bear", "I'm Still Here", "Inherent Vice", "The Village", and "Walk the Line".
The lack of nominations has really taken its toll on poor old Depp.
Johnny Depp is one of the most recognisable actors in the world, and yet he refuses to take on a role unless he can completely change his appearance. Depp has become known for his quirkiness on screen and his many strange characters; he has played Edward Scissorhands, Sweeney Todd, and even Willy Wonka, yet he has failed to win an Academy Award.
Like Bill Murray, Depp was nominated for Best Actor in 2004, but was beaten by Sean Penn. The role that he was nominated for is probably the one for which he is best known; Jack Sparrow. Depp was fantastic as the drunken pirate with an ego problem, and he made worldwide audiences spill their popcorn as they tried in vain to hold back laughter.
Again, I'm not going to argue that he should've taken the award, because it's very rare that a role like that wins you an Oscar, but I do think that over the course of his career he has given some truly memorable performances. He's certainly one of my favourite actors, and although he has gone off the rails recently, his early filmography is magnificent.
Other notable films on Depp's filmography – "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "Black Mass", "Donnie Brasco", "Ed Wood", "From Hell", "Public Enemies", "Rango", and "Tim Burton's Corpse Bride".
Neeson has a particular set of skills, but the Academy don't seem to notice.
Liam Neeson falls into the same kind of category as Bill Murray on this list. No, I don't mean that he's a hilarious actor with a great talent for comedy; the comparison that I'm making is that Neeson is a household name, but he isn't your typical Best Actor nominee. He was never going to win an Oscar for his role in "Taken", or his voice performances in "The Chronicles of Narnia", because whilst they are fun movies that will entertain an audience, they aren't exactly artistic. However, like Murray, Neeson has been in one truly exceptional movie, in which he most definitely delivered an Oscar-worthy performance.
As Oskar Schindler in "Schindler's List", Neeson showed not only his acting ability, but a level of empathy that you rarely find in film. He showed that he really can act when he's given the right role, and he carried one of the best films of all time by being sympathetic yet strong. It's a truly brilliant performance which deserved recognition, but unfortunately for Neeson, he gave it in a year that was littered with fantastic acting. At the 66th Academy Awards, Neeson saw Tom Hanks take the award for Best Actor for his performance in "Philadelphia", and was up against stiff competition in the form of Daniel Day-Lewis, who had been nominated for "In The Name of the Father" – another marvellous movie. Neeson gave a career-defining performance, but he faced competition that had done the same.
Other notable films on Neeson's filmography – "Batman Begins", "Darkman", "The Dark Knight Rises", "The Grey", "The Lego Movie", "Love Actually", "Michael Collins", and "Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace".
Fiennes has even resorted to magic to try and win an Academy Award.
Ralph Fiennes is another brilliant actor yet to be acknowledged by the Academy. He has received nominations in the past, one for his supporting role in "Schindler's List", and another for his lead role in "The English Patient", but regrettably for him he failed to win either, losing out to Tommy Lee Jones ("The Fugitive") and Geoffrey Rush ("Shine") respectively.
Looking back, Fiennes was very unfortunate not to win the Oscar for his role in "Schindler's List", because his performance is incredibly dark and extremely memorable. He's one of the many reasons why the film works so well, and he does a great job of seeming almost too evil to be human whilst remaining believable.
Other notable films on Fiennes' filmography – "Coriolanus", "The Grand Budapest Hotel", "The Harry Potter Series", "The Hurt Locker", "In Bruges", "Red Dragon", "Skyfall", "Spectre".
One word… motherfucker!
This is getting a ridiculous now – how has Samuel L. Jackson not won an Academy Award? He may predominantly perform in a supporting capacity, but Jackson is one of the most recognisable and unique actors around today. If he's in a film then you've probably heard of it, and if you see his name on a poster then you'll probably watch it. His delivery, mannerisms, and general ability to take a role and make it his own, makes him one of the best actors in the world.
For me, he could've won the Oscar this year for his performance in "The Hateful Eight", but the Academy didn't even give him a nomination, and he definitely could've got a Best Supporting Actor nomination for "Pulp Fiction". Sadly, Jackson probably won't ever win an Academy Award, because his in-your-face style of acting just isn't what the Oscars usually reward.
Still, that doesn't make him any less of an actor.
Selected films on Jackson's filmography – "The Avengers", "Coach Carter", "Django Unchained", "Goodfellas", "Iron Man", "Jackie Brown", "Kingsman: The Secret Service", and "Unbreakable".
Why does it always rain on me?
This pocket-sized action hero probably doesn't pop into everyone's head when they think of Oscar-worthy actors, but people forget that Cruise isn't a one-trick pony. He might choose roles for pay-checks now, or perhaps for the adrenaline high that he is said to enjoy, but he has some outstanding performances to his name which demonstrate his credentials as a serious actor.
Cruise is part of an amazing ensemble cast in one of my favourite movies, "The Outsiders", an outstanding film that you can't really find in the UK anymore. If you've ever quoted 'stay gold, ponyboy', you've probably done so with "Step Brothers" in mind, but in reality that quote is taken from "The Outsiders".
Stay gold, Ponyboy.
Early on in his career Cruise was also in movies like "Rain Man", "Risky Business", and "Top Gun", all of which show off both his charisma and his acting ability. Cruise is brilliant in all of these films, and most importantly he carries them. He's a great leading man, and he knows how to get the best out of himself no matter what the role is.
Other notable films on Cruise's filmography – "Collateral", "Edge of Tomorrow", "Eyes Wide Shut", "The Firm", "Jerry Maguire", "Magnolia", "Mission: Impossible", "Rock of Ages", and "Tropic Thunder".
Action, Adam Driver, Andrew Neiman, Animation, Baymax, BB-8, Best Films of 2015, Big Hero 6, Birdman, Bridge of Spies, Calvary, Cinema, Commando, Crimson Peak, Daisy Ridley, Daniel Craig, Death, Dee Barnes, Die Hard, Disney, Dr. Dre, Eddie Redmayne, Edward Norton, Emily Blunt, Ex Machina, Film, Fuck Tha Police, Gone Girl, Gordo The Weirdo, Han Solo, Horror Films, Ice Cube, Inside Out, It Follows, J. J. Abrams, J. K. Simmons, Jake Weary, Jason Bateman, Joel Edgerton, John Boyega, John Wick, Keanu Reeves, Kylo Ren, Macbeth, Maika Monroe, Marion Cotillard, Matt Damon, Michael Fassbender, Michael Keaton, Miles Teller, Movie Review, Music, N.W.A, Oscar Isaac, Rap, Scott Adsit, Sicario, Spectre, Star Wars, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Stephen Hawking, Straight Outta Compton, Terence Fletcher, Terminator, The Gift, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Lord of the Rings, The Martian, The Oscars, The Theory of Everything, The Walk, Theatre, Thriller, Tom Hanks, Whiplash, William Shakespeare
2015 was a great year for film; at least it was if you live in the UK. In the US and various other regions more than one of the movies on this list would be classified as a 2014 film, which would definitely lower the standard. However, as far as I'm concerned a film belongs to 2015 if it was released during that year in my country, so "John Wick", "Birdman", etc., are fair game.
I'm sure that plenty of people will disagree with this list and its order, which is fine, but unless you've spent many hours developing your opinions and are willing to tell me why I'm wrong with pages of A4, please accept that our tastes differ. I just didn't love movies like "Ex Machina", "Spectre", "The Martian", or "Sicario", so they won't appear on this list.
Also, it goes without saying, but I haven't seen every film that was released over the course of the past year. If I've left something off the list that you think was worthy of a place then it might just be that I didn't see it, either because there were problems in my life that got in the way, or because I simply didn't want to; "Crimson Peak", "The Walk", "Inside Out", and "Bridge of Spies" are prime examples of films that I wanted to see and might've really enjoyed, but just couldn't find the time for. I'm doing this list now because it feels appropriate and because by this time next year nobody will care what happened in 2015, but it should be clear that if I'd have waited till then the list would be different; "Calvary" and "The Grand Budapest Hotel" would definitely be on my 2014 list had I wrote it today rather than at the end of that year, which goes to show that things can change.
"Macbeth" is a bit of an outlier on this list, which is perhaps why I enjoyed it as much as I did. In a movie landscape populated by grandiose blockbusters, sequels, prequels, and superhero flicks, this film was a refreshing change. "Macbeth" sets itself apart by telling an age old tale written by Shakespeare himself in a beautiful modern way, and it does this whilst still preserving the heart of the original work. It's a wonderful merging of careful cinematography, terrific acting, and perfect casting, which allows both fans of classic literature and mainstream audiences to appreciate the brilliance of a story which most are already familiar with. "Macbeth" could easily appear right at the top of this list because of how flawlessly it was executed and how relevant its themes still are today, but personally I connected with other films that little bit more in 2015.
https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/macbeth/
From "MacBeth" to "John Wick"… maybe I'm losing it in my old age. It speaks volumes of the weird and wonderful world of cinema that those two films can be so different yet so good, and that one person can enjoy both of them regardless of how dissimilar they are.
"John Wick" doesn't contain the complexity or duplicity that "MacBeth's" story can boast, nor does it have a single performance as good as Michael Fassbender's or Marion Cotillard's as Macbeth and Lady MacBeth respectively. However, what it does have is gun-fu, ridiculous action sequences which are wonderfully choreographed, and a revenge tale that every animal lover can get behind.
When assessing "John Wick" it's easy to get lost in whether or not what it's doing is as worthy of praise as other films on this list, after all, it isn't telling a Shakespearean story of tragedy and the trappings of the human condition. But, in my opinion, what matters is how well the filmmakers pull off their intentions, rather than whether or not those intentions are in some way more worthwhile or 'better'. "John Wick" is an action movie in the mould of some of our most treasured films; "Die Hard", "Commando", and even "Terminator" are beloved because they tell the story of one person triumphing against all the odds, and that's what we see here. It's just a film that is utterly enjoyable to watch, and that's why it deserves a place on my list.
https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/john-wick/
"The Gift" was a real surprise for me this year; after seeing the trailer I wasn't excited at all to see it, but my brother persuaded me that it was worth watching so I gave it the benefit of the doubt – I'm glad that I did. What impressed me the most about "The Gift" was how smart and considered it was; the story was formulated in such a way that as a viewer I was never quite sure what exactly was going on, which in turn led to various different theories flying around in my mind. At the start I got the feeling that Gordo (played by Joel Edgerton) really was a weirdo, as the trailer suggested, but as the film went on that feeling was challenged multiple times – the intrigue that this created, along with Simon's (Jason Bateman) strange behaviour towards him, made for an incredibly immersive and interesting experience.
None of this would matter if the movie's ending didn't provide a satisfying pay-off, but thankfully it really does. You can take it in whichever way you like, and you can come to your own conclusions about the truth, but no matter what you will feel both disturbed and strangely gratified when the end credits roll. "The Gift" is a slow burn, but it's constantly entertaining and engaging, with three terrific lead performances and layered characters.
https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/the-gift/
When I saw "The Theory of Everything" I really liked it; I thought it was a brilliantly executed movie and that the performances were outstanding. Stephen Hawking's life story is such a wonderful example of how one person can overcome incredibly difficult circumstances and succeed in the face of adversity, which is conveyed perfectly through the power of Eddie Redmayne's performance.
However, the reason why I liked it as much as I did originally was that it moved me emotionally given the place that I was at in my life – I'm not in that place anymore, so it doesn't hit me in the same way. I still appreciate "The Theory of Everything" for its execution and the beauty of the story that it tells, and obviously I value the reaction that I had to it initially, but I feel a lot less enthused by it now. It's great and has a solid place on this list, but the reason that it isn't higher is that I'm not the person who saw the film back in January anymore, so the way I feel about it is importantly different.
https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/the-theory-of-everything/
"Big Hero 6" was my favourite animated film of 2015. Baymax (voiced by Scott Adsit) is such a memorable and loveable character, and the art style behind the whole film is really striking. There's a lot to like about "Big Hero 6", from the setting to the story, and it's a film which both adults and children can enjoy. Great characters, excellent animation, and a well-told story make it a fantastic film worthy of the Oscar that it won in February.
https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/big-hero-6/
Music has the power to influence people and make them feel a certain way, and so does "Whiplash". I'm not a musician, I'm not a fan of jazz, and I definitely can't play the drums, yet this movie made me feel like those three things were the most important things in the world. I left the theatre after seeing "Whiplash" feeling upbeat, excited, and triumphant, and I walked back to the bus stop with a skip in my step. I loved the way that Andrew (Miles Teller) placed success above everything else in his life, and how his ambition drove him towards self-destruction. I loved how Terence (J. K. Simmons) unashamedly tried to get the best out of his students and how he put this ahead of their emotional and even physical well-being. I just enjoyed everything about the movie, and personally I liked both of the leading characters for their ruthlessness and their drive.
I'll admit that my feelings towards "Whiplash" are probably a bit over the top, because it isn't the most grand movie in terms of spectacle, and it isn't particularly surprising in how it tells its story, but there's just something great about it. If I see the DVD when I'm out shopping it makes me smile, and when I think back to seeing it at the cinema I remember just how much I enjoyed it. I loved it, I connected with it, and it was utterly memorable.
https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/whiplash/
"Birdman" is flawless in basically every way. If this list was designed to state the 'best' films of 2015 then I suppose it would have to be at the top for its technical achievements. Nevertheless, I don't think that writing a list like that would actually be a fair reflection of my opinions, or be useful in any way. I have no authority to decide which films should be seen as the best; I don't know what the best film of the past year was outright because, at the end of the day, I haven't seen everything! It isn't up to me to decide what makes a movie objectively better than hundreds of others, so that isn't the purpose of my writing this list.
Even if "Birdman" is the best film of 2015, I can say with confidence that it isn't my favourite. I liked it a lot and I found it very enjoyable to watch, which is why it's so high on this list, but I loved the three movies I've placed above it substantially more. The social commentary that "Birdman" presents is at times hilarious, and when you couple that with fantastic performances from Edward Norton and Michael Keaton it's hard not to admire the film, but I didn't have as good a time watching it as I did my top three.
https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/birdman/
Star Wars : The Force Awakens
The last film I saw in 2015 also happens to be one of my favourites. As a starting point I should say that I'm not actually a massive "Star Wars" fan, so my feelings towards this film aren't the result of bias. I like the series, I appreciate its influence on pop culture, but for me there's nothing about "Star Wars" that makes me feel the sense of wonder that I do when I think about something like "The Lord of the Rings". However, I loved "The Force Awakens", and I thought it had a sense of fun that's rare to find in modern cinema.
The way that J. J. Abrams managed to tell a new story whilst keeping a sense of familiarity was admirable to say the least, and on top of that the characters that we're going to see again moving forward such as BB-8, Rey (Daisy Ridley), Finn (John Boyega), and Poe (Oscar Isaac) were all instantly memorable and likeable. Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) was also suitably detestable as the villain of the piece, and I'm looking forward to seeing his evolution as a character in the next film.
The only thing that perhaps lets "The Force Awakens" down is the fact that for me it was slightly too influenced by Disney, in that at certain points the action felt cartoonish and characters didn't seem as though they could possibly be in genuine danger. Still, that's not really something new for "Star Wars", and it's not as if the stakes weren't raised at important junctures. All in all, I thought this movie was an excellent way to keep existing fans happy whilst also bringing a new generation of movie-goers to the party, which is exactly what the doctor ordered.
"Straight Outta Compton" is as visceral and pulsating as the music that inspired it. The film begins with the members of N.W.A struggling to deal with life in Compton, mixed up in violence and dealing with police brutality, and this informs the events which follow. Starting in this way allows the audience to empathise with the characters and understand their actions, and it made every word that the group uttered whilst on stage feel that bit more meaningful; when the group performed 'Fuck Tha Police' I could understand the reason why it was written in the first place, and this gave me as an audience member an emotional connection to the song's lyrics.
One of the major issues with "Straight Outta Compton" is that it leaves out certain significant moments in its character's lives, such as Dr. Dre's altercation with Dee Barnes, but for me this wasn't really a problem. History is told by winners, and at the end of the day this film was funded by Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, and a few others. It isn't their priority to show themselves in a damaging light; they're businessmen and they want to promote both themselves and their music, past and present. The best way to do that is with a movie which glorifies their lives. I personally don't have an issue with that because "Straight Outta Compton" is just a movie; it's designed to entertain and to explore a certain narrative, it isn't a documentary.
With that said, I think this is most definitely one of the most entertaining movies of 2015, and I also think that the performances from the entire cast were excellent. There's very little to dislike, and despite the fact that it's quite excessive in length, I didn't want it to end.
https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/straight-outta-compton/
"It Follows" isn't perfect, I want to make that clear. The story and even its basic premise can be scrutinised given enough thought; the creature which plagues the protagonists is meant to walk towards them relentlessly, and it seems as though that's all it can do, or else it would just kill its targets as quickly as possible. However, at many points in the film the creature demonstrates that it can actually do a variety of things – it appears on a roof, it crawls, and it shows that it's physically strong. Still, there's a reason that the creature spends most of its time 'following' the heroes of the piece, and it's this reason, along with the sheer brilliance of the idea behind the film and a wonderful score, which makes "It Follows" my favourite movie of 2015.
I know that a lot of people take issue with this film because they want answers – they want to know what the creature is, what its motivations are, and how Jay (Maika Monroe) could possibly defeat it. I get that. Nonetheless, bringing up that very issue is in itself missing what is so bloody awesome about this movie! There are no answers in "It Follows", not for the audience and not for the characters. They're constantly being chased by something that they will never understand, something which is completely unknown to them. They'll try to avoid it, and at various junctures they'll succeed, but ultimately it will catch up and they will lose. That's life, and that in my eyes is exactly what this film is really about (well, that and sexual vulnerability, but we aren't in film class and I don't plan on writing an essay here).
No one can cheat death, and it is always there behind us, no matter what we do. The creature in this movie is much the same; it lurks in the background as our protagonists try to live their lives, and no matter where they go or what they do it will always be there. It won't do anything spectacular to catch them, at least not on a regular basis, but when they slip up it will appear. That's why this movie is so goddamn scary, and it's why I couldn't stop thinking about it after seeing it at the cinema.
"It Follows" really has stuck with me, and I think it always will; it's probably my favourite horror movie of all time, which is saying something because I really do love a good horror film. Not only that, but I play the game that Jay and Hugh (Jake Weary) play at the beginning of the movie in my head all the time; I survey a crowd and think which person I would like to be, and then the thought of the horrible creature pops into my head and I feel nervous. I even look around when I'm walking around town and think what it would be like if there really was someone following me, glassy eyed, creeping ever closer. I'm not looking around in fear, nor do I actually expect to see someone there doing anything creepy, it's just that because of how much this film affected me I feel the need to look.
I just love "It Follows", and I'd defend it to the death despite its inconsistencies. Last year when I wrote my list of favourite films I knew that in my mind "Gone Girl" had to be at the top, and I was comfortable with making a case for it, but I didn't feel passionate about it. With this movie I really do, and although I know that there are people who live in the same house as me that think that it's utter crap, it doesn't change my opinion. If you haven't seen it then I would recommend that you give it a chance, but make sure to leave the light on and lock your door afterwards!
https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/it-follows/
The Oscars 2015: Predictions
Alejandro G. Inarritu, American Sniper, Ben Affleck, Best Actor In A Leading Role, Best Actress In A Leading Role, Best Animated Film, Best Picture, Big Hero 6, Birdman, Boyhood, Bradley Cooper, Channing Tatum, Chris Pratt, Cinema, Eddie Redmayne, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Ethan Hawke, Fantastic Four, Feast, Felicity Jones, Film, Foxcatcher, Gone Girl, How To Train Your Dragon 2, J. K. Simmons, Jake Gyllenhaal, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffallo, Medium, Michael Keaton, Mike Shiner, Miles Teller, Movie Review, Nightcrawler, Patricia Arquette, Richard Linklater, Riggan Thomson, Rosemund Pike, Stephen Hawking, Steve Carell, Still Alice, The Lego Movie, The Oscars, The Theory of Everything, Whiplash, Wild
via passaronreview.files.wordpress.com
There are a lot of different awards at The Oscars, and plenty of interesting topics for discussion. However, I don't intend to cover them all, because frankly I don't have much insight to offer into things like Sound Mixing or Costume Design. Therefore, I'm going to stick to the staples of the show, and hopefully get a few things right, whilst saying why I think that they're probably wrong.
via blogs-images.forbes.com
There are a lot of good films in this category, but for me there are only two that are in the running to win the award. Those two movies are "Birdman" and "Boyhood". Now, the fact that I think that one of these two movies will win the award does not mean that I agree that either one should, and in fact, I wouldn't choose either of them to win. If this were completely up to me, (alas, it isn't), the two films in the running would be "The Theory of Everything" and "Whiplash", and ultimately "Whiplash" would come out victorious.
However, taking my preferences out of the equation, I believe that "Boyhood" will win the award, simply because of the level of ambition involved in its creation, and the fact that the idea of shooting a movie across a twelve year time span didn't completely fail. As far as movies go this one was a risk, and just to have finished it with a decent level of quality is probably enough for it to get the nod.
If it were up to me we'd all be a lot less sentimental and more cutthroat about these decisions, but that isn't how I think this will go.
What I think will win – "Boyhood".
What I want to win – "Whiplash".
via tasteofcinema.com
Again, I feel that there are only two real contenders for this award, and those people correspond to the films I previously mentioned. Richard Linklater ("Boyhood"), and Alejandro G. Inarritu ("Birdman"), are the only people in this category that I consider to have a chance at winning. I think that for this category that's more than fair, because they both went above and beyond in order to create films that are as close to art as you can get, and they achieved a lot just by making passable movies. "Boyhood" was shot over 12 years and Linklater had to keep his actors motivated, as well as make sure that the movie felt as though it was progressing as time passed. Furthermore, he managed to basically teach a child actor the trade as time went on, which is an incredible undertaking, because if the boy couldn't hold his own then the film would've been a disaster.
Inarritu, on the other hand, created a film with incredible care and precision, making it feel as though you were really watching a person's life fall apart in front of your eyes. He let us peek behind the curtain and see into the mind of an actor, and he also explored what it is to be successful in this world, questioning our existence through Riggan Thomson's (Michael Keaton) quest for recognition. The movie was filmed as though it was one continuous shot and this was executed perfectly, which was quite amazing.
So, those are the two options as far as I'm concerned, and actually I think that Linklater should win. If he does I'd like "Birdman" to win Best Picture, because I think for Inarritu and his team to not be recognised would be an absolute travesty.
Who I think will win – Richard Linklater.
Who I want to win – Richard Linklater.
This category is as close to a sure thing as you can get at this kind of ceremony. If anyone other than Eddie Redmayne wins this award then frankly the whole thing will be a joke! His only competition is Michael Keaton, who admittedly was good in "Birdman", but his performance in that film doesn't hold a candle to Redmayne's in "The Theory of Everything".
Redmayne's performance was careful and moving, he made the movie what it was, and without him it simply wouldn't have worked. He was playing a real person, so he had to be considerate in his performance and make sure not to offend, and he also had to maintain a contorted body position in some very emotional scenes, which he did, whilst delivering his lines perfectly. He did everything right, and at the end of the day his job was a lot more difficult than Keaton's in "Birdman".
Keaton put his soul in front of the camera for "Birdman", he gave it everything and he delivered in a big way, showing no shame. However, he could relate to the character and the world he was in, and he didn't have to do anything special in the movie. By contrast, Redmayne was playing a character with a serious disease, that he doesn't have, and he did so convincingly and powerfully. I personally don't see how that isn't more noteworthy and more impressive than anything that anyone in this category had to do.
The only other person that gave a performance that was even close to Redmayne's in the past year, in my opinion, was Jake Gyllenhaal in "Nightcrawler", but he isn't nominated so throw all your money on Eddie Redmayne for best leading man.
Who I think will win – Eddie Redmayne.
Who I want to win – Eddie Redmayne.
via darkhorizons.com
This is a difficult category for me to comment on, because sadly I haven't seen many of the films involved, and therefore I can't appraise all of the performances. I loved Rosemund Pike in "Gone Girl", I thought that she did the best job that she possibly could've done, and she made the movie a great experience for me. I chose "Gone Girl" as my favourite film of 2014, which shows just how good I think Pike's performance was, because she was the key factor in making that film spectacular. As a result, I want Pike to win this award. I want the film to get some form of reward for being genuinely superb, because it deserves something more than mainstream popularity. It was an awesome film, and while we're on the topic, I don't see how "Gone Girl" isn't better than "American Sniper", or why Ben Affleck has been totally ignored in the discussion for Actor in a Leading Role.
Nevertheless, I don't think my wish will come true. Julianne Moore has been getting all the plaudits in the run-up to these awards, and I expect that to continue. I haven't seen "Still Alice" yet, because it doesn't hit cinemas in England till the beginning of March, so I'm not able to say whether or not I agree with Moore's nomination. However, what I will say is that I tend to dislike her performances, so I will be intrigued to see the film and decide whether or not the praise is deserved.
Who I think will win – Julianne Moore.
Who I want to win – Rosemund Pike.
This is another category which contains varying degrees of quality, and I certainly don't think that it's an even playing field for those involved in the discussion. There are two people that I believe have earned the right to be talked about… J. K. Simmons and Edward Norton.
For me, Edward Norton gave the best performance in "Birdman". He stole the show from Michael Keaton in every scene they shared, and the only reason that I'm not flying the flag for him to win this award is that he just doesn't have enough screen time. His character isn't developed enough to beat out his main opposition, because once he's said his piece, Mike Shiner sort of disappears in "Birdman". After a certain amount of time he's no longer required to move the plot along, so his lines become less interesting and his time on screen becomes less frequent.
On the other hand, J. K. Simmons is everything for "Whiplash". Without his performance that film just wouldn't be the same, and that's the criteria by which I think this category should be judged. The movie was brilliant, and so was Miles Teller, but would it have been even half as good without Simmons as the sadistic conductor? I say no, and for that reason I think he deserves to win this award. In fact, I think he should be being considered in the Leading Role category, because he's one of two leading men in that movie. If Steve Carell can be nominated as a leading actor in "Foxcatcher" then I think that Simmons definitely could have been for "Whiplash, however, that's a debate for another day. For now I will simply say that J. K. Simmons should win, and I think he will.
Who I think will win – J. K. Simmons.
Who I want to win – J. K. Simmons.
This is another award which I feel a bit out of synch with, because I haven't seen all the films involved. I won't linger for too long on why I think Emma Stone should win, because I don't feel that she deserves to in an overly passionate way. I simply feel that she was one part of a wonderful movie, and that she performed her role perfectly. She was the mouthpiece for a lot of the interesting ideas in "Birdman", and she stood toe-to-toe with some very good actors, who gave great performances.
The reason that I don't think I need to argue vehemently for my choice here is that the argument for Patricia Arquette can be made in much the same way. Furthermore, she's a very capable actress and deserves her time in the limelight; I loved "Medium", (till the very last episode!), and she was a huge reason why. Therefore, I'm not going to soil her good name, and if she wins I will be very pleased for her.
Who I think will win – Patricia Arquette.
Who I want to win – Emma Stone.
Animated Feature Film
via howtotrainyourdragon.com
This is another frustratingly short discussion, because there's only one film that has any real chance of winning. "How To Train Your Dragon 2" will win this award, I would wager a lot of money on that fact. Everyone loves it, it's the safe choice, and it's a family friendly movie.
However, as far as I'm concerned it definitely shouldn't win. "Big Hero 6" is amazing! It's as good as it gets for an animated movie, it's well written, visually stunning, the characters are rich and likeable, the villain is exciting and has a great hook, and all in all its just fantastic. I loved every minute of that film and I wish that more people would be talking about it. I badly want it to win, because accolades mean that people start to take notice, and this film deserves more of a following. That's not to say that it doesn't have a lot of fans already, but I think that everyone HAS to see this film. It's incredible, and if there was any justice it would win (and it would face "The Lego Movie" as its main competitor)!
Finally, on a related note, I'd like to give a special mention to "Feast", which is an animated short film that was played before I saw "Big Hero 6". Obviously, the Animated Short Film category isn't one which I know much about, so I don't want to say which film I think will win, but I really loved this film. It was beautiful and moving in such a short space of time, and it deserves recognition. The animation style was great, and Winston (the canine main character) was adorable. It was a lovely way to ease me into seeing "Big Hero 6", and I enjoyed it very much.
What I think will win – "How To Train Your Dragon 2".
What I want to win – "Big Hero 6".
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Amazon Prime, Andrew Garfield, Batman, Birdman, Cinema, Comedy, DVD, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, England, Film, Lady In The Water, Lucy, M. Night Shyamalan, Michael Keaton, Movie, Movie Review, Naomi Watts, Netflix, Nightcrawler, Raymond Carver, Sky, Social Media, Spiderman, The Amazing Spiderman, The Amazing Spiderman 2, The Avengers, The Drop, The Guest, The Hulk, The Incredible Hulk, The Woman In Black, The Woman In Black : Angel of Death, Tom Hardy, Twilight, Twilight : Breaking Dawn, YouTube
via theferkel.files.wordpress.com
"Birdman" has enjoyed a hell of a lot of hype from various YouTube channels, websites, and magazines since its release, but as far as the general public is concerned here in England, it's nothing more than a momentary blip on their radar. Word of mouth hasn't spread very far, and I was astonished that one day after its release, at the biggest cinema in my city, it had just four showings over the course of the day. I understand that artistic films, which attempt to transcend any genre and present a social commentary, aren't for everyone, and it's perfectly understandable that the masses want to experience a kind of escapism when they enter a cinema. However, I have a serious issue with the fact that the cinema itself decided it should offer an average horror film like "The Woman In Black: Angel of Death" to the public at a frequent rate, whilst neglecting the kind of movie which deserves to be promoted.
This is a review of the movie itself, and I'll get to that, but there is a bigger issue which has been brought up by the way in which this film has been treated, and it's an interesting topic to explore in this review because the movie itself tackles issues that come up in the discussion. In recent times, ticket prices at cinemas have steadily increased, and the quality of films being shown (at least in my experience) has dwindled because interesting movies don't bring in a young audience. A lot of people I know don't really bother with the cinema anymore, simply because of how much it costs; they only go to the cinema when a well advertised film like "The Avengers" comes to theatres, and I think that's a worrying trend.
via pop-verse.com
In a few years time I believe that it won't be cost effective to distribute less grand movies (which can be genuinely remarkable) in cinemas, because all that matters is what attracts the target demographic, and small films don't compel movie-goers to fill seats. At the end of the day, people just don't have the funds to spend on films that haven't been affirmed as great to them a million times, so they won't take a chance on an indie film for the sake of supporting an industry which isn't central to their lives.
To a lot of people this might not seem like much of a problem, and obviously it isn't earth-shattering, but I do find it incredibly deflating as a person that rarely enjoys the kind of movies which I believe are becoming more and more prevalent. With services like Netflix and Amazon Prime becoming extremely popular (rightly so), it just won't make sense to distribute films like "The Guest", "Nightcrawler", "The Drop" etc., in cinemas, because they could easily gain more notoriety and revenue by being released at a designated time as a Netflix original, and they'd probably achieve greater publicity if they presented quality programming. Again, that seems okay, but while this is happening and Netflix is getting better and better, the price of subscription will increase, and eventually people won't see it as practical to use that either, meaning that these great movies won't be seen at all, and their value and beauty will be lost to the world.
My worry is this, if I'm right, there will come a point at which these movies, the ones I really love, won't actually get made. It won't be practical to show them in theatres, it won't be practical to watch them through a subscription service, and suddenly they'll only be seen by a handful of people on Movies24 on Sky! Obviously, there will always be directors and actors who value their craft and want to make fantastic works of art, but in order to get to that stage in their career these people will have to make a lot of choices which maybe they don't want to make, and they won't get the credit they deserve once they finally get to make the movies they love.
With all that being said, I can finally move onto "Birdman" and what it's actually about. Michael Keaton's character (Riggan Thomson) has been at the top of his industry, he's been the guy on lunch boxes, the action figure, but now he wants his life's work to be affirmed, and he wants to feel validated as a real actor with ability and credibility. The film chronicles his attempt to gain notoriety as a serious actor, through a stage production of Raymond Carver's "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love", which he stars in, writes and directs. Whilst all this is going on, Thomson is also losing his mind and becoming more and more consumed by the fictional titular character's voice in his head, so much so that he begins to believe himself to be capable of his former character's superpowers.
It's an interesting premise, not just because it allows for a critique on actors, critics, film, the superhero genre, and the general search for success we all go through, but also because it allows for a wonderful character study, which brings the best out of Michael Keaton. Another interesting feature of this film is that three of the main cast have themselves been a part of superhero movies in the past, and therefore they bring a real insight to their roles. Michael Keaton starred as Batman back in the late 80's and early 90's, Edward Norton played the Hulk in "The Incredible Hulk" in 2008, and even more recently Emma Stone fell from grace both figuratively and literally as Gwen Stacy in "The Amazing Spiderman 2". Due to how detailed and well thought out this movie is, you have to think that casting actors that could relate to Riggan as a character must've been a conscious decision, which is just brilliant, and I'm glad that it paid off so handsomely.
via wordlessmusic.org
Despite the fact that Riggan's situation, and the flawed nature of each supporting character, makes for a dark and slightly unnerving experience, the movie still manages to maintain a sense of fun and bring genuine laughs to each scene. It doesn't come across as overly preachy, and you don't feel as though the director suffers from delusions of grandeur, as you might when someone like M. Night Shyamalan makes a film in which he plays a writer being oppressed by an evil critic ("Lady In The Water").
One of the most baffling things I witnessed whilst watching this film wasn't seeing Edward Norton put up his dukes wearing only his underwear, or seeing Michael Keaton (also in his underwear) levitate, rather, it was seeing two people walk out after about 40 minutes from the corner of my eye. Now, I don't want to make assumptions because they may well have had a very valid reason for doing so, but if they did walk out because they felt that this movie wasn't worth their money then I am truly astounded. I sat through "Lucy", a film which I consider to be absolute nonsense, and I have only ever walked out of a movie once ("Twilight: Breaking Dawn – Part 1" for anyone whose interested); even then I was conflicted. This movie is worth every penny of the ticket price, and I would recommend that anyone with a spare couple of hours on their hands go see it, or if that is no longer possible buy it when it comes out on DVD, because it is definitely worth your time.
via cc.tvbs.com.tw
The film has some of the best performances from an ensemble cast that I have seen in recent times; no one in this film is what I would consider to be a weak link, even though the accolades and special mentions are all being heaped on Edward Norton and Michael Keaton. Keaton is the standout in this movie, it has to be said, and he shows no shame as Thomson, giving a performance that is both tragic and hilarious. In one moment he will slip into an angry existential crisis, and in the next he'll smoke half a joint which has been left out by his daughter. He has a wonderful script to work with, but even so, he brings a depth to the character that's truly admirable, and makes the most of every scene. Norton is brilliant as Mike Shiner, a self-righteous actor who believes the stage is his home, and is at times far too believable. He's the complete opposite of Riggan as a character, not caring what anyone thinks of him, full of self-assurance, he controls the screen whenever he's on it, and steals a lot of scenes from Keaton.
The cinematography is excellent in this movie, as I'm sure you'll know if you've heard anything at all about it, and it really does feel like the director has achieved something with "Birdman". I'm not an expert on cinematography or direction, but it's obvious even to me that this is quite special in terms of how the movie has been filmed. "Birdman" is shot in such a way as to give the illusion that it is almost all one continuous shot, and this is done in a truly seamless way. This is not only noteworthy because of the unique aesthetic that it brings to the movie, but also because it forces you to engage with the world and with the characters; you feel as though you're just following them around in their exploits, witnessing their everyday trials and tribulations, and you can really get behind them when you feel that you're right there with them. It also adds to the feeling that you're peering behind the curtain, gaining insight into an actor's mind, and seeing the problems with both the industry and the people in it. It's a wonderfully ambitious way to shoot a movie, and it's flawlessly executed here.
via columnf.com
The script is fantastic, and even though there are scenes in which the dialogue is very complex and verbose, it's still believable because of the context in which the conversations are taking place and because of the intelligence of each character delivering the lines. I particularly enjoyed an interaction between Riggan and his daughter (Emma Stone), in which she brutally puts him in his place regarding his lack of value in the grand scheme of things, as well as explaining the fact that human life isn't as significant as we all want to believe it is. Not only was it very poignant, given the state of today's society, in which both people and objects disappear into insignificance each time the next best thing steps into the limelight, but it was also very well delivered, as Stone was extremely emotional in how she said her piece. There was no part of me that was thinking of her as an actress at that point, she was just the character to me, and that's always great to see.
Stone acts as the mouthpiece for this kind of idea throughout the film, as she references Riggan's unwillingness to be a part of social media and his ignorance towards the fact that society is leaving him behind, but even as she tells foreboding tales of humans not mattering in the universe, it's clear that she has a slight obsession with herself and her own ideals, which suggests that she's not quite as convinced with what she's saying as she would like to portray. I only say this because it highlights two things; the first is that through the performances and the script these characters have been given a number of layers which are up for interpretation and well developed. Second, what these characters stand for and what this film really wants to put across to its audience will be talked about for a long time, which is testament to this film's overall quality; there isn't one way to explain what "Birdman" is 'about', it's not black and white, and it's all the better for that fact.
I have very few issues with this film. For me, it deserves all the praise it's getting, but I still didn't enjoy it as much as I had hoped I would, given all the buzz around it from the media. I'm not part of the world that this movie explores, but those who are assessing the film for major publications are an integral part of it, and so they will connect with it to a greater extent. I'm not saying that this kind of connection to the material should ever be a prerequisite for connecting to a movie, because that's simply not the case, but I feel that in this instance it did restrict my enjoyment slightly, and I also think that this is one reason why the film has been so well reviewed. I acknowledge the technical achievements of "Birdman", and I really do like it, but it isn't the 10/10 I was expecting, at least not for me personally.
I also wasn't that enthused by the ending, although I'm sure that the ambiguity involved in the final scene will be one of the many things about this movie which film students will be studying for the foreseeable future. I understand the choice that was made, but if it was my decision I would've gone for a slightly different tone with the final scene, cutting things short by omitting it entirely, or ending the movie with what many in the audience might've expected to have happened when a certain character looked out into the distance.
"Birdman" is a great achievement technically, the cinematography is really impressive, the script is great, the performances are wonderful, and all in all there are very few faults. This movie is a magnificently realised artistic endeavour, and every choice was clearly carefully and meticulously made. However, I still didn't leave the cinema with that feeling of astonishment that I had expected given what I'd heard about it prior to seeing it. In giving this movie a score I'm putting across a verdict on how much I actually enjoyed the experience, and for that reason it probably isn't getting the number which it deserves for its quality, but a number is just a number and I'd be lying to myself if I gave it higher. This is a great movie on all fronts, but I wasn't riveted by the story, which is still important to me even if a movie is fantastically executed, and despite the unquestionable intelligence on show from all involved in the creation of "Birdman", I was ever so slightly underwhelmed given my grand expectations.