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

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.

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