The LEGO Batman Movie (2017)

Director: Chris McKay

Cast: Will Arnett, Zach Galifianakis, Rosario Dawson, Michael Cera

Have I Seen it Before: There was very little chance that a film like this was going to fly under my radar, right?

Did I Like It: The version of me that is five-years old—that same version of myself which steadfastly refuses to see any flaws in Batman (1989)—would probably label this movie asa my favorite movie of all time.

The version of me that had been refreshing LEGO.com every fifteen minutes over the past few days to make sure my order of the LEGO 1989 Batmobile has shipped* can also find plenty about the film to enjoy, too. It is steeped heavily in the lore (perplexing and sort of stupid though it sometimes is) of The Dark Knight. References abound, and as Warner Bros./DC keeps doing grave disservice to Barbara Gordon, Rosario Dawson’s portrayal of the character may just be the best for which we can hope for a little while. Will Arnett—extending his work from the superlative The LEGO Movie (2014)—perfectly captures every bad thing about the character I’ve spent the vast majority of my life** apologizing for. The rest of the characters get their due, which is hard to do when there are dozens of them, and double hard when more than a few live-action Batman films have fallen apart when they try to service half a dozen main characters***.

And still, there is some part of me that is unsatisfied. The LEGO Movie was such a perfect exercise in anarchy, that I can’t help but wish there was something a little more subversive at the core of this one, too. “You’re my best friend, and friends are family” is… nice, I guess? I want something darker and more serious. Kind of like Batman.

That may say more about me than it does the film.

*Update: It has.

**Side note: I don’t at all remember the first time I had heard of Batman. The summer of 1989 happened, and it was like I had always been aware of him? I even added a scene in Orson Welles of Mars where several characters realize that it is next to impossible to explain the character without a common frame of reference, aside from calling him “The Shadow, but minus guns and add pointy ears.”

***You may be thinking that I’m talking about Batman & Robin (1997), and well… I am. But I’m also throwing in any live-action bat-production since The Dark Knight (2008).

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Director: Alejandro G. Iñárritu

Cast: Michael Keaton, Zach Galifanakis, Edward Norton, Emma Stone

Have I Seen it Before: I mean, with the Keaton Quotient (tm) alone, you knew I was going to be there as soon as it came to the local art house theater.

Did I Like It: There’s something stealthy about the appeal of this film. A film is about the state of the current state of the American stage and celebrity. It weaves in a pointedly honest depiction of mental illness with the fiction of Raymond Carver. How would such heady material be able to not only zero in on a wide audience, but end up with the Academy Award?

Well, it certainly helps that it has the cultural oddity of Keaton starring as a role only he could, that of an aging movie star whose biggest claim to fame was being walking away from a major superhero franchise in the 1990s.

It sure worked on me. The film makes fun of the people that adore Thomson for his past glories, and, well... It me. And a bunch of those types of people (again, read: me) don’t have a sense of humor about themselves. They should. We’re ridiculous.

And if the film weren’t as successful as it were, then it might feel like a bait and switch. Equal parts audacious and clever, the mere fact that the film is able to simulate the entire affair taking place in one shot would be enough to recommend it. But if it were more traditionally shot, and didn’t feature one of my favorite film actors goofing on himself, then the film would still be worth a watch. Maybe purveyors of pop culture shouldn’t reach for artistic excellence, as some of the characters in the film suggest. I just like that I can go see something that advertises itself as a superhero film, and get a little bit extra for my ticket/blu ray purchase.

Plus, I have a working theory that owing to the cathartic experience of this film, Keaton warmed up to the idea of returning to superhero films, thus the delight of Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) and the coming wonder that is his return as the Caped Crusader, which if you’ve been reading this space over the last several years, that has been my raison d’ete du cinema.

Between Two Ferns The Movie (2019)

Director: Scott Aukerman

Cast: Zach Galifanakis, Lauren Lapkus, Ryan Gaul, Jiavani Linayao

Have I Seen It Before?: No. Yes, I know I’m behind.

Did I like it?: Uhh… Yeah, I think so?

It never seemed like the crown jewel of the internet video empire Funny or Die would have been able to lend itself at all to a feature, but then again people probably said the same thing about Wayne’s World (1992) back in the day, so what do we know?

Now, I don’t think this film is quite the revelation of the best translations from sketch to feature that are out there. It’s perhaps trying a little too much to be a riff on Waiting for Guffman (1997) with an absurdist streak to be as surprisingly unhinged as the original videos were, but it is amiable enough.

Naturally, things work the best when Galifanakis (Galifanakis*) is interviewing celebrities during segments for the (now fictional) show. An extended sequence at the cable-access station where the show is produced fitfully introduces other characters that will join Galifanakis on his quest. It might have been better to see more of these people, but my dismissal as too much like either Wayne’s World or Waiting for Guffman would have been only more acute.

The movie doesn’t end so much as the run time elapses, and that may be its fatal flaw. More tension as Galifanakis tried to fight his instincts while interviewing Gal Gadot (Gal Gadot**) would have been more satisfying. Instead, Galifanakis perfunctorily turns back to his old show, and the fact that the film doesn’t really have an ending is played off as something that might be a joke, except it’s the least funny part of the film. The sour taste is somewhat ameliorated by the outtakes of the film, which are more amusing than anything else in the last few minutes of the film proper.

*That’s a little annoying that I have to type that twice to be correctly writing about film, but then again, I would imagine that both Galifanakis the man and Galafanakis the character are probably fine with that.

**Sigh.

Tig (2015)

Director: Kristina Goolsby, Ashley York

Cast: Tig Notaro, Stephanie Allynne, Sarah Silverman, Zach Galifinakis

Have I Seen it Before: I’ve heard many of the jokes and I was aware of the story behind them, but I hadn’t seen the movie before.

Did I Like It: On spec, the documentary details Notaro’s journey from C.Diff diagnosis through her mothers death and eventually through the gauntlet of cancer feels like it might be unseemly. A documentary produced by the subject will have a tough time not being an act of self-promotion.

And yet, it never feels that way.  What protects the film from a feeling of voyeurism? Primarily the film benefits from having a built-in arc for its main character. Notaro has plenty to overcome in the process of a very short time. In a scripted film, it might feel too much for a character, whereas in a documentary we as the audience will accept such an odyssey. What other option do we have?

Maybe it’s the reality that Notaro is one of the funniest people currently living, and so the proceedings are above all else funny. But I really think it is more than that. There is something fundamental to her persona that ensures she is not hungry for the attention that such a documentary would bring. She is living her life, but she would much rather you laugh at her material.

And then again, essential to her comedy is an honesty that might be considered oversharing in someone less adept at making comedic hay out of the misery that threatened to end her. And maybe that’s why the film works where other, similar documentaries feel tone deaf. It is a perfect synthesis of her comedic sensibilities into a different format. Trying to modify the context and soul of something into a completely different delivery system is a tall order. It almost always fails. It’s success here is both a testament to the resiliency of the subject and her comedy.