Birdman (2014)

[SallyAlbright]

I am hoping someone else on here has seen this because I think it's going to generate a lot of discussion! Thoughts? Still trying to formulate mine. 

[Shannon L.]

Unless our plans fall through my husband and I are going to see it this Saturday with another couple.  I'll be honest:  I wasn't interested in it--it look too odd and I've found that more often than not, the odd looking ones that get the fantastic reviews usually leave me scratching my head wondering what the big deal was.  However, I was out voted and given all the talk about it, I'm willing to go along.  I hope I end up really enjoying it.  I'll get back to you  :)

[roseslg]

I am going tonight!  I am hoping the character was based on the old birdman cartoon character.  Probably not, but it's my hope

[Shannon L.]

Ok, I saw it last night with my husband and other couple and we all had the same thoughts on it:  we liked parts of it, but it lost us when he started to fly and we didn't like the last scene. The guys (my husband, who used to work in the business, and our friend who still does) loved some of the technical aspects of it--they think it should win for cinematography and maybe even editing.  We all thought the acting was very good.  But, when I stated that I thought it was trying too hard, they all said "yes!".  When watching it, I felt like I did when presented a classic novel in high school with an assignment to write about the writer's use of symbolism.  I wouldn't mind discussing it more if someone who is much better at expressing what they thought of it starts the conversation.  In the meantime, my friend posted this on FB after we saw the movie:

 

Review - 'Birdman' Tries Too Hard To Say Too Little

 

I agree with a lot that is said in this article.  Especially this section:

 

 

For all of its layers and distractions, and for all of its undeniably impressive performances and displays of technical prowess, director Alejandro González Iñárritu Birdman ultimately boils down to those same lazy, bitter pronouncements. It spends most of its time trying mightily to draw attention to everything about itself, until you can’t be pulled into its story because it won’t let you forget you’re watching performances and cinematography in a movie that’s very convinced of its own superiority.

 

It’s terribly unfortunate, because the performances are usually terrific and the quality of the cinematography is undeniably spectacular. It’s the effect of it all that’s the problem, and how it undermines our ability to experience the film and become truly engaged by the performances. The film works too hard to appear to say more than it does, and its sensibilities are liable to be off-putting for a lot of viewers.

[SallyAlbright]

Ok, I saw it last night with my husband and other couple and we all had the same thoughts on it:  we liked parts of it, but it lost us when he started to fly and we didn't like the last scene. The guys (my husband, who used to work in the business, and our friend who still does) loved some of the technical aspects of it--they think it should win for cinematography and maybe even editing.  We all thought the acting was very good.  But, when I stated that I thought it was trying too hard, they all said "yes!".  When watching it, I felt like I did when presented a classic novel in high school with an assignment to write about the writer's use of symbolism.  I wouldn't mind discussing it more if someone who is much better at expressing what they thought of it starts the conversation.  In the meantime, my friend posted this on FB after we saw the movie:

 

Review - 'Birdman' Tries Too Hard To Say Too Little

 

I agree with a lot that is said in this article.  Especially this section:

I agree! I thought all of the actors were fantastic, especially Keaton, Stone, Norton, and surprisingly, Zach Galifianakis. The cinematography was absolutely breathtaking and should win many many awards. My friends and I loved the first 3/4 of the film, but everything from the flying on felt a bit off. It was just quite the shift in tone and I'm not sure it worked- people were audibly saying "Huh?" in my theater at the ending. So, I guess I have mixed feelings. I can see why it's an outstanding creative achievement, but I'm not sure it holds up that well in terms of story and plot. The acting, directing and cinematography are certainly award worthy though. 

[wrestlesflamingos]

Saw it this afternoon. I agree with the shift in tone but disagree that it's out of place. We don't see the flying until Riggan starts drinking heavily. All of the special effects are somewhat of a device. It zooms in on the specific flaw Riggan is struggling with in any scene.

 

I really love it. I thought it was clever and interesting throughout. I liked the head wink to Keaton turning down Batman, I liked Emma Stone playing the real life version of Lohan. 

 

I think the make up crew deserves an oscar. The entire movie felt like it was in close up.

 

The only thing I absolutely hated was the actresses making out. Felt gratuitous.

[Ankai]

I thought that the actresses making out was weird too, but I kind of figured that it was part of the meta casting and probably would not have been there had Naomi Watts not been cast. There were at least three actors who have been in superhero movies, with Keaton's character being a stand-in for either himself or Adam West. Norton seemed to be playing up his own image as a troublesome actor, though there may have been hints of other actors, like Shia. Even before the two actresses started making out, I got inklings that Naomi's character had shades of her character from Mulholland Dr. I am pretty sure that that was her big breakout role, wasn't it? Even Spider-Man was briefly in the movie for some reason.  

 

I quite enjoyed the movie, as pretentious as it may have been.

[Grammaeryn]

I don't really get the love for this movie. But I usually dislike movies about Hollywood show biz. I thought Keaton and Norton were given really meaty roles to work with. The female roles were horrendous but Stone had the most lines so she wins? Yay...

[NoWillToResist]

Oh Christ, I tried to like this movie. I honestly did. I can objectively appreciate the cinematography and technical achievements etc. but sweet holy fuck, I just didn't give a shit about anyone in this film or what was happening. I had ZERO investment in what was going on.

[backgroundnoise]

I also thought the movie veered off track at the flying scene.   I really disliked the surreal last scene.

[Shannon L.]

 

I also thought the movie veered off track at the flying scene.   I really disliked the surreal last scene.

That's exactly when my friends and I started disliking it.  We were enjoying it up until then, but that kind of ruined it for us.

[Ronin Jackson]

Man, I loved this movie, but I've always enjoyed surrealism.  All the parts that most of the posters here are complaining about are exactly the parts where I really started to love the movie.  I thought they established the surrealist tone pretty well right off the bat with Riggan levitating, and the surrealism was peppered throughout, so I didn't find the flying bits to be out of place at all.  It was very clear that part of the film was a subjective expression of Riggan's mental state.  And the film was a technical tour de force.  Long steady takes isn't just a technical marvel for me... it's a very engrossing cinematic technique.  It's the cinmematic technique that most closely resembles the experience of moving through life... no cuts, steady flow through space... it's a very involving cinematic style as a member of the audience watching (as opposed to handheld shakycam stuff which some less talented directors think accomplish the same thing).  There's probably a certain segment of the audience that isn't going to swallow surrealism no matter what, so the film was going to be a lost cause for them unless the entire vision changed.  Respecting the film's vision for what it was, I thought it was brilliant.  

[magicdog]

I found this blog comparing this film to an old Bugs Bunny cartoon.  It makes me wonder.

Edited February 16, 2015 by magicdog

[meep.meep]

I really liked this film.  And anything that takes a swipe at comic book movies is all right by me.  More Birdmen and fewer Ironman vs. Thor's Cousin.

[BetterButter]

[GreekGeek]

I'm rooting for Keaton to get the Oscar, because I love a good comeback story, but I was thrown off by the surrealism also. I can accept "it's in his head," but in the final scene, unless I've totally misinterpreted it, 

Emma Stone sees her father flying, which would mean it's not his imagination but "real."

 

I also thought the movie erred somewhat by making that old fake dichotomy: movies = mindless spectacle, theater = art, when the theater is busy creating its own mindless spectacles. You can see the theaters playing the latter in the shots of the theater district. 

[Mya Stone]

I'm rooting for Keaton to get the Oscar, because I love a good comeback story, but I was thrown off by the surrealism also. I can accept "it's in his head," but in the final scene, unless I've totally misinterpreted it, 

Emma Stone sees her father flying, which would mean it's not his imagination but "real."

I think the last shot is supposed to signify his daughter's acceptance of her father. Not that he truly does or doesn't fly, but that she loves him for him.

I think.

[Ronin Jackson]

I agree... there was a scene where the guy on the roof reacted to his jumping, and the lady in the building looked at him floating up to the roof, so the established other characters can be a part of the subjective visions. It was more pronounced in that last scene but it certainly doesn't mean it really happened.

[runforcover]

I wanted to like this movie.  I really did.  

It also incited a three hour argument between myself and my partner where we hysterically co-opted some prescribed fight scene between a guy and a girl after a movie BECAUSE THAT"S WHAT THIS MOVIE DOES.

 

Remember Adaptation?
And there are a few others that fall into this genre.  Yes, it's a genre.  It's reality-chasing without ever "landing" or failing to land and thinking that's some kind of story-telling virtue.  Something like that.  It's narcissism turned up to a psychotic degree.  You feel watched while you are watching and the result is just unpleasant.  I was waiting for this thing to end by minute twenty and already flipping through a roster of responses to a movie I hadn't even finished BECAUSE THATS WHAT THIS MOVIE DOES.

 

before being and working as a movie, this film puts forth paranoid critique above all else.

I was both bored and annoyed.

[beetnemesis]

Pretty good movie. Hats off to the director, some of the scenes lasted over 10 mins in one take. All the actors did a great job. Kept me entertained all the way through. Again, pretty good movie, worth a watch.