Birdman (2014)

[Jake Gittes]

I accept most scenarios in the film as the angry/confused/frustrated/impotent outward projections of Birdman/Riggan's fractured psyche/neurosis. I think it works wonderfully if taken as such... But, aside from a few beautiful moments of truth and some quiet, humbling moments alone with Riggan and his ex-wife, it's certainly a frantic, bitter, angry film.

 

That's the best explanation for anyone other than Keaton being such a non-entity (and I think Inarritu probably intended that), but then you have the moments where the film abandons Keaton's viewpoint and still doesn't give the other characters any depth. I don't really get the point of the two rooftop scenes - they are fine and well-acted, but if they are intended to make Norton's character a human being they only succeed in making him a bit less of a one-note caricature. And Stone's character might as well have been named Daddy Issues. Watts and Riseborough are pretty much transparent. Keaton is the only complex character in the movie and I suppose it's fitting because we are seeing most of the film through his eyes and he's so self-centered, but that doesn't give all the other great actors any more room to play. And it all ends awkwardly with Norton (and his sub-plot with Stone) just disappearing, Keaton and Riseborough's affair brought up once and never mentioned again, Riseborough and Watts kissing and nothing ever being mentioned about that again... yet we hear about 5 times that Norton can only get hard on stage. Man that screenplay is a mess.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Jake Gittes

[Jake Gittes]

Lubezki is a genius though, I was afraid the one-long-take thing would be distracting but it's probably the film's biggest asset not just because it's a great technical achievement but because it also makes it flow much better than the script and the direction (which is as loud and obnoxious as in Inarritu's previous films, just in a different way) would allow it otherwise. 

Edited January 31, 2015 by Jake Gittes

[mattmav45]

I wish I could share the love here, but it's been over a month and to say the film lacks staying power is an understatement.

In two months time I won't remember a damn thing about this film.

Enough said.

[dashrendar44]

That's the best explanation for anyone other than Keaton being such a non-entity (and I think Inarritu probably intended that), but then you have the moments where the film abandons Keaton's viewpoint and still doesn't give the other characters any depth. I don't really get the point of the two rooftop scenes - they are fine and well-acted, but if they are intended to make Norton's character a human being they only succeed in making him a bit less of a one-note caricature. And Stone's character might as well have been named Daddy Issues. Watts and Riseborough are pretty much transparent. Keaton is the only complex character in the movie and I suppose it's fitting because we are seeing most of the film through his eyes and he's so self-centered, but that doesn't give all the other great actors any more room to play. And it all ends awkwardly with Norton (and his sub-plot with Stone) just disappearing, Keaton and Riseborough's affair brought up once and never mentioned again, Riseborough and Watts kissing and nothing ever being mentioned about that again... yet we hear about 5 times that Norton can only get hard on stage. Man that screenplay is a mess.

 

Since I don't like Stone, I was relieved when her cat and mice escalation game with Norton ended and never to be focused on afterwards (I thought out loud since the first rooftop scene "come on get a room you too and just fuck so we can go back to Riggan's awesome nervous breakdowns"! but no there had to be several rooftops encounters before he gets in her panties even if that's painfully obvious she's smitten and that kind of douchesleaze thespian makes her inner 20-something hipster cynic squirt).

 

There's nothing more left for those characters to discover about themselves or to enlight their shortcomings nor their realization to overcome their set of issues. She sheds her shell of denial about her addiction issues behind her constant cynical bitchy side and rancid behavior deflecting her inner insecurities onto others to reveal her cracks, opening up to someone, dampening the snark to reveal her true self. He sheds his shell by looking right through her and manages to get it on for her so it's not an "act" but sincere desire for a girl he hadn't experienced for eons, impotent and trapped by his narcissism, to feel anew trying to capture back his younger self's gaze onto the world. They connect through their mutual cracks, they got chemistry and relate to each other and that's it.(Especially when every characters in this movie are disconnected from each other, living in their egocentric bubble failing to genuinely connect with each other despite craving love that they conflate with adulation and absolute devotion). No need to dwell on that. It's already pretty much heavy handed as it is. More Riggan please!

Edited February 1, 2015 by dashrendar44

[IndustriousAngel]

Finally got released here in Austria; I enjoyed it very much (so did my son). Incredibly well-crafted and simply a joy to behold. btw, don't only watch the camera at play, the soundtrack is fantastic in its own right. And the actors must have had the time of their lives, it's a real actor's film too. And howl-out-loud funny! In some scenes I was reminded of "The Producers" ...

 

(btw, I don't buy the end theme - that performing artists translate real-life problems into stellar performances - but it sure works as a plot device, as it did in Black Swan)

[Spidey Freak]

That's the best explanation for anyone other than Keaton being such a non-entity (and I think Inarritu probably intended that), but then you have the moments where the film abandons Keaton's viewpoint and still doesn't give the other characters any depth. I don't really get the point of the two rooftop scenes - they are fine and well-acted, but if they are intended to make Norton's character a human being they only succeed in making him a bit less of a one-note caricature. And Stone's character might as well have been named Daddy Issues. Watts and Riseborough are pretty much transparent. Keaton is the only complex character in the movie and I suppose it's fitting because we are seeing most of the film through his eyes and he's so self-centered, but that doesn't give all the other great actors any more room to play. And it all ends awkwardly with Norton (and his sub-plot with Stone) just disappearing, Keaton and Riseborough's affair brought up once and never mentioned again, Riseborough and Watts kissing and nothing ever being mentioned about that again... yet we hear about 5 times that Norton can only get hard on stage. Man that screenplay is a mess.

 

Didn't Riseborough put a fork in their relationship once she announced she wasn't pregnant? The Watts/Riseborough kiss was just two lonely women turning to each other for comfort and self-validation. It was hilarious in the way it scared off the manchild that was Norton's character.

 

Other than Inarritu's willful ignorance of the potential of the superhero/blockbuster genre clouding his perception and the writing team's general cluelessness about the why's and how's of art criticism, there is nothing wrong with this film. A- on an objective level, D- on a personally biased Inarritu level.

[JohnnyGossamer]

Watched this again. Still awesome. A/A-.

[ShouldIBeHere]

Finally saw this.

Jesus... have to change all my lists and votes... best movie of 2014.

Amazing!

Maybe it grabbed me so much because I have thought a lot about artists - and actors in particular - over years while thinking about attending an actor's college myself - and eventually realizing that that world probably is just for me on a hobby or semi-professional level and not as a full-time profession or career.

Anyway... seldomly has a movie reached me in that way.

I know that some people found this movie pretentious. However, it is imho quite the opposite. It seemed to me the whole cast and crew and creative people behind the scenes must have had a blast doing this. It showed and was a joy to watch.

It might be a masterpiece.

10/10

Edited February 4, 2015 by ShouldIBeHere

[Goffe]

It will take a few rewatchs to fully digest, but it deserves all the praises it gets for the direction and acting alone. 85/100

Is it me, or did they use warp stabilizer (or whatever it's called) a lot in this movie? It was very distracting sometimes

Edited February 15, 2015 by Goffe

[Webslinger]

There's so much to unpack in Birdman that a review cannot really do it justice, but to sum the film up as succinctly as possible, it's a wild and wickedly enjoyable ride. A viewer can easily get the sense that writer-director Alejandro Gonzalez Inaritu has an ax to grind with Hollywood blockbuster culture and the critics who picked and pulled at his lofty ambitions in his previous films, but the film's sharp satire still blends effectively and paradoxically with its sensitive portrayal of its characters. Because Inaritu writes and directs his players as multi-dimensional characters rather than just caricatures for comedy, the film resonates on an emotional level just as effectively as it does on comedic and aesthetic ones. Obviously, much has been made of the casting of Michael Keaton as a once-famous actor who found little financial success after playing a popular superhero, but it's no mere meta casting stunt. Rather, Keaton gives the best and most effortlessly nuanced performance of his career, as his abilities with comedy and low-key character development are applied to masterful effect. Edward Norton also leaves an indelible impression in his best performance in years, which, like Keaton's, is fleshed out well enough that it's not just a casting gimmick. Emma Stone also has a handful of knockout scenes as Keaton's daughter that represent by far her best dramatic work to date. Everyone in the cast appears loose, at ease, and at the top of his or her game, and the cinematography and editing expertly increase the feeling of audience intimacy and give the film about as much of a stage-like setting as one could accomplish in this medium. More than just a gimmick on multiple levels, Birdman is one of the most richly satisfying viewing experiences of the year so far, and sure to finish among the cream of this year's cinematic crop.

 

A

[Mulder]

6/10

 

Amazing on a technical level. A shame the script doesn't match.

[JohnnY]

Sometimes a film just doesn't feel right, and I may not have understood everything here, but I feel like I don't wanna try to understand. I didn't feel anything seeing Birdman and it didn't impress me in any way, I wanna see it again so I can repeat the experience and try to reach a new conclusion, but at the same time I don't feel like going through the whole film again. Yeah, acting was great, technical aspects too, but that doesn't say anything to me. Plus, the jazz score was annoying.

 

I don't even know how to rate this, I just can say that it really gave me a bad impression.

When a movie doesn't make me feel anything and seems to me like it needs to be decoded in order for me to get messages like "we're critizing some aspects of society" I just feel nauseated.

 

I'll give it a try again, but probably not before the Oscars.

. 

[Jake Gittes]

I wouldn't say it needs to be decoded, it's just a confused rant of a movie that can't even decide exactly what it wants to say. 

[ChD]

Okay. So, I just finished watching this and I have one simple question...

 

What in gods name did I just watch?
 

A modern cinema master piece, perhaps? Not quite... Not for me, but this is one damn good movie. Things combined worked well on this movie, but separately they were kinda lacking. The cinematography wasn't anything mind blowing, apart from the one continuous shot that is the movie itself. The score works well with the movie, but separately it's just some guy beating the living Jesus out of those drums. I had extremely high expectations that I knew wouldn't be touched, but I'll be damned if this movie didn't come close to it.

 

Performance wise... Look, I've never watched Batman like on my own initiative (maybe when I was smaller my father would watch and I would tag along cause you know, he's the ruler of the remote, but I don't remember it), so I'm not that crazy about Keaton. He seems like a decent fella and a pretty good actor this movie, but this is hailed as a masterful performance just because it his grandiose comeback, but in my eyes it was far from being a masterful performance. Winning the Oscar? I'd say Eddie is leading right now, with Keaton in a close second. Now, my favorite actor in this entire movie was Norton, alright? A brilliant performance combined with a brilliant character. Stone was good, but not Oscar worthy good and Galifianakis (or Alan, if you will) was pretty damn good too and if it wasn't for Norton, he'd be up for that Oscar nomination.

 

I want to touch a bit on the ending because I don't like those movies that leave things up for interpretation. This movie is against modern cinema and effects driven blockbusters and I agree with everything that was said in it, but this movie itself is trying too much to be artful. These up for interpretation movies are the thing that I hate the most because it could just be a lazy way to end a movie and make it seem a piece of art. Anyway, that's just me, so whatever. I've hated A Space Odyssey for exactly that reason.

 

I'd give it an A-

 

P.S Anyone notice the Man of Steel billboard just before Keaton starts flying? (Also the part where that guy grabs him and the music stops made me laugh pretty hard)

 

Alejandro González Iñárritu has stated that the original ending featured a cameo of Johnny Depp in Riggans room at the theater. Instead of a Birdman 3 poster, there was a Pirates of the Caribbean 5 poster sticked to the wall, and instead of the voice of Birdman being heard out of sight, it was the voice of Jack Sparrow saying "How the f**k did we end up here, mate?".

 

A+ material right there if it happened.

Edited February 18, 2015 by ChD

[DAR]

Fuck me it was great. A

[Rorschach]

This is the first movie I've seen from 2014 that I can say from the bottom of my heart was just flawless for me. Hell, it might just make it into my Top 20 of all time it is that amazing.

A++

[Harpospoke]

Wanted to like it.   Love the cast.   Thought the acting was good/great.

 

But by the end I wanted to shoot that drummer.  I've never liked drum solos.   Like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.   It....just....wouldn't....stop....

 

And the more I thought about it, the less I liked the characters....like real dislike.    A bunch of whiny actors who constantly complain that no one gets them or loves them enough.   Poor misunderstood "artists".   No wonder the actors in Hollywood love it.   It's a love letter to themselves.   "See?  This is how hard our lives are!"   Even Stone's character (a non-actor) got in on the act, "Daddy wasn't there so he made up for it by trying to make me feel special!"      Oh shut up....

 

The elitist reviewer put the icing on the cake with her pronouncements of what is "good art".   They all deserve each other.

[TheMovieman]

Eh, I can appreciate the technical aspects and the acting, for the most part, was great (Keaton and Stone especially, Watts and Norton were kind of wasted), but otherwise it was just OK. It never bored me and I liked the character study and all, yet at the same time, it just didn't do much for me in the end (either way). I also doubt I'll ever watch it again though I'd also wouldn't say it's not worth a watch.

 

***½/*****, (B/B-, 6.8/10, 2.75/4)

[JohnnyGossamer]

 

***½/*****, (B/B-, 6.8/10, 2.75/4)

I appreciate the thorough grading options, Movieman. I've never seen anything like that. Almost like one of the books in which the reader chooses the ending. Likely just aged myself by even mentioning that kind of kid novel from my childhood.

Edited March 4, 2015 by JohnnyGossamer

[TheMovieman]

I appreciate the thorough grading options, Movieman. I've never seen anything like that. Almost like one of the books in which the reader chooses the ending. Likely just aged myself by even mentioning that kind of kid novel from my childhood.

 

Thanks, figure I'd supply the various ratings around.