Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

**** out of ****

Alejandro González Iñárritu's Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is a zany dark comatic-dramedy about the crisis of a movie star trying to find a prestigious comeback in the spotlight of Broadway theater. He is played by none other than Michael Keaton, and in this universe, he is best-known as the guy who "used to be Birdman."

As chaos plagues his production, he drifts in and out of reality as a shadow version of himself, resembling this superhero he once played, tries to instill a sense of delusional confidence. Tonally, I would compare this film to P.T. Anderson's Punch Drunk Love.

Meanwhile his friends, family and colleagues follow him around the theater. His recovering addict daughter, played by Emma Stone, works in the theater as his angry personal assistant. Zach Galifianakis is his nervous Lawyer. Edward Norton -is a highly praised actor with a terrible reputation for his backstage behavior. Naomi Watts is an actress coping with the anxiety of her broadway debut. Amy Ryan plays his ex-wife, who visits occasionally. 

Behind all the madness of the content, there is an engaging method that makes it all worthwhile. The bulk of it is featured in TWO TAKES. The camera drifts in and out of rooms, buildings and even implies time-transitions without cuts. Every actor remembers their lines and hits their marks reminding us of the urgency in theater. 

This is not just the directorial ambition of Iñárritu, who is possibly daring the cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki to outdo the work done for their friend, Alfonso Cuarón with Gravity and Children of Men -or capture the hallucinatory terror of the drifting perspective seen in Enter the Void -or even approach the monumental all-in-one-take movie, Russian Ark. He's trying to make the anger, anxiety and hilarity effective. It really works.

Dear White People

*** out of ****

Like Do the Right Thing, Dear White People is an intelligent exploration of real race issues in today’s America, but discusses the sensitive material in the safety zone of satirical comedy with a slightly surreal detachment from reality.

First-time writer/director Justin Simien made a big impression with the film at this year’s Sundance film festival, winning a Special Jury Prize for Breakthrough Talent. The attention is well deserved and people should be open to seeing it regardless of their ethnicity.

The reaction, “Why doesn’t someone make a ‘Dear Black People’?” has been uttered by certain white people upon hearing this film’s title. Didn’t D.W. Griffith make that film in 1915? Besides, the movie’s title is trying to stir things up all by itself. The actual movie is a reaction to the ridiculous denial that racism is still prevalent today, but its voice is not particularly angry.

The principal black characters do not share a common perspective on their racial identity while residing in a mostly-white fictional ivy-league university. They range from a female radio D.J. -with a militant nit-picky attitude, to a sheepish gay nerdy guy -who senses intolerance from his fellow black students but feels like a token in white circles. The story covers many issues, such as the dilution of minority culture on campus -through randomized housing and openly offensive activities happening in today's institutions of higher education -like primarily white fraternities hosting a blackface party. This movie could have gathered enough material for a TV series.

Although, a T.V. show wouldn't have the same richness. This movie doesn’t have the aimless ease of a series with episodes to follow. It’s a structured and well-shot feature with a hypnotic quality. It’s not a preachy movie. It’s communicating ideas and trying to make points. Some work and some are pathetic misfires.

The bratty university president's son may be the embodiment of white ignorance and bigotry in this film, but the idea that he runs a satirical publication with the respect of other witty writers in Ivy League academia, feels rather preposterous. These characters all represent ideas, but I feel like there's a missed opportunity in this character, to show the closeted racism of those who rationalize their tendency to exclude.

In my opinion, this is a welcome return to the kind of thought-provoking African American cinema that found a big multi-ethnic audience in the nineties.

John Wick

**1/2 out of ****

John Wick is action for the sake of action. It’s 100 minutes of stupidly awesome combat sequences with a high body count. It’s a movie that knows it’s a movie with a Keanu Reeves that knows it’s a Keanu Reeves. In the nineties, stuff like this made big bucks but critics would have smeared it.

To my surprise this film is doing quite well in terms of critical response and is certified “fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes. John Wick has no lame connections to topical subjects, religious allegories, or heavy-handed statements. It takes full ownership of its ridiculousness. Maybe that’s why critics approve it.

After the first few minutes, you can roll your eyes as the quiet hero attends a funeral in the rain for his departed wife (Bridget Moynahan). He’s a man who’s lost everything he loves and the last thing that he needs is for someone to rob him of all he has left. Anyone who does so didn’t know with whom they were dealing.

YOU KNOW THE STORY! It doesn’t matter. The movie knows it. We know it. Keanu knows it! Let the bloodshed, cool cars, hot women, luxury hotel rooms, flying bullets, bloody daggers and underground neon-lit clubs (subject to massacre) all get their share of exhibition. Let’s not forget the vast amount of esteemed actors popping in to add some delightful personality to the film before they collect their paychecks.

The action and stunts are astoundingly well choreographed and deliver the goods for hardcore fans of the genre. The movie also has a running humorous element about the world of gangsters and hitmen having free reign to cause catastrophes, knowing that a well-paid clandestine clean-up crew will arrive to take care of the damage.

John Wick is in no way cinematic progress and I got tired of it about fifteen minutes before it ended –but I still owe it respect for not trying to con me into believing it has substance. I already saw Lucy earlier this year.

Fury

**1/2 out of ****

Fury is a World War II film about the crew of a U.S.Sherman Tank making their way through Nazi Germany. It stars Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Michael Peña, Shia LaBeouf and Jon Bernthal. The film is directed by David Ayer and like his End of Watch, it tends to have a rather confused voice. He likes to show us the life and work of tough guys from a perspective that is informed and mature at one moment, but then ridiculous and exploitative the next.

Fury may be an augmentation of Ayer’s strengths and weaknesses in one film. His cinematographer, Roman Vasyanov, goes for a comparatively grounded and rich aesthetic. The first shot of the film had my complete attention and respect. Some scenes, especially one set in the invaded home of a German woman, are full of the kind of lengthy awkward unpredictable tension you would expect to find in a John Cassavettes film. Most of the film’s acting is emotionally believable but there are a distracting amount of instances where contemporary language and modality feel very out-of-place for the nineteen-forties.

Some of the battle scenes are terrifyingly compelling, but they have the tendency to go overboard and the melodramatic score by Steven Price is no help. His contribution is a tacky contrast to such gritty and bleak material. I found myself wishing this movie had no music at all.

By the time it concluded with an unbelievable standoff and the stylized end credits were rolling, I knew that I’d been shown an idea of the nightmarish ugliness of war but I also felt as though I was exiting a deranged theme park ride.

The Best of Me

* out of ****

Was there any sincerity behind the making of this film? There must have been an ounce or two or it would have been one very interesting comedy. Alas, this is a romantic drama from a novel by Nicholas Sparks -and a bad movie for people who don’t know any better.

While directed by Michael Hoffman, who made the respectable 2009 film, The Last Station, The Best of Me has little to no personal touch. This is like a manufactured melodrama with clichés in all the typical places.

It follows the rekindled romance between two attractive people after their mentor passes away. The movie slowly explains what got in the way of their love during their youth and how fate has brought them back together.

At the beginning, the two lead characters are played by James Marsden and Michelle Monaghan. But they are soon to share the movie with their younger selves in flashbacks, played by Luke Bracey and Liana Liberato. I am hard pressed to think of another movie where I was more distracted by older/younger counterparts who look nothing alike.

This is only one of many elements, which makes it difficult to feel invested in the film’s characters. Their development is weak and the development for the film’s supporting characters is almost laughably nonexistent. Good people are good. Bad people are bad.

It’s set in a small Louisiana town where a young clean handsome man is the black sheep in a family of vicious lunatic drug-dealing rednecks. He is admired by a local rich girl whose family has little screen time, except for a scene late in the film where the father attempts to bribe the young man to stay away from his respectable daughter (Sigh).

Their reunion followed by a near-death experience provokes the Him to wonder if he is meant to be with Her. I understand the allure of mysticism in romantic dramas revolving around fate and coincidences. It’s the kind of escapism that fuels a good movie when conveyed on a subtextual level. However, when all that business is on the surface -when characters are openly talking about destiny like it's the main character in the film and I barely feel like I’ve gotten to know the real characters... I could care less what cosmic forces are looking out for the love between these two multi-cellular organisms.