Birdman (Alejandro González Iñárritu)

Right Turn Clyde · 03-03-2015 12:20am

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

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

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

DoYouEvenLift · 03-03-2015 12:35am

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 · 03-03-2015 10:24am

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 · 04-03-2015 7:11pm

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 · 04-03-2015 7:26pm

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 · 04-03-2015 7:42pm

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 · 05-03-2015 12:33am

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 · 10-03-2015 7:26pm

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 · 10-03-2015 7:35pm

.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 · 10-03-2015 7:38pm

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.

pixelburp · 16-03-2015 3:58pm

Caught it just before it left the cinemas, and I suspect in years to come the aspect Birdman will be solely remembered for will be its technical accomplishment, joining the relatively short list of 'one take' films, whose legacy surrounds what can be a bit of a gimmick. Separate to others such as Hitchcock's Rope, whose camera felt stagy and detached, the manner in which the camera wove and danced around the characters left me with a sense that perhaps the real main character in this ensemble film was the theatre itself.

With the exception of one or two scenes, the bulk of the action took place within and outside the walls of the St. James Theatre and I felt like the viewer was the building itself, drifting from person to person, observing the odd, maniacal humans agitating themselves in pursuit of a dream. And a dream it was: Michael Keaton's character may have been the most ostensibly insane person in the cast (at least, I think so), but the film felt like an angry assault on the world of theatre, or at least the version we like to think that exists, full of snobbery, pretension and a barely-concealed contempt for those acting in the 'lesser' arts. Lindsay Duncan and Edward Norton appeared themselves untethered from reality, as unhinged as Keaton's Riggan Thompson.

Generally, I enjoyed the film though; even if it was occasionally quirky to a fault, it had energy, wit and enough humour to make the time fly by. Definitely not to everyone's taste, and the aforementioned quirks might alienate, but it's not the most indigestible movie a person could see over the year.

weemcd · 07-11-2015 9:40pm

I thought this film was excellent. Stylish, well cut, decent performances, the film breaks out of any particular mold.

I think what I enjoyed the most was how aware of itself it was, Norton and Keaton playing up to their difficult actor types they've been labelled with throughout their careers. Slating superhero films and critics alike.

Not perfect, but a very brave and visually stunning film.