Birdman (2014)
 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/uJfLoE6hanc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Uhh.. so does he have super powers or is he nuts.


Wtf.

Uh....no thanks, but I'd watch a Harvey Birdman movie.

Honestly, this is going to be an awesome film.

I thought that's what it was...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/H2m45TLVKRs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm pretty confused after watching the trailer!

who's going to play the grape ape?

looks pretty good

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/birdman_2014/

Critics Consensus: A thrilling leap forward for director Alejandro González Iñárritu, Birdman is an ambitious technical showcase powered by a layered story and outstanding performances from Michael Keaton and Edward Norton.

Looks bad ass

Fight Club is my all time favorite film. Birdman was released 15 years later (almost to the day) and I can honestly say it is the best film I've seen since. Birdman is outstanding. It's a revelation. The performance of Keaton's career. Norton hasn't been this good in a decade. It's breath-taking. It's heartbreaking. It's hilarious. It's insightful.

Best film of the year. Best I've seen this decade (so far). Best I've seen since Fight Club. I can't recommend it highly enough.

Wonder how it compares to 'Fight Club'?

This looks over the top absurd, and I'm having trouble seeing anything that makes me want to watch the whole film....

While I'm not as enthused as Red Brooklyn, I also enjoyed the movie. Was a lot of fun at Alamo. Beer wasn't bad either.

John Goodman

Looks interesting. Will rent.

Will watch on showtime

I have no idea what kind of dark magic Alejandro González Iñárritu used in order to make it look like there were no cuts in this movie, but it was freaking mind-blowing.

I enjoyed every ****ing minute of this genius directing, writing and acting masterpiece.

The trailer did not want me to go watch it, but the reviews did the trick. I'm glad they did because holy shit...

I have no idea what that technique/method/style is, but you're right. It was highly effective for this style of movie. You're never alone with this movie. You go back and forth between characters, but there's never really any seque or anything. Seems like the viewer just gets handed off between characters. At some points, it was almost like the audience was the alter ego watching Riggan's life.

Yeap. It literally looked like it was all done in one single take. LMAO

Watched Birdman last night. What a confusing irrational mess of a movie that was. How on Earth did it get such reviews? It tries way too hard to be an uber-creative, profound artsy piece. But it just didn't work for me at all. There were certain aspects of the movie that were pretty amazing. Like the camera work and the way they portrayed the hectic spinning environment. But overall I was really disappointed. Really unfulfilling movie.

What was so confusing? I though it was actually pretty straight forward?

Saw this a few days ago. Very enjoyable.

It reminded me of listening to a good bop jazz band. Fast and loose.

Some of the characters were a bit miscast (Stone, Galifinakis) but Keaton and Norton were just spot on choices for those characters.

Okay, just wasted two ****ing hours of my life watching this flaming pile of dogshit. I kept thinking this has to get better any minute now. Guess what?????? It ****ing didn't! It kept getting worse and worse and worse and finally thank sweet baby jesus it was over!

If you are even thinking of watching this DON'T! Do something more enjoyable like whacking off with 80 grit sandpaper or pulling your toenails off with pliers.

**** my life!

Directing was awesome. I thought Norton was better than Keaton. Inarritu should win best director, but I don't think for a second this should win best picture.

Tell us how you really feel. I'm gonna give it a shot next week lol

I watched this movie last night on DirecTV on demand. I got out the sandpaper and pliers about 35 minutes into it. I just knew I was going to hate this movie.. FU Academy Awards. You suck ass.

This movie was fantastic. For all the people that hated it, which movie should win Best Picture?

I'm curious if people's familiarity with Carver's short story that they're adapting played any role in audience reactions. So those that hated it: have you read "What We Talk About When Wr Talk About Love"?

I'm not as down on it as this. I liked Norton and Keaton at times. Galafinakis had some decent comic relief but way rare.

I know the artboners are raging at full throb over the no cut look of the film but the whole ****ing thing felt like those scenes in West Wing where they're tracking through the halls the whole time to give the feel of uptempo stress and urgency. So the whole time I'm watching this thing I'm waiting for Toby and Sam to give a rapid fire back and forth summarizing the whole Shia Sunni thing on their way to the shitter. Maybe CJ Craig comes in with a snappy one liner about the press and their insipid simplicity. But whatever.

tl;dr overblow by raging artboners. Felt like Sorkin. Sorkin blows.

I was able to finally check this out this week. I thought it was great and I'd probably vote it best picture, if I had a vote.

No kidding. This has been a pretty bad year for movies, relatively speaking.

This movie however was exceptional. The one take thing is way down on my list of assets this film had. It had rich characters brought to life by nuanced performances. It had a tight script that drove the action well while giving you some key moments to breath and catch up. It was visually stunning. It had a clear story and character arcs, but left just enough up to the imagination of the viewer. It managed to be a sweeping comment on the role of art and the artist while staying watchable, relatable, and entertaining throughout.

Michael Keaton and Edward Norton at their best with a great supporting cast. It was a huge step forward for Emma Stone as well.

My second favorite best picture of the year nominee is probably Selma and it's a distant second.

This movie has convinced Hugh Jackman to play Wolverine until he dies

Well I didn't hate Birdman. I loved Birdman. But I wanted to use this opportunity to post my top ten list for 2014.

1. Boyhood
2. Whiplash
3. Birdman
4. Ida
5. Wild
6. The LEGO Movie
7. Two Days, One Night
8. Timbuktu
9. Guardians of the Galaxy
10. Song of the Sea

Man, I really didn't like Boyhood. Thought it was boring and contrived. The ambling, slice of life storytelling felt totally false. The only cool thing to me was that it was filmed over 12 years which made the screenplay even less forgivable. That's not true. I also liked Ethan Hawke.

Of course, I know I'm in the minority on this one.

I'm guessing that for as false as you found the storytelling I found it as much true. I saw a lot of myself and the people I grew up with in that film.

What no American Sniper? Are you a Commie?

I didn't see it. I'll wait til it streams on Netflix. It SEEMS like a movie that I would find morally & politically reprehensible so I don't want to spend money on it, but I also have a small feeling that there's some nuance that a lot of people are dismissing.

But as to your post: Selma isn't on my top 10 either, but that doesn't mean I don't see the effects that white supremacy has and continues to have on our country.

My favorite ChiefsPlanet poster, ever, in a nutshell.

Just silly that this movie won best picture.

It was OK, but it's best achievement was the slick editing, and it wasn't even nominated for that.

Typical elitist Hollywood snob garbage.

Interstellar, Boyhood, Gone Girl and St. Vincent were all better films than Birdshit.

But it was a FIIIILM! About ACTINNNNNG! And ACTOOOOOORS!!!! GIVE IT THE GOLD MOTHER****ER! AND LET SEAN PENN DO THE GIVING!

Disgusting.

It has nothing at all to do with "elitist.

It has to do with the thousands of Academy voters that live and work in the business having a different appreciation of film than people who work outside of the business.

Uh huh. And lots of Academy voters don't even watch every film that's nominated for certain awards.

The show is a big farce. Like most awards shows, not surprisingly.

But at least we got to hear that zany tune "Glory" again! Oh boy! Thanks for cramming that PC garbage down our throats.

It's simple then: Don't watch.

Look, Birdman wasn't my favorite film of the year. Not even close. But I totally get WHY it won. It's fresh and original. I didn't personally identify with it, because I'm not an actor, screenwriter, performer or creative. It was a film for "those" people. And I think if I had the eye to look at it that way, I would probably have liked it a whole lot more. And I DID like it; I just didn't LOVE it.

I thought Foxcatcher was a better film. Yes, it was slow. It was deliberate storytelling, and I think making it a faster paced film would have ****ed the whole vibe up. I thought it had better acting than Birdman, too, from everyone in a starring role. BUT, I get why it didn't get nominated. Hell, I thought Whiplash was better, too, but that's because I identified with it more as a musician. I get why it didn't win, too.

The movie or the Oscars?

Unfortunately I enjoy both. But Birdman winning best picture was poppycock.

Best one-sentence review of Birdman:

It's not the People's Choice awards

It's the Pretty And Rich People's Choice awards.

I'd wager that the majority of America's citizens that are both pretty and rich are the wives of the CEOs and venture capitalists and etc. class. Demographically speaking, they'd be WAY more into American Sniper or even The Grand Budapest Hotel than they would be into Birdman.

If Birdman didn't have the apparent stigma of being about showbusiness then it would be hailed as the kind of movie that doesn't tend to win the big one. It is, as you say, fresh & original. It's got its own frenetic energy. It's meta. It's darkly comic. Its choice to score only using jazz drums is unique. This win feels like the Academy going out of their collective comfort zone in many ways.

What's ironic is that I frequently read in this forum that "Hollywood has run out of ideas", which of course, is utter nonsense.

Then when a film like Birdman, which is definitely different, original and creative, those same people say "Hey, American Sniper was the best movie! Hollywood, you suck!".

No one is saying Birdman isn't a good film. It's excellent.

Don't think it was the best film of the year by any stretch, though. I think it's pretty forgettable, too. The average person can't really connect with any of those characters. I know I didn't give a shit about any of the shitty people in that movie.

And if it didn't have it's cute LOOK MA NO CUTS gimmick, it wouldn't be worth shit.

Once again, this isn't the People's Choice Awards.

The votes are cast by people that live and work in the movie business and as such, their perspectives are different.

Darth Vader betrayed and murdered your father!

Both excellent and forgettable? Hm.

Anyway, I don't have a need to, like, make you have a different opinion on the film. I can totally see how someone who
A.) doesn't have theater or film experience as an actor or crew person, or B.) to a lesser extent someone creative in general,
would find less to connect with in Birdman. I however do have lots of theatrical experience and my adoration of the movie is in large part due to my being able to connect with it in that way.

Yes. For instance, Star Wars is an example of a completely unforgettable movie. I have no idea what won the Oscar that year. Nobody gives a shit.

Yes. It's a niche film.

I looked it up, because I didn't remember either. Turns out everyone reading this thread has heard of the movie, fairly well regarded as a classic, that beat Star Wars for Best Picture that year: Annie Hall.

Nobody forgets that Woody Allan's best-known film exists, but it does seem really easy to forget that it won Best Picture, when, and which films it beat.

The writing was on the wall back with Shakespeare in Love.

Everyone knows Annie Hall beat Star Wars. It's like a top 25 all time Oscar factoid.

No one gives a shit about Annie Hall.

Not sure how many people here on CP can speak to this, but I've observed that actors tend to LOVE movies about acting but writers tend to HATE movies about writing. Those tendencies are active in me too. I can count on one hand the number of movies about writing that I enjoy, but I get a visceral punch at almost anything involving stage performance. Even season 1 of Glee gets to me.

DING DING DING

**** the Oscars.

Well. Consider me duly a moron & a young whippersnapper.

I love Star Wars to death as a cinematic experience, but Annie Hall is a superior film. Perfect from start to finish, writing, casting, acting, pacing.

I've seen both in excess of 30 times apiece.

Coming from the Jar Jar of QB evaluation, I welcome it.

AUDIENCE SCORE IS LIFE

http://i.imgur.com/SA16cmn.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Yev0Br1.jpg

I get this but still I gave up on the Oscars back in 2000 when Julia Roberts won for Erin Brockovitch over Ellen Burstyn in Requiem For A Dream.

Yeah, some things are definitely inexplicable. How about Gladiator winning Best Film but Ridley Scott losing Best Director to Steven Soderbergh, who directed Traffic?

They are both superior, but in different ways.

Annie Hall is a writers and actors showcase. Star Wars is the greater technical achievement and a perfect SciFi Space fantasy.

This is why I don't like awards. I hate having to pit movies ike this against one another. It's completley unfair. They are each perfect in their own way.

On another note, I saw a column earlier today where the writer was advocating that Hollywood should award more "commercial" films to make the Oscars more accessible the the mainstream


I think that would be a huge mistake. I like the fact that for the most part Oscar has been more "snobbish" when it comes to the huge commercial blockbusters.

I tried. I love quirky films, independent films, etc.

I gave Birdman 20 minutes and flipped it off. I'm sure at some point I'll go back and finish but I really can't stand theater and it just didn't grab me.

So "What We Talk ABout..." was slated on my reading list for Wednesday in class (I'd actually already put it on there before I even saw Birdman or knew that the short story was a part of the movie's plot). In light of the Oscar talk about the movie, I tried to give them a little preview by explaining that it's the short story they're adapting in the movie Birdman.

The mention of Birdman pretty much drew blank stares from my class with a few "Oh yeah. That's that one they kept talking about last night." No one had seen it.

Birdman is literally one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. How it got best picture is beyond me.

The Grand Budapest Hotel was my favorite with Boyhood running a close second. I enjoyed Birdman, The Oscars are too narcissistic for any other film to have had a chance this year.

Might want to spoiler parts of your post.

Meanwhile Will Smith lives in a 42 million dollar home
RKelly? Worth 46 million.

**** you for making me have any semblance of respect for young people...

You have got to be kidding me. I mean, to actually debate the issue would be appropriate for the DC subforum, not here. I'm just flabbergasted at your implication of celebrity success being a signpost of progress & equality.

Again, not the right place to debate the issue. I posted what I posted not to talk about that issue but instead to make a rhetorical point to sd4chiefs that me not loving a movie doesn't necessarily indicate anything about my politics. My point was that I could agree with the movie Selma politically while also finding problems with the film, therefore I could also not be a Communist or a troops-hater while simultaneously disliking American Sniper.

Please, you took two stories of the human spirit, and put them in the political spectrum. You kicked that door WIDE open.

keep pimpin others for your fake nobility.

meanwhile, Dre is worth 800 million, and selling beats for 3 billion. THE HORRORS OF INEQUALITY!