BIRDMAN MOTHERFUCKAS (2014 film feat. Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, et al)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIxMMv_LD5Q

Looks like it could entertain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdman_%28film%29

i'm rooting for this movie. michael keaton could really use a comeback-vehicle (like a john travolta-style reclamation project).

p good trailer, looks like all that jazz redux

how can he be reclaimed from being awesome

because he's kind of gone quiet since batman returns, at least in terms of commercial success?

Comeback? I remember when his directorial debut (Merry Gentleman) came out he said that he hadn't been acting as much because he wasn't proud of some of his previous performances and was wary of repeating himself too much. Looking at his cv, he has done a lot more than I thought he had.

Aside from Beetlejuice I've never seen any of his early comedies that he built his reputation on, I'm curious about them. Curious about Merry Gentleman too.

i'd be a lot more interested in this if Iñárritu wasn't directing tbh

and writing

really like the look of this

An actor (Keaton) – famous for portraying an iconic superhero – struggles to mount a Broadway play. In the days leading up to opening night, he battles his ego and attempts to recover his family, his career, and himself. The play in the film is an adaptation of Raymond Carver's What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.

Disappointed that the title of the thread and the title of the film are not the same.

I hope the play in this one is better than that heavyhanded Dan Rush/Will Ferrell Carver adaptation from a few years back

reactions continue, not all raves

http://www.fandor.com/keyframe/daily-venice-2014-alejandro-g-inarritus-birdman

Aside from Beetlejuice I've never seen any of his early comedies that he built his reputation on, I'm curious about them.

Night Shift is not exactly a classic for the ages, but man, Keaton is such a wave of energy in that movie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/movies/in-birdman-michael-keaton-confronts-the-nature-of-fame.html

Four Stars from Peter Travers.

Anyone seen it yet? I really want to but it isn't playing here!

I have. I really enjoyed the general atmosphere and camerawork. Felt like a good rattle inside the Keaton character's mind, with great supporting work from the rest of the cast. Not sure about some parts, like the theatre critic, but overall one of my favourites of the year so far.

I suppose the theatre critic provided a neat shortcut to v quickly reveal unambiguously the ~critical~ reception and therefore the worth of the play and underlines the muddled relationship artists have with critics

I thought it was really good and impressive and the camera gimmick not too showy though what is great about it - that it drifts and drifts and sometimes through time rather than space and therefore doesn't feel, so consciously, like the continuous "shot" that it isn't while giving a feeling of continuity and accumulation - is momentarily broken with a few deliberate bits of "camera" sliding though v narrow bars on a window or whatnot which I felt a little showy/unnecessary I guess

my friend designed a tattoo in this, on edward norton I believe.

I love the first sentence of this review:(http://thedissolve.com/reviews/1152-birdman/) "González Iñárritu is a pretentious fraud, but it’s taken some time to understand the precise nature of his fraudulence."

this was fun I thought. a bit self-congratulating perhaps. a number of moments which recall other iconic films to I don't know what end.

Holy moly. One of the better movies I've seen about theater (paired oddly in my head with A Prairie Home Companion).

i enjoyed a lot about it, but honestly i found the back-and-forths between keaton, norton and stone way more engaging than all the surreal psychological meltdown stuff. though in that I didn't find the cgi as gratingly superfluous as it was in black swan.

keaton did a good job but i just found his character so much less interesting than norton's and stone's - the irony of casting keaton is i don't believe being a forgotten superhero would drive him to a suicidal breakdown

wish they'd just let him be a b-level actor with a-name recognition facing off against an a-level actor with b-name recognition, and not been so overwrought about it

(referring to their characters i mean, not keaton and norton themselves)

"obstinately unfunny"

http://cinema-scope.com/currency/easy-virtue-alejandro-gonzalez-inarritus-birdman/

As a thtr dude I think you'll like it Morbs

hah i'm not sure i qualify as such

As a dude who likes thtr anyway, you might get something out of the movie, even just for the realistic backstage at the St. James.

Opens this weekend here. Local male critics ecstatic.

were they also ecstatic over Babel and Biutiful?

Edward Norton MUCH more interesting than Keaton.

this was good, but i am that dumb everyman fool who still loves Keaton from those days so of course I would like it

the last half hour was a nothing -- it just ran out of movie

Edward Norton MUCH more interesting than Keaton.

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, November 1, 2014 4:21 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah this

tho i m/l liked this; crix raving are prob the 1s who most have to endure all the marvels so i cant really hate

the last superhero movie i saw was Iron Man and this was a fantastic movie imo

It was OK until the last half hour, when it simply ran out of movie.

this is good

35 minutes of this was a pretty good Ed Norton movie, the rest was pretty much bullshit

wasn't he good?

Not only was his character more interesting than Keaton's, he did a more entertaining job of playing off his real-life persona. You feel this more acutely when Keaton really takes over in the back half.

And fuck that "for the lols" lesbian kiss scene and the writing for basically all of the supporting characters, but esp the women

And fuck that "for the lols" lesbian kiss scene

I'd had a grudge against the director ever since Biutiful, because of the incestuous Chinese brothers plotline. Yes, that movie was a sexed-up expansion of the Dardennes Freres formula of globalization and its discontents, but overegged puddings, thy name is González Iñárritu.

As for Birdman, my instinct has been to take the initial shot of Keaton levitating as a signifier of XTREEM Unreliable Narrator. This might explain the differences in the shots that don't include Riggan.

30 minutes of this was quite enough. First walkout in years.

walked out of turdman into Mockingjay which I thought was exquisite so there you go

Come on. This was great.

x2 - great.

I really liked this movie a lot

yes this was completely satisfying, in ways Interstellar wasn't. I'm sure MockingJay is good but they're not really the same kind of thing are they.

to be sure

Eh.

i loved how close to the actors' faces we were the whole time. i'd see it in 3d.
it was pretty hollow though. it felt like the script needed a few more drafts. i cringed pretty hard every time emma stone started talking about the internet-it felt like pandering to the olds. i wanted it to either be more intense or more funny. i guess, seeing as it's inarritu, i should be thankful there were any jokes at all.

Blech. This thing was trying to do way too many things at once, pulling none of them off, and trying way too hard to be cool and with it. It just irritated me, and left me wanting to cleanse the palate with some Italian neo-realism or some such ... Which I did, a week later (Rome, Open City).

keaton did a good job but i just found his character so much less interesting than norton's and stone's

fully disagree. Norton's and stone's characters speak in cliches (tho all parties p obviously & playfully aware of it imo). Keaton was great.

this was great. last five seconds a copout spinning top obv.

see for me the playfully aware of their own clichedness thing kind of went 360 degrees and the whole film just ended up not rising above. felt like a lot of the movie was trying to deflate their egos and deconstruct the myth of Macho Serious Actor Man while at the same time totally buying into it. best line obv: "you hate bloggers!"

oh and best thing about this was definitely the drum beats

^

there should be way more drums in movies, i've been saying this for years

oh and best thing about this was definitely the drum beats

― flopson, Saturday, 10 January 2015 01:11 (1 hour ago) Permalink

^^
This

In retrospect I wish the film had ditched the play and just focused on the drummer.

random thoughts on this - yes, its all very virtuoso and stunning and wow as it appears to be a single take for pretty much the first 80 or so minutes but the movie just felt like a lot of directorial dazzle but nothing really else going on. you did get a bit more into the characters in the last half hour but then it was just tired (not that it doesnt have a point, but it hardly seemed novel) cynical commentary on internet stardom/modern celebrity/viral videos. i like films about actors/the stage/hollywood as much as anyone, but it didnt ever really go as deep enough into keatons character as it could have, and it didnt feel as cuttingly funny as it prob should have been to send anything up, so the whole thing felt a bit weird to me. impressive as a piece of filmmaking but not as a piece with anything esp rich to say. far too concerned with how it looks than making the material resonate beyond being a way to show off fluid editing and staging. also innaritu i think lacks humour or the ability to not take himself/his subjects seriously which also hampered its prospects as satire. but still, keaton was good. i forgot how much i used to like him.

also, did the critic woman have to be SO plain evil? i mean, that was just plain malice. would have liked to have seen more on the themes she was discussing with keatons character. but i think the film was just too busy, trying to idk, appear busy/jittery/chaotic/anxious.

felt like a lot of directorial dazzle but nothing really else going on.

This is my general feeling about Inarritu, but I liked Birdman more than his other films cos at least it had some good jokes in, and his 'interconnectedness of all things' hokum seems to work better as farce than tradegy.

i dont want to make any great claims for this, it's just ok, but i feel like it's possible to see this film as a kind of self-critique or joke at its own expense? as if wearing its shallow pretension on its sleeve, or virtuosity as a value in its own right. maybe im reaching.

perhaps the problem with that interpretation is how you take the final scene/shot.

I think in re critic we should not discount that she's right

yes

rly tho (I watched it again btw) there is no way anyone in this can be treated as a reliable narrator and if for you that means you care less about any of em or dont think it hits the targets its aiming for then that may be that. imo it was even better second time around, once you have the conceits straight in yr head right from the getgo

This is my general feeling about Inarritu, but I liked Birdman more than his other films cos at least it had some good jokes in, and his 'interconnectedness of all things' hokum seems to work better as farce than tradegy.

my response + Emma Stone + Edward Norton

"This is my general feeling about Inarritu, but I liked Birdman more than his other films cos at least it had some good jokes in, and his 'interconnectedness of all things' hokum seems to work better as farce than tradegy."

maybe, but it just felt like someone who has never told a joke in their life, really trying to convince you that they actually do have a sense of humour

bound to win quite a few oscars though - no way they would let a film like this get away without winning

im tempted to watch it a 2nd time, though if you want to watch a jittery film, something like after hours does it with genuine mania

I mean, Norton was more feral hence interesting than Keaton, even with the tanning booth shit they saddled him with.

for all the knowing stuff from emma stone about not appealing to young people, the film does feel like its lazily catering to people over 40, with its scornful view of the internet, social media, superhero movies, etc etc. theres nothing new being said about any of its themes in here.

Birdman doesn’t have much to say about art except that actors are creepy assholes, superpowers are fun, and a correlation exists between nasty criticism and martinis drunk from stemless glasses.

Norton is at least equal cliche to Keaton

"this movie" has nothing to say about the internet. Keaton's character does.

Norton doesn't get a quiet scene in which he gets ruminative designed for Academy voters though. At least Norton's role is a cliche I like more.

rooftop smoking scenes and his moment with critic both count there id have thought...the fact he disappears from the movie more against him than anything in the performance or character

and I'm not claiming the role of either Keaton or Norton are cliches, I dont think! the characters are, but the portrayals/performances and the way in which we're invited to view them seem reasonably original/different to me

This was good while watching, but it just hasn't stayed with me. I'm trying to remember details, or memorable moments and I just can't.

I felt like I was watching the film through a plastic gauze or something

just read the reviews posted earlier in this thread - both are pretty much OTM.

I liked Birdman more than his other films cos at least it had some good jokes in, and his 'interconnectedness of all things' hokum seems to work better as farce than tragedy.

OTM

I liked the way the superhero hallucinations towards the end acknowledged the power and pleasure of a genre that until then the movie appeared to be simply sneering at.

Yeah, I liked how this appeared to be courting every aspect of the male critic-friendly 'literary' midlife crisis film and then turned all that inside out and exposed the essential pettiness of all that towards the end. Still not sure how I feel about the ending itself. I laughed throughout.

I agree with StillAdvance for the most part, it was enjoyable and funny but not as deep as it wants to appear. Norton was superb and great to see Keaton in a big movie again. The ending was a bit twee, I thought. I'll give it a 7/10.

I preferred Keaton to Norton/Stone. Obvious reference, but there was something a bit cheesy and 'Fight Clubby' about their scenes that didn't work out for me.

The ending was a bit twee

Except... He probably actually killed himself. At least that's how I read it.

I got a kick out of Norton taking the mickey out of his "method actor" persona. Feels like its been ages since I've seen Norton in a film.

I found the one-shot trickery to be totally claustrophobic and exhausting. I kept mentally trying to make a break for it whenever someone would walk through a pitch-black (i.e. great place to call 'cut') doorway.

The industry consensus seems to be it's Birdman vs. Boyhood for Best Picture, and Birdman won SAG and PGA awards this weekend, which some think puts Birdman just ahead in the race...

I agree with StillAdvance for the most part, it was enjoyable and funny but not as deep as it wants to appear. Norton was superb and great to see Keaton in a big movie again. The ending was a bit twee, I thought. I'll give it a 7/10.

― everyday sheeple (Michael B), Monday, 26 January 2015 11:57 (58 minutes ago) Permalink

I'd downgrade to 5/10 but otherwise agree.

left me wanting to cleanse the palate with some Italian neo-realism

This is an amazing post, like something Lindsay Duncan's critic character would say.

A lot of this was really good, but the movie was terrible.

A lot of this was really terrible, but the movie was good.

some of it was eye-rolly, but the movie was good

I thought the stuff with the critic was the only totally eye-rolly thing, though I expected something that cartoonishly dumb from something that could very well have been called "Acting!: The Movie." Everything else was OK, just didn't amount to much more than a feature version of The Actor's Nightmare or something, except not funny, and not profound, and not ... well, anything. I had pretty much no takeaway from this other than good acting is hard.

Reminded me a bit of Mike Figgis' "Timecode," novelty and all.

just watched this and i fucking loved it.

That episode of Inside No.9, The Understudy, was kind of a condensed version of this film.

Just finished watching this for the second time, taking notes and trying to make sense of my first impressions. For the most part, I like it. I don't quite love it, and the insistent reach for ~significance~ that's always been an irritant in Inarritu's films still irritates here, but it's rich, funny, technically dazzling and hugely energetic. Birdman's greatest weakness is that it's trying to cram so much in - so many incidents, details, jokes, relationships and observations - that character development is often reduced to a flurry of cliched bullet points. Obvious examples include Sylvia's first visit to Riggan's dressing room (Sam's out of rehab, "you're drinking", he's gone broke financing the play), or when Sam tries to explain her perception of Riggan's benign neglect to Mike on the rooftop. Speaking of which, Sam and Mike finally kiss at the end of a five minute sequence in which Mike has tried to rape and then been dumped by Lesley, Lesley has bonded and then made out with Laura, and Sam's confessed her soul to and basically thrown herself at Mike. It's very easy to get so swept up in the dizzying sequence of exciting events that you don't notice how thinly sketched and silly much of it is.

This reduction often reads as satirical in intent, exposing the shallowness of the characters, as in Sam's poor little rich girl complaint, Riggan's pathetically egocentric story of his Clooney-enhanced plane ride, or Mike's corny boasting about "wrestling with complex human emotion", but as such, it's rarely fresh or funny. When the comedy and character development do work, it's usually in spite of the two-dimensional and insistently pointed writing. Michael Keaton is GREAT. Emma Stone, Edward Norton, and the rest of the supporting cast are good to great. Many of the film's best moments exist entirely in their performances, like Keaton's heel-turning duckout as a stage light lands on a cast member's head, Stone's understanding that she's gone too far in attacking her father, and Norton's ridiculous brawling moves. That's not to say the writing isn't ever good. Mike is so fucking method that, when fed a line, he doesn't struggle to remember his own, but rather searches Deep Within ("Is that what I'm saying?"). And I loved the bit near the end between Sylvia and Jake where he claims he can see the future, so she slaps him. I also dug Innaritu's willingness to let us see that Riggan's play is horrendously bad (the reindeer things!) without making a big deal about it.

After wobbling around shooting off sparks for a little over an hour, the film suddenly snaps into sharp focus during the final rehearsal, when Riggan steps out for an ill-fated smoke break. Everything after that point works beautifully, which helps ease the memory of all the hamfisted rising action. And Inarritu's technique is flawless throughout. Technically, as an exercise in the choreography of sound, performance and camera movement, Birdman is utterly dazzling. I love the (nearly) all percussion free jazz soundtrack. The two "shots" that allow us to actually if breifly see the drummer are easily my favorite moments in the film. Overall, I could have done with a bit less Significance, a bit more room for naturalistic character development, but the end result is never less than entertaining. And a great showcase for Keaton, whom I've always loved.

no mention of the sexual assualt?

I have friends who can't get past it.

i mentioned it. was a bit distasteful to see it played for laughs, but i got a guilty lol from laura's "that's kinda hot" afterward.

combination of sam's "everything smells like kimchee" line and the long duk dong-style portrayal of the asian media reporter was kind of gross, too.

The movie does accelerate time a lot, so that's how I was able to deal with much of its cramming. It's a couple of days condensed into a nonstop two hours.

And actually, I don't think the movie ever gives us a clear idea of how good or bad the play is. Certainly the couple of scenes we see seem fine. The reindeer things are part of a dream sequence that we've largely heard referenced in passing. Certainly we don't see anything to justify the mustache twirling vitriol and animosity of the critic.

Why was the score disqualified for the Oscars? Incidentally: http://thetalkhouse.com/music/talks/stephin-merritt-the-magnetic-fields-talks-antonio-sanchezs-score-for-birdman/

i thought the chunks of the play we do see were deliberately clunky and stagy. at the end of the dream sequence, for instance, laura has a line about memory ("there's a distance to it all now, a wistful distance underscored by a gentle breeze") that struck me as a "BAD PLAY" notice in 10-foot neon letters. ymmv.

spoke tonight with a friend who defends the film by saying that every character and interaction is supposed to seem comically cliched, bad in the manner of riggan's play. i'm not sure what i think about this suggestion. it's certainly true in what it observes, but i'm not sure how intentional the film's banality is, or whether there's sufficient animating wit behind the accumulation of dull stereotypes.

Something it captures (speaking as someone who's directed a zillion plays) is that every performance is different, so instead of it being a good or bad play, it shows how whatever's happening is in the present and won't be duplicated. And so Keaton entering the play's final scene from the audience works on that night because he commits to the choice; other nights work when Norton or Keaton's characters fully commit to the choices they're making as actors in the show. It's such a huge difference between stage acting and film acting: in a finished film, there is one performance shown and open to judgement. In a play, it's a series of performances, each one different and, at best, suited for that particular evening.

i'm not sure how intentional the film's banality is, or whether there's sufficient animating wit behind the accumulation of dull stereotypes.

Yeah, that's sort of my prob with it, if it's even really a problem.

All the weird stuff, those were previews, right? But opening night, when people come out at intermission, they all seem to love it! Unless that is a delusion, but I don't think it is in that context.

Per the play dialog we hear, I haven't read Carver in a long time, but before we dismiss is as hacky or stupid or trite for the sake of the movie, are we sure it is not taken verbatim from Carver?

every character and interaction is supposed to seem comically cliched, bad in the manner of riggan's play.

felt this was v obv tbh

shrug. not always the 'stutest of waterfowls over here.

not sure that intentionality helps much (though maybe it makes riggan a better playwright, relative to the reality he inhabits). the problem for me wasn't so much the accumulation of sterotypes and cliches, but the accumulation of dull stereotypes and cliches. it undercut both the drama and the comedy. imo.

hey stuffs often obv to me and 100
% wrong

Per the play dialog we hear, I haven't read Carver in a long time, but before we dismiss is as hacky or stupid or trite for the sake of the movie, are we sure it is not taken verbatim from Carver?

a lot of it is. but what works on the page, etc...

felt this was v obv tbh

Yesss.

but before we dismiss is as hacky or stupid or trite for the sake of the movie, are we sure it is not taken verbatim from Carver?

I assumed it was more the way it was layered, compressed into melodrama. The ending we see so many times is certainly hokey and trite. And it's possible to use even good words badly. Thinking of Branagh's Hamlet here.

But opening night, when people come out at intermission, they all seem to love it!

I think the film is cynical enough to suggest the audience is not necessarily the best judge. I've for sure sat in audiences (even on Broadway!) that didn't seem to know good from bad.

http://www.avclub.com/article/original-birdman-ending-would-have-featured-johnny-214998

2nd rate all that jazz

similar style/tone sure but had different aims

plus no sandahl bergman

and ATJ isn't that great eitiher

Dumb question, maybe addressed: was this movie written for Keaton, or with him specifically in mind?

Because an older, generally off-the-grid former caped crusader superhero franchise anchor is a pretty specific role, and I don't see how it could have worked without the meta layer of the star actually being Keaton. Specifically.

think I read that it was

If this thing had actually ended with Depp the whole movie would have been much improved, and I say this as someone who is underwhelmed by Depp generally now

This needed to be a little more effusive about the immense courage and inner beauty of movie stars.

Christ on a cracker

it took 4 writers to simulate the howling self-absorption of Paddy Chayefsky gone New Age.

Innaritu was married to four writers of shrill, shrieking fraud.

bar scene w/ drama critic was worthy of Jerry Lewis at his worst

did you just watch it?

He's there right now

yeah i was too busy catching up with good movies til now

I've condensed the watchable moments in this movie to Emma Stone on the roof and Edward Norton's first scene.

"2nd rate all that jazz"

That is a pretty good film to be second rate to....

Depp ending sounds far better. Or just ending this movie pre-hospital which is how I basically imagine it ending. Critic scene is probably worst (well except maybe the pointless lesbian kiss) in the entire movie.

didnt see point of Norton-Stone angle except hey, vicarious middle-aged male audience wank

Is it cold atop yr high horse

i feel like Keaton in his BVDs (when he's with yr mom)

My mom's more of a Scotty McCreery woman

@pareene
The worst things about BordMang are the direction and script and the best thing was the acting so good work Academy

and ATJ isn't that great eitiher

It increasingly occurs to me that All About Eve is the exception to your taste levels, not the rule.

found this unwatchable, insufferable. didnt make it to the end

It increasingly occurs to me that All About Eve is the exception to your taste levels, not the rule.

― Eric H.,

I've seen our respective top ten lists. Race to the bottom (or top).

Enough Said

up there with Crash in the Best Film winners this one

How quickly we all forgot The King's Speech.

No, I mean literally, how quickly we all forgot it.

Crash is by several measures worse than Birdman, The King's Speech a somnolent eighties prestige film throwback (remember when those were supposed to make a comeback?).

Big Thinkpiece #2:

As for the big winner: Voters were obviously mad about Birdman, and everyone who was rooting for something else is … you know, mad about Birdman. It is possible to admire the exquisite craft and technical facility with which the movie was made, to be amused and charmed by its droll, darkly comic take on narcissism, artistic aspiration, and the fight of a creative individual to make a mark, and still feel a slight twinge of … This again? Another movie about showbiz and its lovable nutcases? There are stretches in which the Oscars seem to go into hibernation; think of the 1980s, when Chariots of Fire and Gandhi and Amadeus and Out of Africa and The Last Emperor won and it was hard to discern how much curiosity, or much of anything other than a desire to retreat from the world and the country into a kind of pictorial/historical splendor, the Academy had. In retrospect, I think those movies won not because Academy voters didn’t care about what was going on in America, but because they didn’t know what was going on with American movies. The 1980s — post–Raging Bull, pre–indie boom that began with 1989’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape — were a decade of uncertainty and trepidation about what American films were supposed to be, other than blockbusters.

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/decoding-the-2015-oscars-the-birdman-win-and-what-it-tells-us-about-hollywood/

birdman was great btw anyone who hasn't seen it should watch it instead of reading this outraged tantrum of a thread

totally mcscrotally

i'm sure to love it when i rescreen from my newly enlightened perspective

there's hope for everyone yet thats shat I learnt from watching best picture tm birdman motherfuckers

uh what

Harris, as always and forever, OTM.

His theory about eighties film (borrowing bits from A.O. Scott) makes sense, but nineties commercial filmmaking was just as confused. Look at that decade's BP winners.

If the Academy's definition of "prestige" has drifted away from Out of Africa and Gandhi, it really doesn't matter at all what they've drifted toward IMO.

https://vine.co/v/OQwTawxZhI0

:-(

it could've been a flask

birdman was great btw anyone who hasn't seen it should watch it instead of reading this outraged tantrum of a thread

otm

read that as "outraged rectum of a thread"

punchier, imo

For a guy who's such the center of attention in all of his other movies, it's funny that no one mentions Zack Galifinakis in this.

that was whatchoocallhim mr Hollands opus, not Zach. he was playing zach.

Dreyfuss thats the guy. it was Dreyfuss.

i only see Zack Galifinakis when he's not the center; there have been others

this is another movie that tells you how great it is, well played

David Bordwell on structure, style and the "long take":

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2015/02/23/birdman-following-riggans-orders/

I found the long-take in this distracting and not at all germane to the story, it drew attention to itself and seemed unnecessarily showy

I actually really liked the long take as a means of condensing the story while keeping the focus on Riggan's crisis. It's a long take, but not real time, which is something different.

it wasn't a long take either

going for Thursday as when someone actually reads the DB piece

Well, yeah, it's not so much a long take (clearly, since there are traditional cuts) as the illusion of a long take, which I actually found less distracting/show-offy than the usual look-at-me long takes a la Scorsese/Anderson.

I was using long-take for shorthand, it was p obvious to anyone paying attention from the get-go that it's not actually a long/single take

the wrong-shake(y)

Just finished watching this for the second time, taking notes and trying to make sense of my first impressions. For the most part, I like it. I don't quite love it, and the insistent reach for ~significance~ that's always been an irritant in Inarritu's films still irritates here, but it's rich, funny, technically dazzling and hugely energetic.

where's do u see richness in this?

razzle dazzle does the trick

What a great looking, intelligently cast stupid film. Mr. Iñárritu, watch some European Max Ophuls flicks to see what long takes with a good script and flesh and blood characters can accomplish! It's awesome, bro. Check it out.

bartonfinkman was pretty entertaining. mostly bc of the drums.

After 20 minutes I felt bad for the cast, the cinematographer and the drummer. 20 minutes is when gimmick fatigue set in and I realized these (mostly) talented folk had been coerced into a shitshow if epic proportions.

*of

poor cast, cinematographer and drummer prbly won't have a careers after this one. what a disaster.

no 'a' obv

or maybe I threw it in there for a bit o jazz
*pish*
*pap!*
*pow!*

qn: why did keaton take another hit off that roach after pretending like he'd sucked the hot embers of the last remaining weed into his mouth by accident?

ILX: this is definitely the worst movie ever made. literally worse than cancer and Hitler combined x 1,000. part way through watching, i was forced to gouge my eyes out and ram them into my ears. the second time i watched it (somehow), in order to document all the crimes committed against humanity, I literally died on the spot. i once walked past a movie theater that was showing American Beauty and this was almost as bad.

lol otm

Crash vs. American Beauty vs. this shitshow

I would rip Thinwall's eyes out and put them in my own skull so that I could see ILX that way again

Crash vs. American Beauty vs. this shitshow

If you don't know Crash is in a league all its own, I don't even know where to begin.

yeah Crash is def the worst

but Crash vs. American Beauty vs. Spider-Man 3 would be tough

i still legit hate Crash.

the only equivalence I was referencing was their award-winning (and, to a lesser extent, their "big statement"/of-the-moment commentary nature)

Haggis is not afraid to be stupid

and, to a lesser extent, their "big statement"/of-the-moment commentary nature

What "big statement" is this supposed to be making?? I'll say it again: it's clichéd and over-the-top in the service of comedy. The Ophuls comparison Jay Vee should be making is the circus in Lola Montes. Not that Birdman is a masterpiece of cinema. But it's using its technical devices to similar effect.

The closest Birdman comes to an American Beauty moment is ...

http://media.giphy.com/media/Ya6TjOP90uoJa/giphy.gif

"big statement" in Academy terms = jampacked w references to contemporary cultural flashpoints

Big Statement in Academy terms = an actress' breasts.

prosthetic noses also acceptable

You mock noses.

A nose by any other name

we should poll Academy-approved prosthetic noses - Monster, The Hours, Birdman, Foxcatcher. Raging Bull would win I suppose

wizard of oz

just green makeup for original witch nvm

but def lion and tin man. guess witch nose prosthetic was fostered by disney cartoons.

The ending was a bit twee

Except... He probably actually killed himself. At least that's how I read it.

― the joke should be over once the kid is eaten. (chap), Monday, January 26, 2015 4:16 AM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

chap otm

That would explain his daughter's relief in the last shot.

there's no read of the ending that makes sense

Thought that was film giving us the birdman we crave, though he is actually dead.

he died on stage. Everything after is terrible fake ending.

He was actually just window washing naked

You wish he window washed naked bc that is a famous scene from birdman 2

Two titles for two movies. One instinctively wants it to be birdman 4 while watching, which is sad bc that instinct is the impetus for the tragedy unfolding in the true story of birdman.

Cool movie, amazing soundtrack, surprised it took so long before somebody on a rooftop looked out at New York and proclaimed "God I love this city".

But yeah he didn't kill himself at the end. Or if we are going to say he did kill himself I'm pretty sure it was when he jumped off the building the day before.

iirc the line was "I loathe this city."

Lol was gonna say

Still cliche, just with a cynical tint to it. Actually that kind of describes this whole movie. Most of the characters felt like very broad stereotypes, and it wouldn't work nearly as well if the technical aspects weren't all just locked in to be nearly PERFECT. If I was teaching a film class this would be a perfect movie to bring out.

It's funny but in a way it's just as comic booky as the comic book movies that are the villains of this film.

But yeah he didn't kill himself at the end. Or if we are going to say he did kill himself I'm pretty sure it was when he jumped off the building the day before.

every other instance of his "powers" in the film are shown to be either unreal or otherwise in his mind (incl when he jumps off the building the day before - when he walks back into the theater he's being badgered by a cabbie for the fare), why would the end be any different

it could be a 'feelgood' cheat like that pisspoor climax of Being There where Sellers walks on water.

yeah - and the only real clue there is his daughter's expression. although maybe she is just glad he's dead.

altho tbf I like the ending of Being There

the most notable thing about this film was Norton playing the essence of every "Norton is an asshole to work with" story from the last 20 years.

that was certainly the most enjoyable thing about it

The movie goes downhill after his and Keaton's first moment onstage.

Finally saw this last night, super fun. Sure it's showoffy, but it's hard for me to believe that anyone interested in film wouldn't enjoy just the physical mechanics of its construction (tracking shot, drum score, jittery dialogue etc. etc.) Man there are some grumpy snobs upthread.

I'm a cheerful snob.

if you don't mind that what's under the showboating is repulsive

I feel bad for them.

we're practically like CRITICS, applying LABELS

citrics

fuck critics

if you want a good review

it took 4 writers to simulate the howling self-absorption of Paddy Chayefsky gone New Age.

― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:05 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Haha, yes! Finally watched this, and thought of Network several times throughout--not a good thing.

it held it together tonally far better than network imo but the good things abt network are in the mix, def

no no

this was a well made, generally overacted, dumb movie (and likely bad too but i was distracted by how well it was made)

Network had imagination to it.

Network and Birdman both have crushingly obvious things to say about Society, and want congratulations for their profundity in pointing them out. Big shock that the Academy loved both of them, though I imagine that it was Birdman's praising of the nobility of the Hollywood actor that actually got it the Best Pic award.

p much. this movie = http://cinemajaw.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/jon-lovitz-acting.jpg

The movie was not praising these delusional losers I didn't think

I was pretty buzzed coming out of this mostly cause of the showier formal elements like the drumming & fake single shot. A virtuosic movie about failed would-be virtuosi, the pictures of fidelman of film. Even tho the critic scene was fucking stupid as was at least one of the superfluous endings.

Anyway then I thought about if some more and it has not aged well in my head at all

The movie was not praising these delusional losers I didn't think

it's not so much that the movie is praising the delusional losers as the Academy was patting itself on the back for being self-aware enough to acknowledge the delusional losers in their midst (aren't they so clever and grown up - they "get it")

Yeah that's more like it, Hollywood navel-gazing does tend to do well at Hollywood navel-gazing ceremonies but what rational person pays the slightest attention to those anyway

zactly

I'm not telling anyone what I thought about what the academy thought of this, thats p much three levels beyond how I grade movies

kinda feel like all the meta-celebrity stuff in this movie was handled in a better way in Top Five (which was also just a better all around movie imo)

Network's characters have agendas, they have individual desires and motives, they react to each other. Birdman has a handful of unchanging archetypes that exist while things happen around them.

it really meant something back then mannnnnnnn

Network is so much better than this thing come on

Network is so much better than this thing come on

― polyphonic, Monday, April 13, 2015 3:04 PM (29 seconds ago)

Network has teeth and is concerned w the culture at large, this just seemed like navel-gazing

it really meant something back then mannnnnnnn

^Imagining Michael Keaton saying this while drums skitter around jazz beat.

ba-TSCH

Network is fun trash.

Exactly. No small feat.

i didn't really like this

it was very claustrophobic

i felt relieved when it was over

oh and best thing about this was definitely the drum beats

― flopson, Saturday, 10 January 2015 01:11 (1 hour ago) Permalink

^^
This

In retrospect I wish the film had ditched the play and just focused on the drummer.

― RAP GAME SHANI DAVIS (Raymond Cummings), Friday, January 9, 2015 9:42 PM (8 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

Could've still be a one-shot film.

i started watching it thinking it would be pretty bad, so i ended up enjoying it, actually

AI's next movie: The Revenant: Iñárritu, DiCaprio

I have this DVD checked out of the library atm and expect to watch it some time in the next couple of nights. Opinions here seems to be all over the map so I guess I'll be prepared for anything from greatness to pompous dreck.

it's great and pompous

Antonio Sanchez definitely killed it. And the part where you see Nate Smith playing his parts is better than all the drumming scenes in Whiplash.

it's great and pompous

yes, and it's a celebration of pomposity

not as funny or good as either Black Swan or Maskerade though

I just finished watching it. First impressions:

It was ridiculous without being funny. It tried to play both sides of the street at once and failed as both a drama and a comedy. It did succeed in being pretentious.

It was reasonably accurate in its satire of theater people, but theater are not only an easy target, but their personal inadequacies are irrelevant to what makes the theater worthwhile, so who cares?

The only actor who figured out how to rise above his role as it was written was Ed Norton. The rest of the cast dutifully delivered the caricatures that the script demanded.

I didn't enjoy that review

I enjoyed this film quite a bit. Not sure I'd watch it again, though.

i watched this for the first time last night, the 4th movie i'd watched during an 11-flight, and i was mesmerized. i thought the first 30-minutes or so in particular were really good. i was really surprised that someone upthread walked out after that, but i guess if you're not into birdman after the first half an hour you might as well go grab a taco or whatever. hard to believe all the hate in this thread but i guess i was just more pulled in by its technical achievements. on reflection, the script was sometimes weak but the performances and the way it was shot are so good that they could be reading dog food ingredients and it would still be pretty good. the plot is sometimes a little silly, but everything dips into the surreal so that seems natural. i can understand why some would recoil at its pretensions but it also introduces bob sagat and then kills him off within a minute, as michael keaton admits to the murder while walking back to his dressing room. it's not exactly people whispering in a t malick movie (which i also enjoy fwiw)

anyway, 2 jet-lagged thumbs up, way up

otm otm otm

Thought this was okay. Sat down wanting to be completely drawn into and absorbed in a film after kind of a stressful/distracting day. If it never really got me there, I never wanted to turn it off either. Some nice images, some nice scenes, Keaton was fantastic but it didn't add up too much and the ending felt underthought even before found out it was kind of a late addition. I think the hype, awards, and budget do it a disservice - this is a minor, semi-weird, doesn't-quite-work film and that's not a bad thing, but pumped up to masterpiece status it inevitably feels like the emperor with no clothes.

The thing I come back to is Norton telling Keaton his script has him saying the same thing four times without being sure what the line's really about, and then we have this film where characters say and do the same things over and over. Not sure what to take away from it but it's surely intentional and I think a version shot in flat black and white - or a stage play version - it'd start to feel much more clearly like some kinda Waiting For Godot thing, with Actors wanderiing around repeating hollow dialogue that's meant to come off as discomfitingly detached from normal human behavior etc. Not saying it should have been that, mind.

The Birdman voice was hilarious though. You could tell he really got into the spirit of the schlocky cliche of the comic book split personality - he sounds like Bale's Batman more than his own but the best lines all sounded like they came straight from such classic garbage stories as the Invisible Woman battling her S&M alter-ego Malice, etc.

Best movie I feel like arguing with anyone who says otherwise

It's shallow, showy guff.

Makes a point of it in fact

It makes a point of being guff?

I'm possibly enjoying it on a shallower level, or maybe a deeper one, idk.

Criticism based on relative perspective totally invalid if the piece works consistently from either obv

Inarittu is probably the worst thing that has happened to film in the last twenty years.

Fred not entirely offbase

Sonsabitches have sent in the big guns huh

so how about you tell us what you think is so great about this movie, then we can knock down all your points?

Xp

Renowned film critics

keaton was amazing otherwise this movie sucked

Norton was my pick

To aimless- it worked. But what it aimed for and was funny and touching while not being overly kind on any of its idiot characters.

Norton also my pick

Inarittu is probably the worst thing that has happened to film in the last twenty years.

Did he come up with that thing where the camera slows down and circles around during action sequences and then speeds up? Did he do the "Last Resort" video?

just gonna

Iñárritu

carry on

'Iñárritu' is probably the worst thing that has happened to film critics in the last twenty years.

Don't see u throwing many fadas my way man but u do u xp