BIG EYES. REVIEWED.

Big Eyes (2014)

Rating- 12A

Running Time- 1 hour 46 minutes

Directed by- Tim Burton

Written by- Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski

Big Eyes is the true story of a woman who painted portraits with big eyes who married a man who told big lies to get a big prize (money and fame), his betrayal made her wish he would big die and she began to big cry but not before saying her big byes and cutting all big ties. Now in Hawaii she became big wise and sued the big guy for all of his big lies, the jury ruled in her favour and she let out a big sigh.

The story of Margaret and Walter Keane is a fascinating one and this film presents it in a charming way but there were some scenes that detracted from the interesting nature of the overall piece simply because they were so dull. The reason for this is simple: there wasn’t enough content for a 105 minute long movie. The story may be intriguing but there just isn’t enough there for feature length film. I feel that the only way the film could have maintained consistent captivation is by straying away from fact and adding some fiction to it. Space Jam (1996) did this and I don’t think anyone can argue, with any real conviction, that it wasn’t anything but successful. The creators of Space Jam realised that, while the story of Michael Jordan retiring from basketball to become a baseball player only to then change his mind and go back to basketball is an interesting one it is not worthy of its own film, so naturally they added the Looney Tunes to the story and it became 88 minutes of pure inspiration and exhilaration. Big Eyes should’ve taken note.

But because of the lack of a sufficient plot the film relied heavily on the performances of its two leads and they didn’t disappoint. Amy Adams was brilliant; she managed to capture Margaret Keane’s assured love for art as well as her overall frailty as a person, which becomes more prominent as the film progresses. But, as in pretty much every film he’s been in, Christoph Waltz completely steals the show.

He continues to add life to a film that had all but run out of any meaningful story and goes some way to completely redeeming the film of all its faults with the final scene of the movie. Here he is at his comedic best as he insanely tries to defend himself in court against his wife in a futile attempt to maintain his false dignity.

In the end though, it is not enough to save the film from its faults and while it is entertaining in parts it is outweighed by the remainder that is little more than filler.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

BIRDMAN. REVIEWED.

Birdman (2014)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 1 hour 59 minutes

Directed by- Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Written by- Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo

Michael Keaton in a wacky costume and mask? That can only mean one thing!

Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah…

…Birdman?!

That’s right. Keaton plays a twisted version of himself in the form of Riggan Thomson, an actor famous for portraying a superhero who attempts to break away from his typecast by writing, directing and starring in a stage adaptation of Raymond Carver’s ‘What We Talk About When We Talk About Love’. Along the way he faces problems in the form of Mike Shiner (Ed Norton) – a super pretentious method actor brought in to play one of the show’s leads, his not-so-rehabilitated drug addict daughter (Emma Stone), a stubborn critic (Lindsay Duncan) with a mission to get the play cancelled and his own personal demons that take the form of his superhero alter ego: Birdman.

The first thing to point out is that the film is technically well made. Its fluid camera movements and consistent percussive soundtrack gives it a very holistic feel and serves to emphasise the frantic nature of the run up to the play’s preview showing. Its technical achievements are only overshadowed by the acting of all the main stars that gives life to the characters that, in the end, are the make and break of the film; if the characters didn’t seem authentic and real the film would have fell flat on its face due to its very character driven style.

But for me the film was more interesting than enjoyable. It was not a film where I was ever bored but I was rarely entertained; I watched with intrigue. The best moments of the film are the ones in which Thomson makes reference to the current state of superhero films in Hollywood and how they pale in comparison to the originals i.e. him. Obviously this is an amusing nod to Keaton as Batman but he was not the original Batman, Adam West was. I couldn’t help wondering what the film would have been like with West as the lead instead of Keaton. It would have definitely taken a completely different tone, probably one the director didn’t intend, but it would have made it a lot more humorous to say the least. Riggan’s emotionally unstable character would have seen much more real simply because of the way West naturally acts. The script wouldn’t need to change at all to accommodate him either and the thought of Adam West attempting to act in a serious, dramatic play is a thought that alone induces laughter. But that is just my wish and would perhaps work as a summer comedy movie but not a film released right in the middle of the Oscar season, so it would be harsh to judge the film based on that idea especially with how brilliant Keaton was in the role.

However, the film seems in many ways to me like a westernised version of Big Man Japan (2007) and both films are very similar in terms of quality as well: very average. The key difference between the two films lies in their respective endings. First of all, Birdman is without doubt, in my mind, a scene too long but despite what I feel the actual ending scene, more specifically the very last shot, gave me the initial reaction of a slightly amused smile. The more I think of it though, the more I can’t get my head around the ending, I have a few theories as to what it might mean but all have their flaws. There is nothing ambiguous about the end of Big Man Japan though and it did more than induce a smile; it made me laugh out loud. It ends on a delightful twist that is one of the best endings to a film in cinema history, despite the overall quality of the film not being that great. Perhaps comparing Birdman to an obscure Japanese film to make my final judgement on what many believe to be the one of the best films of the year is unfair…

…but that is what I’ve just done.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES. REVIEWED.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Rating- 12A

Running Time- 2 hours 24 minutes

Directed by- Peter Jackson

Written by- Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro

Whether you like the first two Hobbit movies or not, it is almost universally accepted that they are very much underwhelming compared to the Lord of the Rings films which they are inevitably likened to. In my opinion, the first Hobbit film was very slow starting but began to redeem itself towards the end, its successor was much better as the plot advanced in a much more progressive manner and the action set pieces were much more of what I had expected from the Hobbit films. I expected that this positive trend would continue and that the third film would be the best of the trilogy.

In short, I was wrong.

The trilogy as a whole suffers from the issue that many expected would be its main problem which is that they attempted to turn one book into three films. Because of this it is one story split into three which resulted in the first film being nothing but a first act, the second film – the second act, and the third film is most definitely a third act and solely a third act. This means that none of the films have a contained story which results in none of them being as satisfying as perhaps they could be.

The Battle of the Five Armies begins at a rapid pace. The cliff hanger at the end of the second film is resolved within minutes of the opening to this film and that then signals the beginning of probably the most tedious part of the film. It consists of various different parties (the men, the dwarves, the elves, the orcs… Gandalf) all constantly proclaiming words to the effect of ‘there’s going to be a war’. And then, with possibly the least surprising turn of events in cinema history, there’s a war.

The war? Ridiculous and too long. The battle scenes in The Lord of the Rings films were brilliantly executed. They were lively, action-filled and progressed the story all at the same time, this pales in comparison. It quickly devolves into a bunch of guys whacking each other and it not being clear who’s supposed to be fighting who and when a purpose is introduced so is Azog: The Pale Orc (Manu Bennet) which is, as the previous films indicated, only a bad thing.

This guy gives Marvel a run for its money in terms of terrible villains (and I mean that in the worst way possible). When he is first introduced in the Hobbit part one he came across as an overly CGI’d blob of an orc with a stupid, one-dimensional vendetta. I hoped at that point that he was just a ‘filler’ villain who was there to add danger to the film with Smaug the dragon not to be introduced until later in the story. So the fact that he is still a prominent part of this film and, as it turns out, the main antagonist of the entire trilogy, is frustrating to say the least.

After the battle eventually ends, so does the film. Well not really but there is not a lot of a conclusion after the fight, maybe a response to the complaints levelled at the final Lord of the Rings film that its conclusion was far too long. This film goes too far the other way in my opinion though and after spending almost eight hours following the journey of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) a hasty return to The Shire and a quick fade to the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring is less than satisfactory.

Defenders of the trilogy will say that it is unfair to compare them to the Lord of the Rings because they are two different stories that adopt different styles and that the Hobbit trilogy itself is a very good series of films. But, while I agree that overall it is a good trilogy of films, they invite the comparison and to be honest they don’t hold a candle to any of the Lord of the Rings films. If they didn’t want the comparison to be drawn they shouldn’t have made Peter Jackson the director, they shouldn’t have hired Howard Shaw as the composer, they shouldn’t have begun the trilogy with Ian Holme and Elijah Wood, they shouldn’t have included Legolas (Orlando Bloom) in a prominent role or Saruman (Christopher Lee), Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and the Nazgul in probably the best fight scene of the trilogy. It seems to me that they tried to recreate the magic of the Lord of the Rings but failed and have in the end only succeeded in reminding the audience of how much better they were by including all of the elements I have just listed.

So overall, this is the worst film of the three and therefore failed in saving a trilogy that was still very much redeemable. I had my doubts before the first film was released that splitting it into three films was a mistake and I am now adamant that I was right. It perhaps would have been too much of a task to condense it all into one film but it could have easily been a two-parter and I believe that it would have been a much more successful format.

Final Rating. Three Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

Email:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com