|
I saw this in LA over the weekend and thought it was great. Anything that can play with subjectivity in such a surreal way scores points with me, even if the "gimmick" of it feeling like a continuous take occasionally felt like a chore (that is, knowing that you can't get to this or that moment until the character takes you there. After a while, you just wish it could cut to a new scene.) My only plot complaint is the ending, with the effectively literal Chekhov's gun. Riggan choosing to shoot himself feels like such a 90's art movie bow to tie onto a movie, and not in a good way. As soon as Ed Norton commented on the stage gun, I knew a real one would show up. And it feels like such a cheap source of dramatic weight to add some life-or-death stake in a movie that isn't generally about that. It effectively ends like The Room, which is never a good likeness to have. It didn't help that assholes next to me left the theater opining, we don't know that he *didn't* kill himself! What if the epilogue was another fantasy!?! Sure. Fine. Maybe. Why not.
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Vertigo Ambrosia posted:The point isn't that Reagan deserves to be taken seriously as an artist and not just as a blockbuster superhero actor, but that the concept of high art vs. low art (dramatic theater vs. titillating film) is complete loving bullshit. I completely agree. That's what I loved about it...it's pretty much trolling both categories. Ed Norton's character alone was awesome to me for making fun of method fetishism so coherently. He's just an rear end in a top hat who hides behind his craft to justify being an rear end in a top hat. And the film calls that out as an affectation and a gimmick, just one that doesn't involve explosions and CG monsters.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 01:23
|
|