Birdman (Alejandro González Iñárritu)

The Black Oil

I enjoyed it more than Foxcatcher. I really liked how the camera moved around, particularly into rooms and the long narrow corridors. I agree that some of characters are broad. Emma Stone has very striking eyes, btw. Ed Norton, what a ball of energy that guy is. The commentary on social media didn't feel self-righteous. The broader stuff about celebrity, franchises and culture seemed to be a bit more bristling.

I was a little less sold on

the flying scenes.

the incredible pudding

Just watched it last night. I can't believe that within a week of watching Whiplash I've heard a better drum score. Sanchez's playing is just unbeliveable and it's ridiculous that it was declared to be ineligable for an oscar nomination as it suited the film perfectly. I love black comedies so this film was right up my alley and it was just shot so damn well. I'd like to see it again so that i can maybe concentrate a bit more on the meat of the film though as I spent a lot of time just entranced by the visuals and sound so didn't appreciate the great script as much as I could.

candy-gal1

Really liked this, seems to end maybe a tad too quickly and abruptly, but makes sense too, would go and see this again!

happysunnydays

Excellent film, enjoyed the theatrical look and feel set within NY city, long camera shots. Music was so cool. Fantastic performances from everyone. HUmour was top notch, running through Times Sq in a pair of y-fronts. Definitely a film I would watch again.

Martha_Mae

Absolutely brilliant! Loved the fact that the scenes kept changing keeping you on edge and the battle of ego for every single persona in the film was just ..brilliant!

Having Michael Keaton saying that he doesn't feel the resemblance to his own life story... dunno

Fakman87

Lads, please help. I ****ing despised this film. Explain to me what I missed.

e_e

Fakman87 wrote: »

Lads, please help. I ****ing despised this film. Explain to me what I missed.

The imaginative writing, great performances, crackling drama, wonderful humor and most of all the virtuoso direction.

expectationlost

re the end

she wasn't looking at flying 'Michael Keaton' at the end so what was she looking at

Mc Love

This went over my head - its more of an arty type movie. I didnt really get it.

Martha_Mae

I'm really surprised that the IMC chose a film like that! Their selection of movies is usually....let's say not the best..

lovelyhurler

Fakman87 wrote: »

Lads, please help. I ****ing despised this film. Explain to me what I missed.

This went over my head - its more of an arty type movie. I didnt really get it.

Have to agree with you folks.
First I thought that it was just me that didn't get it.
Has to be one of the more over rated films of recent times.

Birneybau

Mc Love wrote: »

This went over my head - its more of an arty type movie. I didnt really get it.

Were you expecting a superhero movie?

Osmosis Jones

lovelyhurler wrote: »

Has to be one of the more over rated films of recent times.

Because you didn't get it?

Arkaron

Saw this a couple of weeks ago, right when it came out. Thought it was crazy good. I was particularly astonished by the technical feat of shooting everything so as to create a seemingly uninterrupted tracking shot of over 90 minutes. What's great is that the script actually warrants this directing strategy, and allows the film maker to play with metafictional elements to reflect on various aspects of the stage actors, cinema, and so on.

That's not even mentioning the insane performances from the cast, especially Keaton and Norton, and the almost exclusively drummy soundtrack. Defo one of the best so far, and hard to top in my book.

NyOmnishambles

Saw this in Cineworld last night

The trailer is very misleading and I feel might make people dislike this film more than they should

I thought it was brilliant, the acting was superb, Norton in particular and also Keaton, delighted to see him get a decent role as he is usually good in anything he is in

The one take nature of it and the soundtrack were also fascinating and enhanced the whole feel of the movie

Loved the commentary on movie stars and theatre and the snobbishness of it all, lots of themes explored and exposed

Not everyone's cup of tea certainly but it had me from start to finish

e_e

I'm surprised that people are finding this impenetrable tbh. It's such a work of pure entertainment with so much going on from scene to scene and if you come to the conclusion that Birdman is Riggan's fantasy the only part that's even the slightest bit ambiguous is the final shot. It's a brilliant ending too because Inarritu hands you a piece of the puzzle that does not click with the rest, leaving you with an emotional conclusion that's satisfying but also something to really consider after leaving the cinema. It's like Inarritu building this amazing machine and then throwing a spanner in the works at the end.

e_e

expectationlost wrote: »

re the end

she wasn't looking at flying 'Michael Keaton' at the end so what was she looking at

I don't think she's literally

seeing him flying it's more that she sees her father's commitment to his art and the respect he has achieved.

Martha_Mae

Martha_Mae wrote: »

I'm really surprised that the IMC chose a film like that! Their selection of movies is usually....let's say not the best..

If referring to the IMC cinema chain then you are talking utter garbage, they regularly schedule a lot of left field fare and have seasons dedicated to the work of actors and directors. There are two cinemas in Galway city, one is an independently run one and boasts about it's Art Screen and the other is an IMC cinema. One of them shows a lot of foreign cinema, art house fare and smaller independent films, the other gets in the odd thing but is happier to show Mrs Brown's Boys on 3 screens. I'll let you guess which is which/

Skerries

Caw! Caw! Caw!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUDVa69I_Hc

OwaynOTT

Skerries wrote: »

Caw! Caw! Caw!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUDVa69I_Hc

Jimmy Fallon! Stop laughing through the skits!

The Strawman Argument

Deleted User wrote: »

If referring to the IMC cinema chain then you are talking utter garbage, they regularly schedule a lot of left field fare and have seasons dedicated to the work of actors and directors. There are two cinemas in Galway city, one is an independently run one and boasts about it's Art Screen and the other is an IMC cinema. One of them shows a lot of foreign cinema, art house fare and smaller independent films, the other gets in the odd thing but is happier to show Mrs Brown's Boys on 3 screens. I'll let you guess which is which/

I wouldn't say one's significantly better than the other overall, but the IMC has probably had a few more exclusives I wanted to see than the Eye and does at least try with seasons and the like so imo the notion that the Eye is somehow more refined is utter garbage alright (I'm ignoring those ballet and gallery screening things they do, the audience they attract has been enough to make me not even remotely curious about them to be honest). Pretty sure they've renamed the "Art Screen" (i.e. smallest screen) to "Screen 9" recently though so at least they're acknowledging it.


No clue about other IMC's beyond the Screen Cinema in Dublin, which has had pretty decent selections the few times I've been there.

Tipsy McSwagger

Brilliant film with a brilliant lead performance from Keaton, I hope he gets the Oscar. The film is a breath of fresh air in a medium dominated by the amount of coverage comic book movies get, and the film really shoves this in the viewers face 'hey don't make an arty Broadway show, just make another Birdman sequel' it practically spills out.

DoYouEvenLift

Not sure what to make of this film. Something about Keaton doesn't sit right with me, I can't put my finger on it. I did think Edward Norton was very good, though. The strongest part of the film is the photography and editing, I did really like the unique format and I'm glad the cinematographer got an Oscar for it. I can definitely see why people are saying it's a film for the people in the film industry.

happysunnydays

It's nice to see the Birdman thread back (best film of the year so far) after it took on some negative comments from superhero fans who thought they going to a whizz bang film. Intellect levels zero corporal, should I engage the laser beam?

johnny_ultimate

happysunnydays wrote: »

It's nice to see the Birdman thread back (best film of the year so far) after it took on some negative comments from superhero fans who thought they going to a whizz bang film. Intellect levels zero corporal, should I engage the laser beam?

No, but you should talk about the film rather than making silly assumptions about the people who did / did not like it.

happysunnydays

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No, but you should talk about the film rather than making silly assumptions about the people who did / did not like it.

Thank you Johnny for showing me the path to your truth. It won't be happening again.

mikhail

happysunnydays wrote: »

Thank you Johnny for showing me the path to your truth. It won't be happening again.

happysunnydays

^^^^^ I believe you have misinterpreted the meaning in my previous post, it is neither sarcastic or grovelling apology. As poster we are obliged to be meeting certain standards, we may offer our humour within these constraints without aggravating other posters.
Johnny as supreme commander believes my post to be the initial seeds of anarchy within this thread, despite my knowledge that one of my circle attended the 'Birdman' unwittingly believing it to be superhero film and so lessened the experience.
A blinkered closed approach to life lessens your ability to see beyond the box. People in power, high education or take life too seriously only see what they want to see or believe....a form of arrogance perhaps? How could someone go to Birdman and believe it was a superhero film? Did they not read a review? Ridiculous....Maybe like buying jam and getting wasabi in China...I'm sure it was jam because it looked like that....even though I couldn't read the package.

Frankie5Angels

Just saw this tonight. I don't think I've ever been as disappointed coming out of a film, ever. I hadn't read reviews, just knew that it picked up a few awards, and I'm not one of those who thought it was going to be a superhero film. I just completely lost interest in it about 50 mins from the end. Absolute waste of time and money.

Andersonisgod

Saw this tonight, loved it. Very clever, one might say pretentious but, while it hits on massive themes, it doesn't dissolve into a lecture and alleviates it's sense of importance with self-deprecating moments. It boasts some killer quotes, masterful cinematography and soundtrack, incredible performances from a hugely talented cast (Keaton and Norton are particularly brilliant) and the movie means something, it says something. Above all it's a movie that after you leave the cinema you will think about it for ages and you could talk with your friends about it for hours, the supernatural portion and the meaning behind it, the open ending, the movies stance on modern society, social media, New York, the arts, celebrity culture ect. or you can just discuss the sheer quality of what you've just witnessed on the screen. Brilliant piece of cinema.

senordingdong

Frankie5Angels wrote: »

, and I'm not one of those who thought it was going to be a superhero film.

Just out of curiosity, what did you think it was going to be?

Frankie5Angels

senordingdong wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what did you think it was going to be?

Good? :pac:

I knew it was about a struggling actor who used to be massive while playing a superhero back in the day, so I suppose I thought it would be about his trials and tribulations and maybe a shot at getting back at the big time.

Shandashey

Thought it was a load of indulgent aul tosh to be honest, and the sound track did my head in.

senordingdong

Frankie5Angels wrote: »

Good? :pac:

I knew it was about a struggling actor who used to be massive while playing a superhero back in the day, so I suppose I thought it would be about his trials and tribulations and maybe a shot at getting back at the big time.

Yeah that's what I thought too. I think we're on the same page bit with different hingsights.
I was pleasantly surprised with the schizo element. And the dysfunctional family/friends were a nice addition.

I hated the supernatural element and don't feel it added anything. I'm undecided on the soundtrack but I think it needs to be applauded for doing something different, even if it wasn't entirely my taste.

I also thought that the pretentious, self indulgent aspect was hugely tongue in cheek.

DoYouEvenLift

Shandashey wrote: »

Thought it was a load of indulgent aul tosh to be honest, and the sound track did my head in.

If you could call it that

Shandashey

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

If you could call it that

It was really annoying and pretentious

happysunnydays

SOundtrack was one of the best things about the film especially the drummer guy in the corner, Imean like so kewl ! Fitted in so well with the artistic cultural leanings and connotations. Every time the soundtrack lifted through the backstage corridors of the theatre I go 'chune'! Now we're all saying it ....around the nest especially when some beats get dropped on decks, we all go...quite ironically actually...chune! ...and then I stroke my punctured earlobe with the giant tribal ring, all's calm cause the Birdman is in control.

e_e

I get annoying but pretentious? Like "Yeah those snares, cymbals and hi-hats sure were full of themselves.". :pac:

Right Turn Clyde

e_e wrote: »

I get annoying but pretentious? Like "Yeah those snares, cymbals and hi-hats sure were full of themselves.". :pac:

Pretentious has to one of the most overused and misunderstood words in the online warrior's vocabulary. Look up as many definitions of it as you can, and in all of them you'll see an element of subjectivity. For example: "making claim to distinction or importance, esp undeservedly." The person that's using the word is the one that's making the value judgment. They'd be better detailing what their exact problem is. It's like a bastardised burden of proof type of thing. It's not up to the film to prove it's not pretentious. It's up to the critic to prove that it is. Communicate, people. Explain yourselves!

DoYouEvenLift

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

Pretentious has to one of the most overused and misunderstood words in the online warrior's vocabulary. Look up as many definitions of it as you can, and in all of them you'll see an element of subjectivity. For example: "making claim to distinction or importance, esp undeservedly." The person that's using the word is the one that's making the value judgment. They'd be better detailing what their exact problem is. It's like a bastardised burden of proof type of thing. It's not up to the film to prove it's not pretentious. It's up to the critic to prove that it is. Communicate, people. Explain yourselves!

It's heading towards the same fate as "literally" I'd say.

Right Turn Clyde

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

It's heading towards the same fate as "literally" I'd say.

Jamie Redknapp: "The football literally exploded off his foot."

DoYouEvenLift

It's hard to understand how the Internet's actually contributed to the butchering of some English words even though the correct meaning of any word can be found through Google in a second.

Duggy747

I quite liked it, didn't find it particularly as pretentious as many had described it to be.

I did find it deflated towards the end and lost it's energetic momentum but the camera was certainly the star of this show. Keaton I enjoyed seeing again but honestly his performance didn't bowl me over, probably because it had been built up so much and Norton stole the show more for me.

happysunnydays

What's pretentious about this film? Its getting bandied about a lot by a number of posters yet not a single example. Its come to my attention that 'pretention' is now a word that used when someone doesn't exactly know what they are looking at or haven't developed the brainage capacity to understand. The brain can't process due to the higher form of conscious therefore....throw the cards in the air...I give up! ...more popcorn more gallons of coke more whizzz bang! Less of the 'pretension', I need my entertainment fix mr director. I don't need to think...just f*cking tell me! Did the Birdman die or fly?

Fakman87

happysunnydays wrote: »

What's pretentious about this film? Its getting bandied about a lot by a number of posters yet not a single example. Its come to my attention that 'pretention' is now a word that used when someone doesn't exactly know what they are looking at or haven't developed the brainage capacity to understand. The brain can't process due to the higher form of conscious therefore....throw the cards in the air...I give up! ...more popcorn more gallons of coke more whizzz bang! Less of the 'pretension', I need my entertainment fix mr director. I don't need to think...just f*cking tell me! Did the Birdman die or fly?

I think in a lot of cases pretentious means "style over substance", which is a worthy criticism of this film.

e_e

By that logic wouldn't a tonne of really stylish and fun genre ( as in horror, fantasy, action etc) movies be classified as pretentious too?

Whenever I see someone describe a film as pretentious I'm reminded of that line from The Wire: "You're equivocating like a mother****er!"

FloatingVoter

I'm the first one to cry bull**** at bad movies passing themselves off as fine art. Birdman is a funny film about a shallow man with a past. You don't need a degree to get it. Or be put off by the theatre setting. It could actually have been set on a building site instead of a theatre and not many changes would have been needed (Ed Norton lays brick faster than the once legendary Brick Keaton....actually I'm warming to the sequel already:D).

JacquesDeLad

I've tried to watch it twice. I managed 10 minutes at the first go and I got 30 minutes in at the second attempt.

I'll probably never end up watching it all the way through.

I think the problem was that I was expecting a great, as in entertaining movie, but it seems to be a great, as in artistic movie.

Adamantium

.ak wrote: »

I think my favourite character in it was New York, though. Rarely does a film capture the essence of the city as well as this does, often movies veer towards OTT NY clichés but this hit the nail on the head with the older generation clutching onto the arts like it's theirs and nobody elses, with newer generations flabbergasted at their obsessions and ofcourse the unforgiving vitriol of the city itself. I often thought the movie's main star was the city, or rather the behaviour of the city, itself rather than Keating, and that perhaps you become sympathetic with Keating due to the uncontrollable nature of the story. It's really quite clever.

It only takes a place in a small area and it that's what makes it even more impressive. I lived in NY for a few months in 2012 and it so got the feel of the place, that unforgiving vitriol of the place as you said, it felt like I had gone back. I'll be buying the blu ray

e_e

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

as in entertaining movie, as in artistic movie.

I don't know why these terms have to be mutually exclusive and don't really buy into this art/entertainment dichotomy. I for one found Birdman to be very entertaining.