Showing posts with label Batman 3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Batman 3. Show all posts

Thursday, February 5, 2015

JIMBO GOES TO THE MOVIES: “Birdman” (2014) Review

It may not have a lot to do with 1960s cartoon heroes, but if you ask me, it’s still pretty damn good. 


As much as I generally despise both Tim Burton and the superhero subgenre,  Batman ‘89 remains one of my all-time favorite movies. In fact, it’s one of the few comic-booky movies -- along with Raimi’s second “Spider-Man” flick and the original “Robocop” -- that I would consider to be great movies independent of being great super-hero movies.

Probably my favorite scene in Batman ‘89 was the part where Bruce Wayne is about to tell Vicki Vale he’s Batman, and the Joker shows up and shoots him. There is this absolutely amazing part where Michael Keaton grabs a metal plate and just goes full-on ape-shit crazy, basically challenging the Joker to an ECW-style street-fight. That one scene, which couldn’t have been more than 15 seconds long, showed more nuance and psychological depth than anything we saw in Nolan’s trilogy -- without really saying anything, you realized Bruce Wayne was deep-down a goddamn lunatic, really no different than any of the costumed cretins he periodically kung-fus with.

The appeal of “Birdman” -- whose subtitle “Or, the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance” is easily the most pretentious thing in human history -- is that basically the entire film IS that one scene from “Batman” played over-and-over for two hours. From the get-go, we KNOW Michael Keaton’s character is *this* close to snapping, “Falling Down” style, and the entirety of the film is just him spiraling closer and closer to that inevitable smorgasbord of grandiose public madness.

That said, “Birdman” really isn’t a tense film. In fact, it has an almost “Fight Club” like sardonic vibe to it, the kind of “proud to be disenchanted” mentality that we really haven’t seen in cineplexes for a good decade or so. The recession, clearly, has reached its end -- consumer angst is once again fashionable at the movies.

“Birdman” is a very, very good film. Not a great one, I feel, but certainly way, way, WAY above average for the mainstream 2014 slate. And don’t even think about giving me that “this is independent art” bullshit -- if you know who the actors are and the budget was more than one million dollars (not to mention the film is actually accessible at theaters in parts of town that aren’t primarily populated by speed dealers), the film as a whole is about as “independent” as a Starbucks franchisee.

When I first heard about “Birdman,” my thought was the same as everybody else. “They’re really making a movie about the Hanna-Barbera character?” As it turns out, though, this here “Birdman” is an entirely different kind of “Birdman,” which makes me wonder about the insane copyright issues that the filmmakers surely had to trudge through. That, in itself, would probably make a movie better than 75 percent of the flicks that have been released over the last 12 months.

Obviously, the flick is a deconstructionist work. Thankfully, it’s a good deconstructionist work, which owes far more to “Synecdoche, New York” than it does “The Watchmen.” Since Beetlejuice himself is our leading man, the entire flick takes on this surreal, meta-vibe, with Keaton seemingly playing himself playing himself at times. There’s a quick throwaway scene where a fan wants a picture with him at a bar. Her kid asks her who he is, and he tells him “he used to be Birdman.” I imagine the exact same thing playing out in real life incessantly for Mr. Keaton -- his character’s career woes feel all-too-realistic at several junctures in the film.

Strangely enough, the film is wholly anchored around a production of Raymond Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.”  Even weirder, the in-movie adaptation takes quite a few liberties with the already obscure source material; sure, it can be read as a parallel for the plight of Michael Keaton’s washed-up main character, but at the same time, perhaps it is commentary on how modern film just can’t grasp the mechanics of the realist works of yore? A bitchy New York Times critic -- after watching Keaton literally blast his own nose off on stage -- ends up referring to the train-crash production as the first truly great work of “super realism.” This, in a film that features copious CGI and telekinesis as a prominent plot point.

As far as the general plot, it’s fairly straight forward. Keaton plays an old, balding action movie star, whose big franchise back in the day was “Birdman.” He’s been languishing in New York ever since the critical and financial disaster of the third film -- wink fucking wink, nudge godddamn nudge.

He lives in a scummy sweatbox above one of the most lackluster theaters in New York (it smells like “balls,” he tell us), periodically levitating in a Zen pose will waiting for his daughter (played by Emma Stone, who looks so gross in this movie that Helena Bonham Carters might think about suing her for stealing her shtick) to FaceTime with him. In a last ditch effort to salvage his career, he’s putting on his magnum opus play, which unfortunately, is hampered by a lack of decent supporting actors. After a disappointing fill-in gets bonked on the head by a stage light, Keaton’s agent -- played by Zach Galifinakis -- winds up landing one of the most celebrated actors in Hollywood (played by Edward Norton, who is every bit as ass-holish as he is in every other move he’s been in), who on the very first preview night, gets sloshed on gin for real and demolishes the set while everybody in the audience records it on their iPhones. Funnily, all of the other talents on his wish list -- from Michal Fassbender to Jeremy Renner -- are out making superhero movies in Hollywood.

So, Ed Norton and Emma Stone start kissing and junk, and the Naomi Watts and the woman who’s supposed to be Keaton’s girlfriend start making out, and Michael himself smokes marijuana and decides to trash his own room using psychic powers. By the way, did I mention that he hears the voice of his franchise character in his head sometimes, and periodically, he even jumps out in full superhero regalia?

At another show, Keaton ends up getting locked out of his own performance, and he has to march down Times Square (past a bunch of “Transformers” and “Spider-Man” doppelgangers, no less) to finish the show. Since it’s the year 2014, everybody uploads his embarrassing amble to YouTube. Afterwards, he gets rip-roaring drunk and tells a theater critic off, and has a hallucination that Birdman wants him to come out of retirement to make another “apocalypse porn” blockbuster, complete with rocket launchers and robotic bird beasts and lots of army men yelling and running over cars in tanks. Nobody, Birdman tells him, wants to see a bunch of “boring, talky, depressing” bullshit.

On the big opening night performance, Keaton decides to bring a real gun on stage, and he winds up shooting himself for real, while everybody applauds. The next day, there’s a global day of mourning, as he recuperates in a hospital bed. Following a final visit from his daughter, he decides to take Birdman’s advice and jump out of a window -- where, apparently, he flies away to his happy-ever-after ending.

My Score:


Three and a Half Tofu Dogs out of Four.

Helmed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu -- the same guy that did “21 Grams” and “Babel” -- “Birdman” is a really great “fuck you” to the modern Hollywood, dork-baiting anti-art motion picture. It’s clear that Inarritu feels utter contempt for stuff like “The Avengers,” and this is probably the finest reactionary work to the ceaseless “nerd culture” entertainment Wehrmacht to come down the pipes thus far.

It’s not to say that all of the movie is great, though. For me, that goddamn calypso drum soundtrack almost sunk the entire picture. Yeah, I know it was meant to symbolize tension and growing hostility and all, but since it plays literally throughout the entire movie, it’s undeniably annoying (although I did like the fact that they actually personified the soundtrack with a street musician character -- a nice little reconstructionist nod, if I may say so myself.)

That, and some of the contemplating scenes with Keaton do tend to drag a bit; thankfully, those scenes are few and far in between, though.

Needless to say, the acting is really great, and Michael Keaton probably deserves an Oscar for this one. While no one in the cast really comes close to matching what he accomplishes here, they ain’t too shabby, either -- especially Ed Norton, who comes off as the remarkable kind of sumbitch that only he can come off as.

I really haven’t seen much Oscar bait this year (and what little I have, I most certainly did not like) but I’d be quite surprised if “The Imitation Game” or “American Sniper” was as good as this flick. It’s not quite the acting tour de force that “12 Year a Slave,” “The Master” or “Dallas Buyers Club” were, and it’s nowhere close to reaching the comprehensive greatness of “Zero Dark Thirty,” “Beasts of the Southern Wild” or “A Separation,” but as a stand alone picture, “Birdman” is pretty dadgum fantastic … even if your theater is guaranteed to be filled with e-smoking douche bags, who will probably unanimously hail this one as the film of the year at the first annual Vapin’ Asshole Awards (I think it’s going to be telecast on Spike TV, if I am not mistaken.)

And you know the best part about all this? It really opens the door for even more anti-pop-culture existentialist deconstructionist works also named after antiquated cartoon characters -- if you think the work of Jodorowsky and Makavejev were something, just wait until you see “Jabberjaw.”

Monday, June 25, 2012

Why Burton’s “Batman” is Better than “The Dark Knight”

Five reasons why the original 1989 flick is a better movie than Nolan’s highly revered 2008 film



In a few weeks, the last installment of Christopher Nolan’s “Bat-Trilogy” will hit theaters, and conservative estimates have the movie making approximately infinity dollars at the box office this summer. Obviously, there is an absolute tsunami of hype behind the movie - not at all being fanned by the director himself, who said that the movie is the most epic film since the heyday of silent cinema - and since outdoing the last installment of the series (if not commercially, than most certainly critically) is about as likely as Mitt Romney naming a half-eaten turkey sandwich as his running mate, it looks like “The Dark Knight Rises” is absolutely destined to be a disappointment. And if you ain’t buying that, try reading some of the spoilers out there - apparently, the entire freaking movie is a blatant metaphor for the rift between capitalist bankers and the 99 percent…with Bane quite possibly serving as an oblique stand-in for a certain black dude in the White House.

Before we go any further here, I guess I have to say something that really shouldn’t have to be stated, but since people on the Internet like to go into tizzies over the most trivial of things, I suppose I have to. “The Dark Knight” was a fantastic movie. In fact, it was a great movie, one of the best comic book films ever and really one of the best action movies of the 2000s. That said, it’s greatness really can’t compensate for a lot of flaws the film had, especially now that we’ve had a good four years to look things over. In fact, now that I’ve had time to let everything sink in, I’m pretty damn certain that, as good as Nolan’s 2008 flick was, Tim Burton’s 1989 original is STILL a better overall picture.

Yes, Internet dorks, I said it. Not only is “The Dark Knight” not the best movie ever made (as a LOT of fan boys claim), I’m completely convinced that it’s not even the best movie featuring the Batman character. As a matter of fact, I’ve compiled five succinct reasons as to why “Batman” from 1989 is a better movie than the highly praised film from 19 years later…and I think even the most hardcore of Nolan fans can’t argue against these claims.


REASON NUMBER ONE: 
Michael Keaton was a way better Batman than Christian Bale will ever be. 

I don’t know if anybody has noticed it, but the character Christian Bale plays in “The Dark Knight” is essentially the same character he played in “American Psycho.” His intonation, his mannerisms, the way he interacts with the cast; essentially, he’s doing the exact same role, albeit with a lot less hooker-killing and a whole lot more groveling and running things over in space-age tanks.

The growling criticism is pretty played out by now, but Bale’s over-the-top chewing, grunting and generally sore-throated performance in “The Dark Knight” was, at the absolute best, distracting, and the absolute worst, completely self-parodying. Considering all of the muttering and snarling that he did in the movie, I’m kind of surprised Ricola didn’t sign on as a chief sponsor of “The Dark Knight Rises.”

Michael Keaton, obviously, brought a whole lot more humanity to the Batman character with his performance. Throughout “The Dark Knight,” I never really thought of Bruce Wayne as being this paranoid, hyper-traumatized nutso, which, really is the great, unheralded reality behind the Batman character: the dude’s a freaking psychopath. With Keaton, you could feel a palpable sense of insanity, this pulsating undercurrent of flat out lunacy pretty much every time he was on screen. Bale’s performance, however, turned the character into a figure that was WAY less amoral, essentially painting the character as a self-righteous messiah as opposed to some crazy ass rich dude with a lot of weapons. Bale’s Batman, you saw as this almost deified hero, whereas with Keaton’s Batman, you saw the character as this obsessed guy on a power trip, making the figure almost as horrifying as the Joker. Not only was Keaton’s performance as Bruce Wayne more intricate and complex, it was a far more interesting take on the character than what we saw in “The Dark Knight.” Which, in turn, brings us to a statement that might just prove mildly controversial…

REASON NUMBER TWO:
Jack Nicholson’s performance as the Joker was truer to the comics than Heath Ledger’s. 

At this point, it seems almost sacrilegious to say anything negative about Heath Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight” - which isn’t at all ironic, considering the hissy fits fan boys threw when it was announced that he would be playing The Joker to begin with.

Like everybody else, I though Ledger’s performance was very, very good. Unlike a lot of people, however, I quickly realized that Ledger’s Joker was, in essence, nothing more than a slight tweaking of Alex DeLarge and Sid Vicious - compare Ledger’s performance in “The Dark Knight” with Gary Oldman’s in “Sid and Nancy" or check out “A Clockwork Orange,” and you will see EXACTLY where the inspiration for his performance stems from.

That, and Ledger’s Joker really wasn’t all that comparable to the Joker presented in the Batman comic books, either. The intrinsic beauty of the character is the inversion of the intrinsic beauty of the Batman character - whereas the hidden reality behind Bruce Wayne is that he’s genuinely insane (and doesn’t realize it), the hidden reality behind the Joker is that he knows he’s incredibly intelligent and, compared to most of the people in Gotham, quite stable-minded. You never really got that with Ledger’s performance, but you sure as hell get it with Jack Nicholson’s, who played the character as an egotistical - and brilliant - criminal mastermind that knew how to bend the public’s support to him instead of Batman and the police force. I’m not necessarily saying that I thought Nicholson’s performance was better than Ledger’s, but this much is absolutely incontestable: Nicholson’s performance, no matter how you slice it, was much, much closer to the comics than what we saw out of Ledger in “The Dark Knight.”

REASON NUMBER THREE:
“Batman” embraced the inherent goofiness of the concept and STILL managed to be a more believable movie than “The Dark Knight.”

The next time someone calls a Nolan Bat-movie “realistic,” I’m going to punch a wall. Let’s summarize “The Dark Knight,” shall we? A really, really rich dude - with weaponry and technology he stole from the military - appoints himself as protector of New York City (while wearing S&M bondage gear, no less) and does battle with a homeless dude dressed up like a clown, who is somehow able to take an entire metropolitan area hostage using a workforce comprised primarily of escaped mental institution patients. Clearly, this is something we see every time we turn on the evening news, isn’t it?

I’m certainly not the first person out there to say, hey, maybe the plot devices in “The Dark Knight” were just a little unrealistic. For example, just how in the hell did The Joker manage to plant twenty gajillion tons of explosives in the basement of a hospital without ANYBODY noticing? For that matter, how exactly did he manage to rig two ferries (generally, government property that’s prone to extremely thorough inspections, several times a day) to explode? Did the shipmen just sort of forget to check the ship’s hull that afternoon or something?

Burton’s “Batman,” unlike “The Dark Knight,” is a movie that doesn’t try to abandon its comic book roots, and fully embraces the total absurdity of the premise. And even though “Batman” wasn’t constructed as a “this could potentially happen” story, it still somehow managed to provide a more believable narrative than Nolan’s flick. When, precisely, was the last time a single person managed to ensnare an entire U.S. city in the grips of panic via threats of mass terrorism? In the real world, The Joker would have had the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms right outside his hideout the week after he robbed that bank, ready to David Koresh his ass as soon as the ATF noted movement through their night vision goggles. Oddly, it’s The Joker’s much more “comic-ish” plot in the first “Batman” movie that gives us an actual, real world precedent. Poisoning the city’s food supply? Using nerve gas to wipe out massive throngs of people? Hell, even the idea of using balloons as weapons of mass destruction? Not only are such actions more believable than the scenarios presented in “The Dark Knight,” all of the above instances actually HAVE happened before. A dude put cyanide in Tylenol bottles in Chicago, a bunch of crazy ass Japanese nationalists tried to launch a chemical attack on subway riders and I’ll let you do your own research on “the fire balloon” programs of World War II. Of course, there are some aspects of “The Dark Knight” that are very much rooted in reality, but as we will soon see, that’s not necessarily because the producers wanted to make a more “believable” film - it’s because they wanted to promote their own political agendas.

REASON NUMBER FOUR:
Burton’s movie wasn’t bogged down in all of the socio-political commentary that Nolan’s film was. 

If you didn’t read “The Dark Knight” as a clear parable for the “War on Terror,” you must have been accidentally watching “Mamma Mia!” instead. Clearly, Nolan intended for The Joker to represent any number of Islamic fascists, most notably the recent departed OBL. A guy, using suicidal human bombs, that targets major metropolitan infrastructure, who frequently records videos of murder and mayhem and sends it to U.S. media? Yeah, that doesn’t sound familiar. At all.

The really controversial aspect of “The Dark Knight,” however, seems to be that the entire movie serves as an  apologist statement in support of the Bush Administration, with a band of super-rich, super-secretive, self-ordained “protectors of the people” deciding to do away with that whole “civil liberty” thing and do whatever it took to eliminate Gotham’s terrorist threat. Suspension of habeas corpus, interrogations that border on torture (you know like, having your head slammed against a table by a dude dressed up like a rubber owl), and wiretapping an entire city - or we talking Bruce Wayne here, or the NSA? 

And don’t even get me started on the parallels the movie makes between Harvey Dent and a certain guy who may or may not be President right now. There is absolutely ZERO doubts as to whether or not Nolan intended to make a political statement with “The Dark Knight,” which is yet another reason why I prefer Burton’s generally agenda-less 1989 flick to the later offering. If given the choice between watching “homeland security” agitprop or Bob the Goon vandalize modern art while Prince plays in the background, I think you definitely know which one I’m going to vouch for.

REASON NUMBER FIVE:
There was never a VHS release of “The Dark Knight,” so you never got to see awesome, ephemeral stuff like this…


This is sort of an off-kilter reason, but I stand by it. While both films resulted in a pop cultural sensation, I’d have to say that “Bat-Mania” circa 1989 was way, way more enjoyable than “Dark Knight-Mania” circa 2008. If you look at how the two films influenced American culture, I think it’s a downright obvious assertion that Burton’s film had the greater - and most definitely, more prolonged - influence on Western entertainment.

It’s really hard to overstate how important “Batman” was. Not only did the movie basically create the summer blockbuster (an idea that had been dead since “Jaws”), the mega-multimedia-bombardment campaign behind the film totally revolutionized the concept of marketing in entertainment. Really, Burton’s film was only a sliver of the total product experience - after watching the movie, you could go play your kick-ass NES game, eat a bowl of your kick-ass Bat-Cereal and if you were lucky, pick up a Bob the Goon action figure on your way home from the Revco. Hell, a year after the movie came out, the influence was still pretty palpable - there were Batman jokes on “Tiny Toon Adventures,” you could watch Batman hawk Diet Coke over and over in the intro to the VHS version of the movie and in a few years time, we were given “Batman: The Animated Series,” - arguably the single greatest animated program of the last 25 years. Needless to say - that’s an absolute shit-ton of influence for one movie to have on contemporary culture.

The extent of “The Dark Knight” influence on pop culture, I am afraid, was rather limited, and for the most part, annoying as all hell. Really, the greatest impact the movie had was a two-fold celebration of the Joker - first, as Heath Ledger’s posthumous performance (as before, not really ironic considering the outrage of the Batman fan boys when the casting announcement was made), and secondly, as this made-for-the-Hot-Topic-crowd anti-hero counter-cultural brand name. Whereas “Batman” gave us a renaissance in multimedia experiences, the “Dark Knight” gave us nonstop Internet memes and a pseudo-idol for dumb teens that like to commit petty vandalism.

That, and the cultural reactions to both films were quite drastic. Compare the two news reports below, and tell me which one sounds like it created a more entertaining, enjoyable social phenomenon:

What a mass-media social phenomenon resembles - 1989

What a mass-media social phenomenon resembles - 2008

So, in 1989, “Batman” produced this mass-media, super-spectacular trans-cultural sensation the likes of which have never been seen before, and in 2008, “The Dark Knight” gave antisocial nerds something to obsess over and revere, while the rest of normal America scratched their collective chins and wondered how nobody else noticed that the movie bore so many resemblances to “Heat.”

“The Dark Knight,” while still a fantastic movie, was obviously insanely overrated by fan boys and critics alike, with most filmgoers overlooking its generally uncreative narrative and plot structure. That, and let’s just come out and say it: had Heath Ledger NOT died during filming, there’s no way in hell his performance would have been vaunted as much as it was, and that Oscar win was most likely just an opportunity for the Academy to capitalize on a maudlin moment.

Every time “The Dark Knight” is shown on cable, I skip it. But every time “Batman” is on? I just have to watch it. There’s something so fun and free-spirited about the flick, and it’s certainly a more enjoyable motion picture than Nolan’s movie. Like “Willy Wonka,” Burton’s movie is the kind of flick you can watch over and over, and still walk away with a smile.

Almost a quarter century later, “Batman” is every bit as fun and captivating as it was in ‘89. And just four years down the road, “The Dark Knight” is already showing signs of temporal rust. Will we be able to look back on Nolan’s movie, 25 years from now, with the same amount of timeless splendor we have while watching Burton’s movie today?

That, my friends, I highly, highly doubt.