Birdman

Birdman has a Woody Allen-esque theme and environment conveyed by the unique optics of Lubezki’s long shots, but without Woody’s wit and detached perspective and with irritating jazz disharmony. An occasional good scene (Times Square in boxer shorts, waking up on the sidewalk), some occasional good dialogue (Emma Stone and Edward Norton on the roof) and always great actors. But for an uplifting “artistic” experience, this portrait of a mid-life crisis and creative burnout is not enough for me. (17/02/2015)

Watching Birdman was very hard for me. In fact, it took me about the first twenty minutes to even figure out what I was watching. After those twenty minutes, I still wasn’t quite sure what was reality and what was fiction, but at least I was beginning to notice the outrageously perfect camera that shot everything without me feeling any cuts in the scene. Some moments were absolutely divine, and it seemed to me as if some of the actors were having endless dialogues, in which I wondered how they were able to remember so many lines. And since I doubt they remembered them by heart, I bow down before their perfect improvisation abilities. Whatever else could be said about it, this film will show you that Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts and Zach Galifianakis can act like gods. I perceive this film a bit as a celebration of acting, but it also contains a feel of a certain ignorance and contempt for Hollywood. Everyone seems spell-bound by some kind of an oracle who knows everyone and makes them appear on the screen to justify themselves. Thus we see Michael Keaton making fun of superheroes despite playing one. When Edward Norton appears on the stage, he immediately starts to give everyone orders. Zach Galifianakis is unusually serious here and Emma Stone has a few dialogues that will take your breath away. Birdman is an incredibly strange film. Distinctive, never boring during its two-hour running time and definitely worth remembering. It’s not for everyone, but whoever wants to give it their attention will undoubtedly enjoy this movie full of well-made shots. And will fall madly in love with at least a few of its actors. (27/01/2015)

Unbelievably engrossing, “cut-free" format and meditation over the integrity of personality and acting work 100%. If you don’t count the BMW advert, this is my first encounter with Iñárritu and I was completely smitten. Even when it comes to humor (my girlfriend laughed, I laughed and the remaining 5 members of the audience laughed too) and the drum orchestration packed with emotions. Biting into critics, satire on theater, movie and comic book gibberish is mixed with tribute to all of these things. A massive comeback by Keaton and Norton, and Galifianakis can really act. A great watch, packed with bits and pieces which force you to watch it again. (08/02/2015)

More volatile and evasive than complex and layered, more rhetorical than intrinsically convincing, more caricatured than sharply reflective. For me, Birdman is a film full of unbearable contradictions, unshaded creative gestures and narcissistic affection in the quite primitive case histories of its creators / artists / critics. The film creates the impression of sophistication by gliding gracefully from topic to topic, from phrase to phrase, and rarely gets under the skin of (not only) Broadway illusion. I could let myself get drunk on it in silence if the transitions between worlds (reality / theater / scene / backstage / interior / exterior / subjective / objective) provided a clever commentary, a surprising change in perspective, and a significant emotional impact. But from beginning to end, Birdman looks like transparent theater - sometimes (praise god) funny, but mostly only fanfare showing off its own erection. I agree with Matty's observation about the blurring of dividing storylines, which are the basic principle of the whole structure. In my opinion, the film is dull and anachronistic. Conceptually, but as a result, also formally. And unfortunately, this is not the kind of dullness that would entice a person to a greater reaction. At least not me. [60%] (27/01/2015)

I know of better films about the plight of acting while paying homage to the work of the theatre. This is nothing but an attempt at an artsy film of the European kind, but by an established Hollywood filmmaker, where the supposedly uninterrupted narrative (achieved, of course, by flawless digital effects) is only a mannerism, like Edward Norton's repeatedly discussed hardened penis. It didn't touch me, not at all, neither mentally nor emotionally. The only exception is the scene of the emotionally strained conversation with a theatre critic about the nature of professional criticism and then Birdman's words about the vapid taste of the average dimwitted viewer, which I would chisel in stone. Of course, I would wish the Oscar to the phenomenal Michael Keaton with all my heart, if only because he is such a likeable guy and his life's fate is a bit like Riggan's. (28/01/2015)