Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
72 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Deadpool (2016)
3 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
The best valentines gift from Marvel Universe, 18 February 2016

Deadpool is Marvel's the most entertaining film to date. Yes, we have seen cooler superheroes, better effects, more intense fight scenes and mind blowing CGI, but none of it succeeds to be as memorable as Deadpool's hilarious screenplay and Ryan Reynolds.

Reynolds is the most perfect casting not only in Marvel films but many many others I've seen in last of couple year. He steals every scene, where he talks, moves or gets naked.

The movie makers know that Deadpool is no Captain America or any similar franchise hero, but also they realize that even anitheroes can excite people. Consequently, Deadpool never takes itself seriously and it jokes the sh*t out of everything. Sometimes it may seem to be 'politically incorrect', too R rated but trust me, you'll never stop enjoying it.

6 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
She is painfully hilarious, 19 October 2015

My face muscles hurt after one hour constant laugh.

No matter how big fan of Amy you are, you still should appreciate her frank humor. I consider her self- defaming jokes to be a really funny way to talk about so many important issues and mostly the over judgment women are still facing.

Live at the Apollo is Amy's one of the bests. It combines old and the most hilarious jokes with the fresh ones and builds up in an hour long joy. The whole stand-up is exceptionally well written. But most importantly, Amy owns the audience, she keeps everyone on her side and makes people laugh about things, in other circumstances they would be grossed out about.

Live at the Apollo is something I am gonna rewatch many times, because it needs to be.

2 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
In your face, Interstellar! (or any other sci-fi this year), 13 October 2015

I always get excited for adaptations of my favorite books, just like I did last year. Gone Girl ended up to be my most favorite. Even further, The Perks of Being a Wallflower sneaked in my all time favorite list, just as I rewatched it multiple times.

The Martian turned out to be an amazing adaptation - as joyful and entertaining as Weir's brilliant work. In fact, I loved most parts of the book, because it was smart, with quirky humor and delightful main character. Andy managed to create the most realistic story about living on Mars, so realistic that you will never cast a doubt on anything he writes. Having said that, there were few parts where a though of skipping couple of pages crossed my mind. Anyways, I read all of it.

Shrinking this huge book to 141 minutes film is unimaginably hard but Ridley Scott did it. Luckily, he left out my least favorite parts of the book, like long travel to MAV. In the end he made one of the most enjoyable films of his carrier and directed Matt Damon to his best performance in years.

Speaking of cutting the film, the long time duo of Scott and film editor Pietro Scalia (who won his second Oscar for Ridley's Black Hawk Down) did an amazing job. Most scenes are so well edited that they take your breath away, especially in the final part of the movie, where a lot spinning and floating happens. For the sake of protecting you from spoilers, I will not breakdown each scene.

I had more expectations for cinematographer Dariusz Wolski, who shot beautiful Prometheus. I always think of sci-fi as a genre, where camera crew and special effect supervisors have enormous chance to invent something extraordinary, to go beyond the imagination and surprise the audience. Just like Emmanuel Lubezki did in Gravity. Despite some gorgeous shots in The Martian, there are few scenes which I can remember for a long time - one of them pictured above. I think that shot is just amazing, it is freakishly symmetrical. The line where board ends is like separator of two different worlds: cosmos and the earth. And the way colors interact with each other, ugh, can't even describe my feelings.

Cast that huge always works. But kudos to two times Emmy winner Nina Gold for such an amazing collaboration between A list actors. I am quite sure I will be speaking for everyone when I say that Matt Damon is the best Mark Watney we could have probably hoped for. He is naturally as charming as I imagined Watney while reading the book. I am not saying it because his ass popped in my face in 3D, but because he's got very likable face and voice and Damon nailed all the jokes. His portrayal of arrogant, straightforward, smart, optimistic and all positive astronaut proves Gold's phenomenal casting choice. Above of all it, every other actor is a perfect fit to their characters, but especially, Donald Glover whose few minutes on the screen as Rich Purnell is a moment of joy. In contrast with the book, his character was one of the most memorable ones in the movie.

When I left the cinema, there were few things I wished I remembered more vividly. One of those is music. Harry Gregson-Williams's original soundtracks neither impress nor stays memorable for a long time. I remember watching Interstellar and no matter how much you like the film, Hans Zimmer's music never leaves your mind. And I wished someone like him (is it even realistic?) composed for The Martian. It would have made the whole experience a lot more enjoyable. Music has a vital role in living through the film, especially in a (mostly) single character movie, where non verbal details express the verbal emotions. A good music could have made Mark Watney's experience both more dramatic and funny the same time.

I feel like I have to say few words about the outraging comparison to Interstellar, which is both unfair and incorrect. While Nolan told the story with superficial, yet complex and utterly boring science, The Martian looks like more practical survival guide for those stuck on Mars. It does not have a claim of solving all mankind problems, or exploring the human nature, or pursuing the destiny of persons, it merely tells a story of courage and dedication. In fact, the only common thing for both movies is a space and I'd be true to myself if I say that I enjoyed Ridley Scott's work a lot more.

To cut it short, The Martian is the most enjoyable blockbuster movie I've seen in 2015 so far. And people, who say that it is the best work for both Ridley Scott and Matt Damon in years, are absolutely right.

Trainwreck (2015)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Amy Schumer plays Amy from Inside Amy Schumer who plays Amy Schumer, 27 August 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

You are confused, right?

Well, try to watch Trainwreck and complain then.

While I absolutely understand the reasons for Schumer's success, I still believe that every her role should not be alike to Amy the comedian. I adore her stand-ups, her jokes, her quirky humor and disregard of political correctness. Having said that, I should admit, I enjoy Inside Amy Schumer a lot, but Trainwreck was too much.

I have the biggest concern about Amy's character, who is an exact copy of Amy we see on the stage or in Inside Amy Schumer. Even if we consider that this movie is about real Amy herself and somehow resembles her life or "life-style", there should be a way to make it work without reminding me every other joke I've heard on her stand-ups or TV shows. I don't mean it wrong, they are funny and painfully true, but I did not spend two hours just to rehearse them.

I should also confess that I loved seeing Ezra Miller here. Why this fellow can't make more movies?

To conclude, if you have not seen any other acts by Amy Schumer, I bet you will enjoy Trainwreck a lot. Otherwise, you will hear or experience nothing new.

44 out of 48 people found the following review useful:
Pure brilliance!, 10 June 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Episode "Demons" was the best one in my opinion for so many reasons. First of all, this is where most of characters start bounding with each other and the plot really started to make sense.

But most importantly, here the Wachowskis shoot the most intimate, beautiful, raw, bold and eye-pleasuring sex scene on TV. You just need to watch it. It is perfection how almost every character experiences each others arousal and how they "participate" in this pleasure.

I think the cast and crew need a huge applause because they just filmed something that TV has never shown before. Because honestly, most sex scenes in other shows were either too vulgar or too dishonest about the feelings of partners. But not Sense8. This was masterful

7 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
BDSM thought provoking film with extremely cliché love story line, 12 February 2015

Fifty Shades of Grey has two main characters: Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) and Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan). As in most love stories, they belong to two different social classes - the girl being a poor, beautiful student, while the boy is a rich, powerful, handsome billionaire. They meet each other by chance and fall in love. For now you might think that you've seen it hundreds of times and you are definitely right about it. Most things in this movie is so well known and familiar that it bores you. Accordingly, if you continue watching it as another complicated love story, you might walk out of theater or order a cup of coffee to keep yourself awake. What I tried is to look at this story in a different perspective, something alike to Nymphomaniac or even more, Blue Is the Warmest Color (the comparison does not necessarily mean they are equally good). At the end of the day, not many films, at least in Hollywood, talk about BDSM or dominant/submissive sex experience.

Having said that, I was very surprised that the film is R rated. And it's not only a rating, it perfectly describes what approach director Sam Taylor-Johnson took while filming it. To shortly say, it could have been much more erotic and as they say, book has lots of it.

I will try to talk about the love-story side of Fifty Shades of Grey. We all know it's shitty cause it's very average and not original. By saying that I mean everything, including relationship lineup, dialogues, character development and extremely predictable "twists". Instead, I will focus on Grey's fetish - BDSM.

Dornan's character is an absolute cliché of rich playboy - handsome, full of gadgets, self confidence and kindness. But his sexual life is nothing alike of others. The only way he gets sexual satisfaction is pain, pain of other partner who is always submissive. In any world, one can not easily find an absolute submissive person, who is ready to enjoy the physical stab because other person does. So, Christian has to negotiate with Anastasia step by step, tries to talk her into his dangerous game. Miss Steele is ready to try for sake of love. I don't want to spoil anything, if its possible, so I'll just generally tell the idea.

The film provokes many thoughts on BDSM: whether it's normal; whether it's naturally born attraction or later formed due to specific life events. Fifty Shades of Grey gives a definite answer, which you might not agree, just like me. But it does give an answer. Another deal-breaker is how another person can accept this sexual behavior and if the denial is really about the pain or humiliation.

For Grey, bandaging, spanking, slapping is a form of endearment, a form of loving and the only way to experience orgasm. He means nothing degrading by that. To the contrary, Anastasia perceives it in a different way - the way most of us probably would do. While she sometimes enjoys it, since Christian seems to be very professional/good at it, there is a part of her that feels wrong, as if being submissive has nothing to do with love.

As I mentioned above, this film has some similarities with Nymphomaniac, which also talks about masochist sex. But the latter is more sincere and open about it, showing sexual desires more naked and a it is. For me, Trier's film was sometimes too hard to watch, too explicit and very true. While Fifty Shades of Grey demonstrates BDSM in more acceptable way, which I enjoyed to watch. I mean, it maybe something most of us have never experienced, but I have to acknowledge that each sex scene was beautifully shot, perfectly shooting the pleasure of both parties. The biggest complain I have is that it could have been more +18. In it's core, dominant/submissive sex has nothing to do with shame or diffidence and filming this scenes with shyness does not feel frank enough.

As for Blue Is the Warmest Color it had more explicit sex scenes that, everyone agrees, was one of the most pleasant scenes in years. So what director Sam Taylor-Johnson could have done is to adopt the same attitude by filming her movie in more "pornish" way that would be equally acceptable.

Even though Dakota Johnson is an exact pretty face a girl like Anastasia should be, her performance was far below average. Her tears, drama scenes were somehow irritating. But Jamie Dornan was quite much better, especially in the last sex scene, where he finally gets what he wants and you can see it in every move, emotion and wrinkle on his face.

Danny Elfman, who has created some magnificent music for Good Will Hunting, Milk and Big Fish, did nothing special for Fifty Shades of Grey. In fact, at the end of the movie, I remembered none of track played during the film. Only Beyonce's memorable song captured the spirit of film perfectly.

Oscar nominee cinematographer Seamus McGarvey did not have much to do here, but he did picture several sex scenes in a very good way, focusing on important parts (!) sometimes, moving through bodies of lead characters and giving glimpse on their faces. It created an impressive motion that kept audience engaged in sexual act, at least, sometimes.

In conclusion, if you are looking for groundbreaking, philosophically deep discussions on sexual behavior, Fifty Shades of Grey will disappoint you. If you are going to watch it as a love story, it will disappoint you. But if you try to look at it as a discussion of BDSM and not generally accepted sexual life, it will definitely provoke some controversial thoughts

8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Jupiter Ascending is the only movie where Sean Bean should have been dead, 6 February 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When it comes to creation of cult movies, The Wachowski siblings are among few directors who created something so outstanding that it still defines the genre - I mean The Matrix Trilogy. Then it was Cloud Atlas with rave reviews and my personal favorite. Logically, I expected something very extraordinary, that would blow my mind in any ways their films do. Honestly, the casting of Jupiter Ascending should be giving a clear vision of what would the movie look like.

Movie starts with introducing Russian immigrant Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) waking up at 4:30 in the morning, rushing to her job which merely includes cleaning toilets of rich people. She's obviously hating her life, because there is nothing happening until some unearthly creatures try to assassinate her at the hospital. Being saved by ex-military member named Caine Wise (Channing Tatum) she learns that one of the members of galaxy's most influential families wants her dead. Balem (Eddie Redmayne) has inherited Earth after his mother's mystical death. His other sibling Titus (Douglas Booth) wants to take over control on our planet, because it is such a treasure. The reason why Jupiter needs to be killed is that she is a reincarnation of Balem's mother and accordingly the sole owner of the planet, meanwhile Titus is trying to save her, marry her and claim the title. For that reason, he sent Caine as a savior.

And here starts Miss Jones's voyage through galaxies to meet her "family" and prove that she owns the Earth, in order to keep it safe. As visually spectacular Jupiter Ascending is, as messy the story seems. It's two hours of Jupiter's stupid decisions, number of drama scenes between Wise and her, tons of fights and flights.

What Wachowskis did here is making a visually stunning motion picture, a bunch of beautiful images and views on cosmos. I appreciate that, I wished Nolan did the same in Interstellar. But visuals can not be everything in the film, because those colorful clouds and stunning planets get boring after an hour and you are left with the most illogical plot ever.

Basically, if you've watched Thor and some other similar films, you know every "plot twist" in Jupiter Ascending. Everything here is so predictable - you know when the main characters make stupid decisions, when they are saved, when they fall in trouble and the way it ends. Looks like director/writer siblings did not try to think of something new that would genuinely be remembered. Instead, they went with a lot of bla-bla-bla dialogues, naming tons of different names and families, you won't remember in couple of minutes and need not to remember. Characters are ultimate boring and cliché. We have here: a pretty girl who is so important and needs to be saved - that would be Jupiter Jones; a brave soldier who's just doing his job but falls with the main character - Wise; an old military friend who is always there - Stinger (Sean Bean); an evil man with enormous ego - Balem; disobedient sibling - Titus; creatures that convince us that not everyone in the universe look like us - the crocodile things and a lot of soldiers and inter galaxy armies who do nothing at all.

The eye candy cast is doing its job - eye candy-ing. Mila Kunis proves that she's a pretty face some guys love to see on the screen and even though she's actually cute, her face or emotions never change. Tatum and Redmayne do their MUSTS - shirtless scenes. I even tweeted that I love Eddie since I saw him in Les Miserable, but he was frighteningly awful in here. He was the most average villain in terms of everything - from facial expressions to voicing and gestures. I expected so much more.

There is one moment I really liked - the scene where Jupiter is trying to claim her title and interacts with galactic bureaucracy is hilarious. Even her lawyer, who is a robot, gets irritated and tries to bribe people to make it faster. This is probably the only interesting thing this movie tries to demonstrate.

If one wants to praise directors, this would solely be about the universe they created, which suggests not much new, but it is very spectacular with brilliant mixture of colors and stunning production design. For that reason, I am angry. I am angry as a fan of Wachowskis, I am angry as a fan of 4 their biggest films and I am angry as a movie goer. Even if no one claimed it would be a masterpiece, I still expected something genuinely memorable. The only memorable thing about Jupiter Ascending was my disappointment.

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Avalanche of relationships, feelings and family commitment, 4 February 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Force Majeure is a Swedish film shortlisted by The Academy in best foreign film nomination. It's director Ruben Östlund's fourth full feature film, were he tells about a family of four that is about to fall apart, because their perceptions of each other were actually far from reality.

Thomas and Ebba with two children are having a vacation in French alps. On a fine morning, while they are having their meal on veranda, allegedly controlled avalanche cascades towards the hotel. They all panic but behave differently. Ebba grabs kids to cover them, Thomas, to the contrary rushes inside, leaving hopeless family members behind. This is when his, as a family patriarch's status is questioned leading the relationships to unwilling direction.

Östlund's film talks about a lot family relationship issues, that are either openly, or vaguely discussed in different societies. The problems demonstrated here seem to be very common for any culture, even for Swedes, who are perceived as the most open people in terms of domestic obligations and gender roles. The avalanche accident leads to the biggest problem this quiet family faces - questioning Thomas's status as the guardian of the family and suddenly everybody, and most importantly wife, feels desperately unprotected. Even though the children are scared, their feelings are more about the physical threat they've experienced, than about trusting to father's instincts. While Ebba sees her husband's image falling apart, she no longer sees the man she though she married to.

Force Majeure is a test of marriage, values, relationships and feelings. It basically questions everything that particular and most families stand on, but it never fails to balance between different options until the very end, where I think, Ruben gave a clear version of his answer to all questions. Primarily, the events happening in the film test Ebba's believes, her image of marriage and love and care. But it's not only about avalanche. Her female friend tells a story of her multiple relationships with different men, while being married to one and having children. Ebba, a woman fully committed to a family, has no understanding of it - she can not picture herself flirting with other men and still loving husband, children. Female friend, who has very short screen time, is a very well written character. She's calm type, who tries to explain the perks of open relationship, that there is no correlation between love to family and one night stands, that she's afraid to be dumped as much as other women. And here, she has one brilliant line: "I can't go building my entire self-esteem on being a woman in a relationship or being a mother" It's exactly opposite what Ebba has been doing whole her life and obviously the reason of her doubts in husband, who was seen as a sole protector and responsible person in family. Since Thomas made an unforgivable mistake he can not be trusted - that's what wife thinks. But to some extent, it's not really about being father or mainstay of family, it's more about how comfortable Ebba feels. That's why she tries to "negotiate" with husband so that they had the same story of what really happened on that morning and they practically make up a new version of it which is acceptable for both of them. However, she can not hold it for a long time, it's eating her out from inside and later explodes in front of their friends, among whom Ebba tries to find like-minded people. When she succeeds, she becomes more calm.

Meanwhile, Thomas is acknowledging the whole dramatic perspective of his actions. Still, he is more concerned about wife's reaction that on some level ruins relationship with children, who more are afraid that parents are gonna divorce.

Almost entire movie is a discussion whether a parent can make such mistake - putting its own safety before others. And you feel like that the answer is a definite NO, but the way Ruben Östlund ends film, makes you start questioning this position. In the final scene, when the family leaves hotel, they take a bus on a very dangerous road. Ebba is freaking out, asking to stop the bus, because they might fall through the cliff any time and what she does when it's stopped? Immediately jumps out of it leaving her children behind. So, basically, she made the same mistake in arguably more dangerous situation and this is where it becomes clear that making a mistake can not define good parenting. Director also proves it in one of the latest scenes, where Ebba is lost in misty mountains and Thomas goes to rescue her - it's an indication that he still remains the guy who can take care of beloved people.

Ruben Östlund managed to build a quite interesting movie on issues that has been discussed in probably a lot of films. But the approach director took here is quite unique and simple. Probably, closest to reality and real family troubles. The main characters are well written, interesting and still easy to generalize.

One thing I loved most here is music - Vivaldi's Storm - one of the wisest use of old classic. It perfectly matches the rhythm of movie, it goes on and off on the rights scenes and just booms the effect of events happening on the screen. If you watch this, you can not miss the brilliance of this choice. Still, some other sounds I found a bit loud, but nothing really disturbing.

The last thing I want to say is that English translation of title - Turist - is totally inappropriate. It has nothing to do with tourism and original title Force Majeure is a perfect match.

To conclude, Force Majeure is a must watch, an amazing experience.

Enemy (2013)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Enemy is a mesmerizing piece of art with Gyllenhaal's amazing performance, 21 January 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Adam Bell (Jake) is a history teacher, has a girlfriend Helen (Sarah Gadon) and lives a quiet life. His life mostly takes place between school, where he teaches and home, where he merely has sex with Helen. Once his co-worker very randomly suggests a movie and he decides to give a try. The movie turns out to be as plain and not really special. But it does not end here, since he's seeing scenes from that movie in dreams and he sees himself in some episodes, or a guy who just looks like him. It turns out that this guy is Anthony St. Claire (also Jake) - an actor and exact copy of history teacher. This is where life gets messed.

In fact, Adam and Anthony are the same person, more precisely two different identities of the same person. First of all, because if they were two different people that would be sorta very simple and second of all, because so many symbolism in the film would not make sense. This theory is proved by either behavior of those characters or Helen (Anthony's wife) - who actually knows that her husband has personal identity problems (let me get back to this later).

At the beginning, when Adam finds out that he's got a "twin", he is shocked, obsessed, terrified and reacts mostly negatively. So does Anthony, who is even more not willing to see alleged "brother" anymore. My first, very sincere, reaction was why would anyone react to this kind of fact in a not nice way?! I mean what is wrong with having a brother, who just looks like you?! Later, when Helen meets Adam and tells about this meeting to Anthony, she seems really scared and emotional. Then actor Jake says that he has no idea what she is talking about to which she replies that "I think you know". My guess is that she in fact guesses that those two people are the same person - her husband. In reality, if you found out that your spouse has an identical twin, would it bother you so much that you get depressed?! But this is not what happens here, Helen is trying to accept the fact that her husband has an identity problems and he's living two different lives.

There is a scene with his mother, where she tells that he's got a respectable job and he has to quit his acting fantasy. It makes me think that he unsuccessfully tried to act in those films and then went back to teaching. It seems that Anthony has not been to his agency for six months and Helen is also six month pregnant. It clearly shows that for last half an year, he switched to school, trying to make things work in the life.

It turns out that actor Jake had been unfaithful to his wife, because he is a type of guy who easily sleeps around. He is not capable of keeping things too serious, taking responsibilities and does not definitely enjoy being controlled by someone. And his wife and a little baby in her is definitely trying to control or censor him. Opening scene shows him being in a strip club, where men can watch women masturbating and doing anything to satisfy their thirst. This is the place where Anthony feels great, because he is free, no obligations, no control, no censor.

Speech of professor Adam Bell about dictatorship, control and censorship clearly echoes how he feels in reality. He says that control is possible only by lowering education and that's why he started to teach - to resist the control two women have on him - mother and wife.

Spiders in the movie are women. The first spider - in strip club, a stripper is about to step on and kill - is wife. Because this is to where Anthony escapes from marriage responsibilities. The other spider roaming over Toronto is mother (played by Isabella Rossellini). She only appears only for three minutes and still she tries to control son in her own way - dictate what to eat, where to work, how to live. She also says that he (Anthony) had always had trouble to stay with one woman, which confirms my doubt that those two characters are the same person.

In this scene, she offers some blueberries, Adam rejects it saying that he does not love it. Then mother replies "of course, you love it". In fact, Anthony loves blueberry and the reason why Bell refuses to like it that he wants so much to run from mom that he refuses anything she suggests.

Basically, the movie is about one person trying to fight his own demons. Car crash in the end of the movie is a symbol of end of this fight, killing the bad part of main character's personality and Adam Bell finally stays with his wife, saying her sorry. It definitely implies that he kind of let go his passions and decided to commit to family. However, it did not stay unchanged for a long time. Earlier while giving a lecture, Adam said that history repeats itself and it is neverending circle. And when he finds a key to that strip club, he once again decides to cheat, this is why Bell tells wife that he has to go out at night. Then wife does not respond and entering the room we see a huge spider in the room. It is Helen, who feels that her husband is going to be unfaithful again and wants to attack him as means of self-defense.

To conclude, Adam/Anthony was a man who tried to escape reality of family, responsibilities and control. That's why he decided to invent another him. One part lived that hard life and another easier one. But in the end, he realized that all this is farce and his life turned into a big mess. And then he panics.

2 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Exceptionally original piece of art, with phenomenal cast, 20 January 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Birdman is a type movie that does not impress until I watch it, because there are films that grab my attention from the very fist teaser. However, it got my heart the moment I finished it and realized how genuinely original and masterfully done it was.

Alejandro González Iñárritu's new film is a story of a washed-up actor Riggan (Michael Keaton), who once played an iconic superhero Birdman and now he has to overcome his ego, family trouble, relationship and reclaim past glory, by directing a Broadway play. Ongoing financial problems make it harder to find a proper lead actor for the play.

First thoughts about Birdman - how crazy it is to cast Keaton, who played Batman in two films, as a widely loved superhero. And especially, when his career was also faded for such a long time. Nevertheless the true masterful acting, it's been a good catch. The same time, Birdman is not an easy movie to review, it's just an experience you should feel by watching the film, because if I start describing what's going on there, you'll never get the enjoyment I had during almost two hours.

But Birdman is brilliant for so many reasons. Let's begin with Keaton who did a performance of his career. He is always in between many layers of his character: sometimes genius, sometimes on the edge of mental breakdown and personal disorder and sometimes a hardworking artist. And he is perfectly introducing all sides of Riggan, who still thinks that he is the superhero once everyone loved.

Birdman, as we may call the alter ego, the past of Riggan, constantly reminds Michael's character that he can easily reclaim past glory, all he needs is to go out, forget everything he does and just become Birdman once again. On the other hand, Riggan, who still believes to be a hero in the bottom of his heart, does not want to give a try, he keeps refusing until a new lead actor Mike (Edward Norton) joins his cast and messes his work up.

Obviously, Riggan has no superpowers, he can not fly or move subjects with his mind, these all, including Birdman, is inside his head. Do not believe any person telling that all these are real. Two simple fact from film witness that it's just an imagination. First, when Riggan is alone in the room, camera shows that he moves objects without a physical connection and the moment anyone comes in, that person sees how Riggan actually throws those objects. Second, after the "flying" scene, we see a taxi driver who chases Keaton's character asking why he did not pay for the service. It means, he never flew, he just draw a cab.

Speaking about flying scene, once again, great job Emmanuel Lubezki, whose camera work just made every scene unbelievably enjoyable. Especially, the one, where Riggan believes he flies through New York skyscrapers. But honestly, every other scene had a great beauty in it. The stage scenes, with thunderstorms is a great example of perfect work with lights.

The rest of Oscar and SAG nominee cast is no less good as lead. Edward Norton as an eccentric actor, who tries to get the control over play, is amazing, entertaining and witty. His scenes are so dynamic, weird and funny. So is Emma Stone, who is my favorite in this film. Her portrayal of Riggan's troubled daughter Sam is the best job she's done so far.

Truly best part of Birdman is the job Iñárritu did for this film, both directing and writing. The idea itself is beyond originality. Story as a whole is wonderful focusing on so many things, while dialogues, character and scenes are both complex and interesting. He as a director managed to craft a movie that will make you think and enjoy your movie going experience. I don't think any other person could do it better to show what is going in the mind of main character. Birdman has also one of the best endings I've seen so far. The scene where Sam looks up in the window and smiles, as if she saw her father.

A lot discussions have been about this controversial ending. Even director was asked and he obviously left the question open for interpretation. One definite thing we can say is that, Riggan did not fly, so Sam did not see him in the air. It would be just out of logic. Alejandro used "flying" as an metaphor of freedom, of chasing dreams, of doing whatever you want. Everything about superhero Birdman was an indication of personal liberty, escaping from reality that killed, consumed Riggan. Having said that, final scene should be interpreted that he finally did what he wanted to to, broke out and reclaimed the freedom.

But how did he do it? If we consider that he disappeared from window, then it might mean he killed himself. This idea would be true if we remember the stage scene where Riggan, by mistake (?) shoots a gun, in nose. So, if he committed a suicide, why is Sam smiling? Metaphorically, this should mean that finally, she was seeing her father as he always saw himself and wanted other to see: important, still strong, beloved and a person who matters.

So, I more go with suicide, because disappearing from the window can not be imaginary, but imaginary is what happens later: Sam first looks down, and sees her father dead, then looks up to show that she finally got Riggan the way he always wanted to be perceived.

In conclusions, Birdman is one of the best works this year in every sense. It succeeds to create an interesting story, being perfectly acted, directed and written.

Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]