Birdman (Alejandro González Iñárritu)

Rubber_Soul

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

Been looking forward to this one for a while now and the first trailer doesn't disappoint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIxMMv_LD5Q

AnonoBoy

That looks great.

Mickeroo

Came on to post this after seeing the trailer yesterday too. Don't know what to make of it, Keaton seems to be playing himself?

Will definitely be watching it anyway that's for sure.

Love Amorres Perros and 21 grams and Babel were alright too.

JP Liz V1

Looks like something from Charlie Kaufman


I would bet some Oscar noms especially for Michael Keaton and cinematography

losthorizon

I throw on Euronews every morning before I go to work. Birdman opened the Venice film Festival. It certainly looks good. They had reports about it on a few mornings.

http://www.euronews.com/2014/08/28/venice-film-festival/

Hazys

Just watched it last night, I thought it was very good even if its a little too deep and confusing at times for me the average layman.

Not 100% sure on the spoiler policy here so i'll just be safe

I knew nothing about this film going into it so the one shot filming threw me a curveball. The one take camera work is amazing but at the start it was a bit overwhelming and i found it hard to keep up with the dialogue as the narrative was nonstop but eventually i settled into it. I think being amazed and overwhelmed caused me to miss part of the plot.

One of the highlights was Emma Stone's monologue, it was just fantastic.

I like to think he lived in the end like the rebirth of the phoenix (the flame soaring through the sky), arising from the ashes of his old career soaring to the sky with the other birds with a new career/life. I know his death was foreshadowed multiple times in the movie but i think they symbolized death of his Birdman career as the deaths were more tied to his time as Birdman and him removing the Birdman like bandages before he climbed out the window might be him moving away from that part of his career.

This is a movie i'd definitely like to see again so i can piece it together better. Although i think the movie is ambiguous enough that you can interpret whatever you wanted and be right.

Gerry Rio

Cant wait for this.

Gerry Rio

A 5 star review from Empire

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=138740

OldeCinemaSoz

Keaton was always a QUARE HAWK.

One for the cinema along with KINGSMEN.

titan18

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

Keaton was always a QUARE HAWK.

One for the cinema along with KINGSMEN.

Anyone able to explain what's with the random words being uppercase?

cloud493

I liked it a lot. I loved it in fact. But I also have a feeling lots of people might not like it, few things in there (slight spoilers)





- having the whole thing edited together into one shot, its incredible
- the ending being so ambiguous
- the thing of their being more one idea of reality.


but I loved it.

Rubber_Soul

titan18 wrote: »

Anyone able to explain what's with the random words being uppercase?

I don't think he even knows.

MakeEmLaugh

There's no doubting the technical prowess of the film, which is astounding. The seamlessness of the long takes is a credit to what can be achieved digitally today, and makes one wonder what the likes of Hitchcock would have done if he were still alive (the most obvious antecedent that occurred to me was Rope).

The performances were also quite impressive. It was great seeing Edward Norton on form again. He seemed to have squandered his considerable talent over the past decade, appearing in the likes of The Italian Job and The Incredible Hulk, as well as brief cameos in Wes Anderson's film. Keaton, too, was great.

The screen I attended was sold out. At least one couple left halfway through (they probably weren't expecting something so leftfield).

One film it reminded me of - vaguely - was Bobcat Goldwait's God Bless America. That, too, touched upon how art has been become degraded and underappreciated in recent years.

I'll have to let the film sink it a bit more before deciding how I feel about it.

Pierce_1991

Strange film to try and form an opinion on. After about an hour I was thinking to myself that this is what cinema is all about. Interesting story, fantastic acting and beautifully shot. But it seemed to lose me a little bit and I wasn't keen on the ending. That said it's always great to see ambitious films like this being made. Also great to see people like Norton, Keaton, Stone and Watts putting in such wonderful performances. It'll probably take a second viewing to fully make up my mind on the film itself though.

Skinfull

I went to see this yesterday and really enjoyed it...I think.

Bottom line all the actors in this pull off amazing performances special props to Keaton and Norton. Both of them were amazing, I flick back and forth between each of them being better than the other but they were just both amazing.

The one shot look was so enjoyable. I felt totally caught up in the story entwined with the characters especially when one of them was off screen and the other was monologuing. Usually I would find this to be a little gimmicky and pretentious but it just really worked with this movie.

I wasn't sure at first if he actually had super powers or he was jst insane. With all the real world references and such I figured he was crazy and imagining his telekinetic powers, this was compounded when he was trashing his dressing room and his agent walked in and he was no longer trashing the room telekenetically but instead with violence.

The ending was telegraphed and I saw it coming from the moment Norton gave out about the gun looking too fake but I didn't care. I was still interested in seeing his demise.

I have to admit I was a little disappointed that he only shot off his nose but I get it. How the bandage made him look more like Birdman and then the nose has this straight ridge like the silhouette of the Birdman. But then to have him jump out the window and...fly? kinda undermines the reality that the director had created throughout the rest of the movie.

So like I said...I think I enjoyed it. Beautifully shot, ridiculously good performances from all involved and I highly recommend it.

Burky126

I thought January was were movies go to die and yet this film shines through that.

Great start to the year and a fantastic direction. The "one" track shot motif really served to the film's strengths (even how scenes transistioned). Performances of course were great,fitting that Norton almost steals the show.

The theme of alter-egos in character development was interesting enough and

I liked that even the film itself began to question whether it was too pretentious for it's own good.When Birdman began to suggest that an audience would prefare to watch an apocalyptic blockbuster which began to include cgi effects of fireballs and robots,I noticed how some people at the showing I was at began to show a little excitement at what was going on which proved his point and his daughters who earlier said that society would prefare mindless entertainment over 'what old white people' want. The inclusion of Social Media and art is also another relevant talking point.

Sobko

For me the best movie I've seen at the cinema.

rockatansky

This film must have been completely lost on me, I really can't see what all of the fuss is about. I was very much looking forward to seeing this considering all of the rave reviews however disappointingly I was glad when it was over. I wasn't expecting some Art house type of film but that's what it was. I thought this was supposed to be a comedy? I laughed once through the whole film and the rest of the cinema gave the odd laugh out loud.

I quite enjoyed the opening 20 minutes,the acting is brilliant, especially Edward Norton, and the whole attempt to make it as one continuous shot made a nice change. I think the whole spoiler:

Delusional, flying through the air scenes

made it hard for me to hold my attention.

Ah well, different strokes for different folks I suppose.

Warper

Top notch film. Tbh i didnt read any the reviews and didnt really know what the story was about but this is brilliant. The acting and the script are sh1t hot. Its not laugh out loud funny but its smart funny. Easily the best film i have seen in the cinema this year.

Warper

Warper wrote: »

Easily the best film i have seen in the cinema this year.

Considering that were only 3 days into this year, that really doesn't say a lot.

Corholio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Considering that were only 3 days into this year, that really doesn't say a lot.

Ummm.....

santana75

Went to see this last night and I have to say I Dont get the "film of the year" comments.
For the first half hour I was thinking to myself that this wasn't so great at all. But then it started to grow on me somehow. In the end I think it was alright, but nothing more. I really Dont like a play format in films and this for me felt too claustrophobic. The acting is stellar though, especially Ed Norton. I went to see this in the lighthouse which has a classier clientele than the multiplexes, so there were no walkouts. But I reckon there'd be a fair few leaving after 20 minutes in a less arty crowd.
Definitely not film of the year(for me that was interstellar) but decent enough. Definitely not a film for the masses

Hrududu

I saw this today and loved it. The performances were terrific all around. Norton in particular stole the show for me. What a gift of a role for Michael Keaton. The 'one shot' feel was something that really worked for me. It made me feel like the film was constantly on the go rather than starting and stopping with different scenes, if that makes sense.

I was on the fence between seeing this and another film but I'm glad I picked this one.

Looper007

To start off I haven't bought into the legend of Alejandro González Iñárritu that has swept around him. I thought since his awesome debut Amores Perros, his films were massively overrated and very preachy, Babel been the worse offender for me. Although I thought Biutiful was worth it for Javier Bardem's excellent performance. But after seen Birdman I have to say the hype this time is clearly justified, it's his best film since his debut film maybe his best so far.

First off Michael Keaton and Edward Norton steal the show when it comes to the brilliant performances in this (although I though Naomi Watts delivered one of her best performances ever in this). Norton for me delivers his best performance since 25th Hour, most of the laugh loud scenes involve his arrogant method actor

The scene on stage when he gets a hard on and wants to have sex with his actresses girlfriend Naomi Watts even though he's been Mr Flpppy off it for 6 months and He stops a preview performance mid way cause Keaton switched a bottle of real vodka for some water

.

But this is Keaton's film all the way, He's subdued in this first hour, merely soaking everything in, yet slowly deteriorating watching a lifelong project been destroyed and stolen by Norton's Mike. Also offstage problems with his Kid now assistant Emma Stone and actress Andrea Risebourgh soon drive him over the edge. In the second half, starting from a rant against the labelling nature of criticism (great performance from Lindsay Duncan as the critic). He bites hard. It's extraordinary and utterly disarming in a refreshing way. It's made sweeter by how much he's been knocked off his pedestal previously in the film. Every time he's stripped of his pride, the film compensates with giving him empowering feats of telekinesis in ambiguous fantasy sequences. In breaking the bounds of reality, it's utterly liberating and a stroke of genius. Plus did anyone love Keaton's nod to Bale's Batman with the deep voice for his Birdman alto ego.

special mention should go to the excellent Jazz drumming soundtrack by Victor Hernandez Stumpfhauser and Emmanuel Lubezki amazing cinematography. Alejandro González Iñárritu deserves praise for holding it all together. I have to say it's lived up the praise. excellent film.

santana75

santana75 wrote: »

Went to see this last night and I have to say I Dont get the "film of the year" comments.
For the first half hour I was thinking to myself that this wasn't so great at all. But then it started to grow on me somehow. In the end I think it was alright, but nothing more. I really Dont like a play format in films and this for me felt too claustrophobic. The acting is stellar though, especially Ed Norton. I went to see this in the lighthouse which has a classier clientele than the multiplexes, so there were no walkouts. But I reckon there'd be a fair few leaving after 20 minutes in a less arty crowd.
Definitely not film of the year(for me that was interstellar) but decent enough. Definitely not a film for the masses

Hmmmm its been a few days now and I find myself in the position where my mind has been changed completely about this movie. I dunno it just took a few days for me to process I guess(kind of like a Radiohead album) but now Im thinking this is a great film, theres so much going on its kind of hard to fully appreciate it with just one viewing.
Anyway Michael Keaton is amazing, I always liked him and I really hope he at least gets an oscar nod. Hes a funny mother****er and that scene where he's power walking through the streets of new york in a pair of the most unflattering jocks I've ever seen.......He should get an oscar for that alone.

e_e

Easily Inarritu's best film in ages, never would have expected him to direct something this fun and energetic.

Skerries

what the hell was this rubbish!!!!!, I was expecting something like Batman but I get an old man man having an existential **** all over the screen. I walked out and demanded my money back

Naah! just kidding, loved it and it was even better than I thought it would be
The main actors including Stone and Riseborough were on top form, it would be a shame if this doesn't get award nods

LuckyLloyd

Absolutely incredible imo - brilliantly shot and acted with a really smart script. Bravo.

Looper007

e_e wrote: »

Easily Inarritu's best film in ages, never would have expected him to direct something this fun and energetic.

It's his best since his debut, although I have to rewatch it again to see if it will beat Amores Perros to top spot. That's what stood out how much fun it was, I think for Oscars its looking good, yet to see Whiplash yet which has a higher rating on IMDB then this. I think Keaton is a shoe In for best actor (although Eddie Redmayne in Theory of Everything is the one I think could pip him, that was an amazing performance in a okay biopic.).

Looper007

Skerries wrote: »

Naah! just kidding, loved it and it was even better than I thought it would be
The main actors including Stone and Riseborough were on top form, it would be a shame if this doesn't get award nods

I don't see anything beating Boyhood for Best film or Director awards. still a awesome film. I see Birdman winning for Best screenplay and Best actor, I've yet to see Whiplash as I think JK Simmons could be Edward Norton's biggest rival for Supporting for that. I think it come out with two maybe three Oscars.

I thought all the female actresses in Birdman were excellent but I don't see a nod going their way to be honest. If it was I go for Naomi Watts.

Dont be at yourself

My wife described it as "a funny version of Black Swan", but that's just labelling and ****ty comparisons!

TerrorFirmer

Amazing film. Was never a fan of Michael Keaton until now, this has to be his finest work. Totally captivating from start to finish - a very different film than I had imagined it would be, and so much better than I could have ever expected it to be. Last thing I saw Keaton in was 'The Other Guys'! A funny movie and a good role, but it's amazing to think of how little the vast majority of actors are able to exercise their full abilities.

tunguska

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Amazing film. Was never a fan of Michael Keaton until now, this has to be his finest work. Totally captivating from start to finish - a very different film than I had imagined it would be, and so much better than I could have ever expected it to be. Last thing I saw Keaton in was 'The Other Guys'! A funny movie and a good role, but it's amazing to think of how little the vast majority of actors are able to exercise their full abilities.

Just watched that in work.........absolutely lost it at the rape whistle scene. I think I could be fired now.
Keaton is such a great comic actor

Gerry Rio

I think we'll see a lot more reviews of this on here before the weekend.

charlie_says

Heard a glowing review of this on the radio (movies and booze on Newstalk I think, hit and miss) and am now really looking forward to seeing this.

Going to avoid any trailers. Keaton is a great actor with many crap roles.

FloatingVoter

Gerry Rio wrote: »

I think we'll see a lot more reviews of this on here before the weekend.

along with Selma, Imitation Game, In the Woods, American sniper etc.

For what its worth, Birdman is a bloody good film. Requires a little suspension of disbelief as to what can and can't get on a professional stage but nonetheless. The fantasy element is timed perfectly and the comic parts are brilliant. If Ed Norton doesn't get Best Support he was robbed.

Shiraz 4.99

I liked it's ambition but I think it slid into thesp circle jerk territory far to often.
It's a little high on it's own self importance, like an in joke for those in the know.
The drummer really got on my tits.

It's smugness annoyed me, 6/10.

Looper007

FloatingVoter wrote: »

For what its worth, Birdman is a bloody good film. Requires a little suspension of disbelief as to what can and can't get on a professional stage but nonetheless. The fantasy element is timed perfectly and the comic parts are brilliant. If Ed Norton doesn't get Best Support he was robbed.

I would have said so but when you see JK Simmons in Whiplash you can why he shouldn't. Norton is brilliant and its his best performance In a long time.

IvaBigWun

Technically it is one of the best films of the past 10 years but it was somewhat lacking in plot and I feel it will struggle to hold many people's attention.

That said, I always felt that Keaton was the most under rated actor perhaps of all time and hopefully this leads to some awards. I just don't think an Oscar will be one.

I'd compare it to both Magnolia (long shots and almost constant music) and Punch Drunk Love (very aesthetically pleasing but not something you'll want to watch again in a hurry).

A somewhat disappointing 6/10.

Does anyone know if it holds the record for the longest digital shot in a major film?

johnny_ultimate

A mixed bag, albeit a generally compelling one.

Inarritu has a tendency to spell pretty much everything out, and that's what lets Birdman down. The film's themes are so aggressively articulated, and the characters so broad, that there's little room for the audience to figure things out for themselves. There are some little nuances here and there, yes, and the film is undoubtedly at its best when it allows visual symbolism - as heavy-handed as it may be - to do the storytelling. But too much of the film is told through shouting matches, extreme outbursts of emotion, broad humour and dialogue / references that leaves no room for ambiguity. It's definitely one way to tell a story, but one that left me cold here.

I think a lot of the subplots in particular were misjudged. I was hoping the scene where Riseborough and Watts didn't go the direction it did, since it was such a bloomin' cheap and obvious one, especially with nothing in the way of follow-up. Ditto Stone and Norton's relationship. It's not even about their performances, because I think an amount of overacting actually suits the characters and the theatricality of the film. Even bearing that in mind, the film relies too heavily on broad tropes and cheap swipes. Galifianakis IMO did a very poor job indeed, proving ill-equipped to navigate the line between comedy and drama - although working with an underdeveloped character.

The technique and presentation I'm divided on. As a technical exercise it's quite impressive, and the loose camera work suited the tone and intensity of the film overall. The very technique helped determine the pace and mood of the film, and it's nice to see a visual style so closely integrated with everything else, even if everything else can be quite problematic. I appreciated seeing some of Lubezki's playful experimentation with cinematic time as well as space - some of the moments where it relatively seamlessly traveled between different sequences and even full days were very well handled. I'd be lying, however, if there wasn't a certain amount of distraction trying to spot the seams much of the time - as opposed to feeling like an organic flow, some of the transitions only highlighted how inorganic it actually is here - ironically, several cuts stand out even more when the filmmakers attempt to disguise them. Still, kudos for experimenting with form, and with not insignificant success for the most part.

I quite enjoyed the film's relative relentlessness, and the drum soundtrack was enjoyably propulsive. Keaton fit snugly into his role - even if, like the film overall, the metaness was a tad grating - and the effects-heavy sequences near the end managed to explore some of the film's themes, cultural critiques and even character arcs in a richer and more satisfying way than the more verbose methods employed elsewhere.

SVG

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A mixed bag, albeit a generally compelling one etc.

I agree, I agree so much with this.

Looked and sounded amazing and I feel bad calling a film that took such technical risks with the score and the cinematography obvious but, god, it felt very obvious. Underlined and on the nose. I suppose it was the writing? Or maybe the director just didn't trust us to get it?

Did you know Mike Shiner only feels real when he's on stage? I did! Because he explicitly stated the fact and then continued to bring it up (if you know what I mean). The first time it was a laugh, the nth time felt like a hammer. And on and on. The film could have ended 3 or 4 times before it did and the power of the thing diminished with each repetition.

I wish there had been less words when the music and the visuals were so strong but maybe I've been played and it was all a clever meta-commentary. There is literally someone shouting out that it's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. :eek: Of course! Now I get it- everything I didn't like was actually a commentary on things I don't like. Genius!

I feel like such a curmudgeon after all that but, hey, what would I know? I'm just a critic who prefers dessert to Twitter.;)

cunnifferous

Don't have time for a big write up but saw it last weekend and really enjoyed it.

Yes some of the characters are a bit thin and at times the dialogue is a tad cliched but from the beginning the film just sucked me in. The cinematography, with the camera weaving though the narrow corridors and around the different levels of the theatre, felt like being on some claustrophobic amusement ride (in a good way!) The score worked perfectly imo, adding to the chaotic, almost schizophrenic atmosphere of the film.

Undoubtedly flawed, but original and enthralling. 8.5/10 for me.

That_Guy

I personally don't get the roaring hype behind this film. On a technical level it is sublime and I would be amazed if it doesn't sweep a lot of the post-production awards this year.

However, the fact that I was thinking more about the technical aspects of the film rather than being awed by the story is problematic.

I kinda just feel that it's really up itself. This may be the point but I found it very grating at times.

Norton and Keaton's chemistry is the only real thing that keeps it together for me personally and I wanted to see more of that as the film progressed.

The jazz drumming soundtrack was initially very interesting and cool but quickly felt too intrusive for my liking and took me out of the moment on more than one occasion.

I found it very average myself.

hawkwind23

Indebted to Amores Perros for introducing me to "cinema" so was really looking forward to this.
Disappointed yet fascinated would sum it up for me.
It all felt very loose at times and predicable plot wise.
Acting was spot on and loved Niomi Watts , nice nod to Lynch with the kiss and i suppose female exploitation in cinema , great line with "i wish i had more self respect" then the quip "your an actress"
its one of these numerous viewing ones just to get the layers but i dunno if its worth it.
over generous 8.5 on IMDB for a general audience

however it is fascinating and im enjoying the recent surge of thoughtful movies in the cineplexs.

Oh and i did find parts of it very very funny

tigger123

I really enjoyed it. It's so rare these days to go to the cinema and be treated to something truly original.

The only place it was lacking was the lack of any chemistry between Ed Norton and Emma Stone. Their interactions felt very wooden for some reason, no spark at all. But apart from that I thought it was excellent.

As another poster alluded to, it also reminded me a lot of Darren Aronofsky, which can't be a bad thing!

Highly recommended!

Saipanne

Loved it. Loved that one shot feel to it.

GAAman

SVG wrote: »

on the nose.

I thought the same myself, and the wondered if the "accident" was a very subtle allusion to this. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

I enjoyed this on the whole, agree with earlier posters on the music front, was nice at the start but its overuse grated on me a bit. Keaton and Norton were superb.

It reminded me of Hitchcocks Rope, a film I love, in the one shot esqueness of it.

I am almost 100% certain, but that was Scorsese wasn't it?

charlie_says

Thought it was very entertaining. It was a joy to watch the camera work and cinematography, the Times Square scene and the claustraphobic backstage weaving stood out, something different to the normal is always welcome. I also thought the drum soundtrack really suited it.

A good few laughs too! Some of the dialogue was a bit poor on occasion but overall a great effort and to recommended overall. I haven't seen the rest of the Oscar nominations but I would imagine that this is the most original film out of them.

The film really could have done with a different method personal demons towards the end, the cgi action sequence was very much out of place with the rest of the film and was too over simplified.

Loved Norton (he did his trademark OTT cigarette smoking) and Keating, Watts was decent too. The daughter wasn't great though.

Really enjoyed it in the cinema, down with the screener crap!

IvaBigWun

GAAman wrote: »

I am almost 100% certain, but that was Scorsese wasn't it?

Eh?

Where?

charlie_says

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Eh?

Where?

Outside the theatre at the intermission, towards the end of the film. I thought it was him too.

.ak

Thought this was awesome. It actually turned out to be very different from what I imagined (thought it was going to be more of a comedy in a mainstream manner) but it turned out to be an absolute gem of cinema. Loved the drums, loved the tension gained with the one shot feel, the whole thing felt like a panic attack.

Not 100% sure on the ending though, I'm not sure if it's because I failed to see the point, or if it's one of these up to your interpretation endings... It didn't take anything away from it, mind you, it just left me scratching my head a little.

Ed Norton was fantastic in it.

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.