Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

I can't understand all the negative reviews on this site by "movie-goers". From some of the comments, I can only assume some of these folks must have ADD, or just need a few good car chases or were expecting this to be one of those mindless, predictable super hero movies we are afflicted with ad nauseam these days. Thank god it wasn't one of those. The actors are marvelous, especially Keaton. Perhaps he finally gets the credit he is due with that little gold statue. Edward Norton is great as usual. Emma Stone will certainly be recognized as well and probably be in line for meatier parts in the future. Iñárritu's scene transitions are especially wonderful giving the impression of one long take that seamlessly takes you through the story. The story kept my undivided attention the entire way. Great movie! A must see.

I was expecting something pretty special after reading the critiques. But Could there be two films called "Birdman" and I went to the wrong cinema? How could so many critics be so wrong. Pathetic story, in fact no story. No resolution to the many silly tangents the film took. Is it Hollywood trying to be a European film? If so, it failed miserably. And I am very annoyed I wasted my precious time and money. The only redeeming feature was the acting which was basically very good but that is not enough reason to see this film. The interesting point about this film is there really isn't a 'spoiler'. Nothing could be said to reveal any plot, as there really isn't any plot. Two women decide to kiss, which led nowhere - one addled druggie, been through rehab due to her father telling her she was special as a child, huh? And a ridiculous bird hanging around as a superego. Crap!

This is an amazing film! Great acting and strong story, it will keep you on the edge of your seat. Some scenes had me laugh out loud. The film can get a little confusing or even perplexing at times, but in a good way. The soundtrack is original and supports the scenes brilliantly. The film is centered around a play (an adaptation of Raymond Carvers short story "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love", if you haven't read this: it is great). The cinematography couldn't be more spot one to refer to the fact that it is about theater. The magical realism might not be for everyone, and I am usually not a big fan, though in this film it gives the main character just the edge that it needs and it expresses his psyche well. In this film, all elements work together to create a turbulent, wild story that is both highly entertaining and arty: it is exiting; it is sincere; it is intelligent and amusing. It might make your brain hurt a little.

wow, i did not see that coming. unfortunately , it's rare to see this amount of dedication and talent in contemporary mainstream American cinema these days. i was expecting a dull drama with good actors and an OK script, and i got this: pure , unfiltered , proper effort , applied in modern American commercial standards. Alejandro González Iñárritu's brilliant direction creates a mesmerizing blend of genres , it's captivating from first shot,bittersweet and painfully realistic. made with high technical complexity and deep character study - and with so much to say about love , art and the the human soul, "birdman" is still coherent and crystal clear. great performances by all actors ,Michael Keaton is pushing the limits here (in a good way), Emma Stone and Naomi Watts are sharp and enigmatic , and Norton is kicking like it's 1999. with an outstanding script to support their performances ,and original and intriguing soundtrack. no wonder it's the real deal.a new favorite for me.

This was the only one of the contenders for Best Picture I hadn't seen. I avoided it because I didn't think I'd like it. But it won and now I have watched it. If you think the above is boring, it's no more boring than the movie. I have a confession: I didn't get it. A day in the life of some Broadway actors who over-act all the time. Besides being boring, there was a drums only sound track that was was more than boring: It was annoying. Finally I want to know how much the tobacco industry paid to have so many cigarettes consumed? This movie was a cigarette commercial in disguise.

I could appreciate the great acting, and it really was intense. You felt the realism of the emotion. I couldn't help think this was more of a showcase than a film. It like someone got a really dire script and challenged the actors to try and make it into a good film. As so many people have voted this film on the acting I am voting on the entertainment value. 1 - awful. When you find yourself appreciating the fact that they skillfully removed the camera from the mirror shots, I think it's time to admit the film is just not that gripping. Sorry guys. PS: Pioneering technique with a single fluid shot? -no http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120042/ Running Time (1997) "... and seemingly takes place in one continuous, fluid shot..."

This review's title goes to A. G. Iñarritu. How pretentious and messy can you get when you write and direct a script? Birdman-type. A whole new adjective for a movie suspiciously similar to Synecdoche New York, from Charlie Kaufman. This is not a movie theatre experience. This is self-pretentious, lisergic pseudo intellectualism. Not to say, plagiarism. What did we do to deserve this, I don't know. This movie is madness out of boring. Actors did quite well, but the film's clumsy and drags them along, merging with pseudo intellectual scripting, one-shot style in a NY theatre's backstage... this cannot be so over-hyped for Christ's sake. Worst movie Hollywood sold me in quite a long time. Can not understand the positivism about this. This is like 12 years of Slavery, now absolutely forgotten because it was a forgettable movie. St. Vincent, Gone Girl, even Wild Tales (Relatos Salvajes)from Argentina, have lots of more fun than this, without the "I know what's going on, you idiot, you don't know sh**" attitude from director. This kind of subliminal and liminal messages Iñarritu sends in the middle of this pretentious form of art as he claims is what pisses me off the most. I can even understand the bad script, the no-story plot. I can understand it. But I don't know how this guy manages to go with other filmmakers and stand in front of those men with his face unaltered. I'd be crying in shame asking for forgiveness. First, for robbing the plot from Charlie Kaufman. And then, for torturing all of us with that drum soundtrack that puts us on our nerves. For a drum solo story, go and see Whiplash. That's a movie where it fits well. I mean, even Babel had its moments. This is * wrestling, one-shot theater pomposity I don't need in my life, and no one should have to suffer from this. I had to overcome Babel, giving it a chance, and saying I'd mostly liked it. I didn't want to confront the massive positive opinion about that. 21 grams.. passable, but pretentious too. Now Birdman is Iñarritu at his best: one of the most irritating directors of all time. Worst movie I've seen in a few years. Since Tree of Life, I guess. I'm sorry for Michael Keaton, they are using his talented gift to sell this rubbish. What happens next is that Keaton will still be Michael Keaton and we'll love him forever. I can not say the same on the person who shot this lame movie.

My god, what a piece of junk Hollywood foisted on the general public with this movie. After watching the first 25 minutes of it I realized that I had wasted 30 minutes of my life. The movie should have been titled "The Bird" because it was so awful. Overacting, poor script, and unrealistic dialogue all fitted into the formula for this flick. It was Hollywood's overindulgence to itself. I am glad Michael Keaton got a chance to star in a movie but his acting was so over the top. And the same applied to Edward Norton, who is a normally a very fine actor. I am sure a better movie could have be written about an actor who wanted to transition from Comicbook Hero to a dramatic actor. But this movie falls so flat on its face it needs nose surgery.

If you like your emperors buck naked, this turgid, fraudulent piece of dreck should be right up your alley. Black comedy? Then how come there's not so much as a chuckle, not even a wan smile, in the entire dismal mess? Art film? If this is art, true artists like Welles and Bunuel are spinning in their graves. A sheer unmitigated waste of time. I had to force myself to sit through the entire fiasco — why? Because I was determined to see it through to the end in case some brilliant scene or plot development might justify the critical praise and Academy Awards. No such luck — what you see in the first five excruciating minutes is what you get. It's like that moment in an old 70s' porno film when you realize that that pimply derrière is what you are going to be staring at for the next two hours. I actually think this is worth seeing just to prove to yourself how worthless critical reviews (and reviewers) are, and what an absolute joke the Academy Awards are. If a film has a gamy whiff of artistic pretension, these self-appointed arbiters of cinematic taste are terrified of panning it. In actual fact, they have no idea if it's art or total crap, but they don't want to appear ignorant. Well folks, rest assured, this one if total crap. As other reviewers have pointed out here, in addition to everything else, the film is a colossal waste of some very talented actors, Michael Keaton not the least of them. I am a huge Keaton fan and have been since Night Shift, but even a brilliant actor like Keaton could not save this deplorable piffle. Señor Alejandro González Iñárritu, you, sir, are an absolute fraud.

Washed up Hollywood star Riggan wants to prove he is a "real" actor by directing and starring in a Broadway play. But perhaps he cannot, because he is mental. Wrapped around the claustrophobic world of actors, the movie is an exercise in navel-gazing and smugness. I guess it must be a big deal for a Hollywood superstar to prove to his peers that he is not just a money-making machine but also a talented actor. However, I truly do not care about the hysterics and anguish of Hollywood actors. That is why, when Birdman was acclaimed by the critics I already suspected yet another inflated balloon full of nothing. I waited until I could watch the movie for free, because I was very reluctant to waste money on yet another "Academy-worth" piece of crap and I am very happy I saved my hard-earned money. The joke is twice on the audience, because the other theme explored by Birdman, besides narcissist actors, is audience stupidity. Not being the sort of person who cares about superheroes movies, I was nevertheless annoyed by the fact that the public of said movies is vilified by this piece of elitist crap. It is difficult to point out what I disliked most about Birdman, since I hated everything: the overbearing drum soundtrack, characters shouting their lines, the smugness of the whole concept, the patronizing dialogs, etc… I do not even think Keaton was so great in it. Finally, it is depressing to notice that the number of movies I want to walk out from is increasing exponentially. After decades of watching movies, what I expect is an interesting story told in an engaging way, but what I find is more and more egotistic directors busy only with producing crap bearing their trademark signature, being it Tim Burton Goth-chic or Wes Anderson smug-naive.