Birdman

A washed-up actor who once played an iconic superhero (Michael Keaton) must overcome his ego and family trouble as he mounts a Broadway play in a bid to reclaim his past glory.

Also starring Emma Stone, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts , Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan and Zach Galifianakis.

Dir.: Alejandro González Iñárritu

edited 13th Jun '14 5:10:05 AM by TheBatPencil

> Thinking it was a BIIIIIIIIIIIIRDMAN! movie.

> My hopes and dreams being crushed.

I had the same thought when I read the title.

HYPE CRUSHED COMBO FINISH!!

I'm personally waiting for a Space Ghost movie, but otherwise I'm with the rest of you guys.

So... it's The Grey Ghost: The Movie?

But will it have a cameo of Adam West as Catman?

Dear god this.

Alright, I'm bumping this right now because this movie's been getting RAVE reviews.

Currently at a 93% on RT.

But it doesn't feature Falcon 7! No so-called Birdman movie should be accepted without him!

(or Mentok, the Mind Taker)

I'm firmly in the "thought this was a movie about BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRDMAN" camp.

I am sorely disappointed.

Sooooooooo…

Was that a giant robot bird in the trailer?

Also, the idea of the voice of "Birdman" arguing with Riggan is really reminding me of Batman's voice arguing with Bruce Wayne in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

But I guess that's kinda the point?

Seriously, go see this movie. It is amazing. Believe the hype. Emma Stone is great, Michael Keaton is great. Norton at the height of his powers. Amazing directing. And, even if too briefly, a giant mechano-bird.

Its got it all!

It finally releases here tomorrow, I'm seeing it on day one. Very excited!

Yes, it's a giant bird in the trailer. It only appears for one scene, but it's awesome.

A Birdman movie should acknowledge his civic careers as a superhero and lawyer. And the solar shield.

I hated this so much. Once again one of those navel gazing mid life crisis things that every writer seemingly wants to write where a washed up artist artist struggles with their self worth and tries to validate himself trough how others see him or his art or whatever... And it's bloody brilliant. The movie is absolutely hypnotic, great performances all around, beautiful cinematography and the sound track is horrible, the kind of stuff I wouldn't listen to in a bar for 10 minutes before having to leave, where some guy just bashes on the drums for two hours, and its perfect for this movie and enhances every goddamn scene.

Gah, this thing drives me up the wall. It should not work. Go see it.

Saw this last night, finally. It's the only oscar-bait film that I've been significantly hyped for because it looked so experimental (and very meta), though I think my personal hype kind of diminished the film's sense of importance. Certainly wasn't as epic as I thought it'd be but...well, it still kind of works for that reason. It feels very self-contained and theatrical, with a small cast of characters whose lives we kind of just glimpse into (all of them portrayed masterfully by everyone involved). I would've liked to see the Birdman persona physically materialize a bit more (mainly because I love that costume), but that's pretty minor. It's not nearly as cerebral and Mind screwy as I expected, which is refreshing. I like things that don't rely on True Art Is Incomprehensible to make you reflect and think and this film felt very ingrained in reality with just the right amount of madness.

I think it's very much the kind of film where everyone can walk away with their own personal interpretation of what it all means, which I think any kind of artsy thing like this should aim for - author's intent be damned.

46:55

WHERE'S THE CAMERA? WHY ISN'T IT IN THE MIRROR?!

Carol Spinney deals with the bird in his past.

And congrats to this film on its Oscar win!

edited 23rd Feb '15 11:52:08 AM by Tuckerscreator

That was amazing.

Oscar win or not...I don't like the movie. I think it was very frustrating to watch, because I kept thinking "that could be an awesome movie if it wouldn't congratulate itself to it's own cleverness constantly and would trust in the intelligence of the audience". The most frustrating aspect was the way it kept showing thing brilliantly...and then proceeded to telling what was just shown, ruining every hope for being settled. It was like sitting in a restaurant and getting a perfect meal served, but the moment you want to eat it, someone appeared to chew it for you. The movie was too long. It was too on the nose. And because it was so on the nose, it was predictable. The moment Norton complained about the realism of the gun I kept waiting for the main guy to trying and failing to shoot himself during the premiere. The only bright spot in the movie was Emma Watson - it is no wonder that "Sam" is the only character name I can remember. It is also very odd how Norton just fades out of the story towards the end, and I really could have done without the special effects. They added nothing to the movie. On a different note: I am a little bit surprised that so many people understand the movie as a big "take that" towards Comic book movies. To me it was a big "take that" to the whole acting business in general, basically accusing actors, no matter if they are on stage or in the movies, to be attention whores.

Emma Stone*

But I understand your criticism. It certainly isn't as smart or deep as a movie as everyone would have you think, but that was actually why I enjoyed it. Unlike a David Lynch movie (as much as I love The Elephant Man) or something it wasn't just a bunch of random surrealist crap happening that supposedly has some big meaning behind it. It was very simple with a few surreal elements that made it stand out. It worked as an artsy film and it worked as just a film, and those are the kind of movies I really appreciate - that can balance their artistic vision with their entertainment value.

I too didn't like how Ed Norton's character disappeared all of a sudden, though you could argue his relationship with Sam was the real conclusion to his story in that he was able to open up to someone physically and emotionally in real life as opposed to the stage. But it needed a more deliberate conclusion, I agree.

I also agree that it didn't seem to be targeting comic book movies, but actors and entertainment in general. On one side of the coin you have meaningless Michael Bay garbage that Riggan condemns, but on the other side you have the "philosophical bullshit" the Birdman persona condemns - and I think they both have a point. It's a movie, I think anyway, about finding that balance between entertainment and meaning - in both the industry and in life. We want life to be fun and exciting but we don't want it to be meaningless fun and excitement. That's how I interpreted it anyway.

But hey, you're entitled to your opinion, and I get it.

Oh, I didn't mean that I wanted the movie to be more surrealist. In fact, I could have done with less of those surrealist scenes, because in my eyes they added nothing to the movie. What I meant is that the movie sets up a great scene which SHOWS that the main character confuses fame and love. Next we have a scene in which his wife points out that this is exactly his problem. And as if this isn't enough, next we get a long talk he has in his mind which puts the point across yet again. I could have lived with the movie spelling it out once through his wife, but not with it constantly monologueing about the main character. (In fact the habit reminded me of Man of Steel, which I hated exactly for the same reason...the only difference was that Man of Steel went on and on about the importance of Superman, and Birdman went on and one about the need of the main character to feel important again). In any case, you get a brilliantly acted scene, and then voice from the off which explains to you what the meaning of the brilliantly acted scene is....I think you could have cut out most of the hallucinations, and the movie would have been stronger for it.

Yeah, I can see what you mean. I didn't like Man of Steel for the same reason. I think the hallucinations sort of just gave the movie more of an identity beyond a black dramedy about an actor's mid-life crisis. At the very least, the Birdman persona should have been used to do more than just repeat what the dialogue already established, yeah. Or even physically materialize more. I was disappointed that he only physically appeared for two scenes.

If nothing else, that costume is awesome.