One hell of a strong trailer for the upcoming Michael Keaton film “Birdman.” I’ve no idea what kind of movie this is, mind you. Is this, like, “The Wrestler,” if the lead character were a former A-list movie star instead of a former star wrestler? “Sideways,” only with fame instead of booze? Like that Marvel series “The Sentry,” in which bad guys try to convince a legit superhero that he’s just a normal person with a mental illness and that his caped antics are all just a delusionary comic-book fantasy?
I think it’ll be worth $11 to find out.
Fox Searchlight almost deserves the money just for producing a trailer that works on me. Earlier, I posted about great movies with weak trailers. I’m going to acknowledge a couple of movies that I saw solely and specifically because of great trailers.
And how could I not include:
…Well I could go on and on, not all day, but at least for three more.
I’m having a sort of “thanks/no thanks” relationship with the news item that introduced me to the “Birdman” trailer. I love “The Dissolve.” It’s helping me to fill the huge movie-commentary void left when Roger Ebert passed away. But geez. Does Matt Singer have a problem with Michael Keaton? Despite the brevity of the piece, Singer seems to have found multiple opportunities to imply that Michael Keaton’s career is on the skids and that he didn’t need to dig very deep to connect to the character of a former movie superhero with few current prospects.
One sees this sort of thing frequently. I don’t get it. Stars have the right to do what they choose to do with their lives. Sure, I snicker as much as anybody else at the Troy McLure-style arc that Eddie Murphy seems to be pursuing in his career. But if he wants to act in fantasy films underneath latex and foam and effects, why shouldn’t he? If Robert De Niro wishes to spend his golden years acting in lighter films that don’t require him to gain fifty pounds and terrify his family on a nightly basis, hasn’t he earned that right?
And if Michael Keaton (or any other A-list star) recognizes that he’s got enough money to keep himself and his family in giraffes and chocolate-covered Bentleys for life, doesn’t it make sense for them to enjoy said life?
I’m not even saying “It’s OK that De Niro is doing movies like ‘Little Fockers'; he’s using those checks to endow his arts programs’.” I’m saying that it’s rude to suggest that he’s required to hand in one Jack La Motta or Travis Bickle a year in perpetuity. I wish Gene Hackman were still making movies but for Pete’s sake…he’s allowed to spend his Seventies and Eighties watching sports on TV if he wants.