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)

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)

What an amazing film experience! Birdman is a sad story about a broken man who longs for the recognition he will never receive. So, basically, your typical Iñarritú’s downer, but this time wrapped in a very refreshing and energetic format. We can debate about the ending, and I’m going to write my opinion on it (spoiler!), so if you haven’t watched the film yet, stop reading now! The entire film is about Riggan trying to gain recognition and long lost glory. He’s convinced that he has abilities that those around him don’t appreciate. He’s not so much after inner artistic expression, he simply wants his play to be successful. When he realises that an unlikeable and influential critic will bury his play at any cost, he attempts to “buy” its success with one last desperate idea: suicide on stage, but not a real suicide – that would simply kill him. With manifest and embarrassingly vulgar gestures he tries to give the aura of an artist who has put at stake his life for his work. Cheap attraction, action, people want to see blood, they are used to it from mainstream movies. The audience applauds, the critic leaves in disgust because Riggan did exactly what she was expecting, maybe even worse. And Riggan dies, because when someone puts a gun to their head and shoots, they usually die. This is followed by a montage (!) and the epilogue. Thus far, the film pretended to be shot in a single take, even if it jumps in time and space, or when we follow the real Riggan or his hallucination. Since the epilogue is separated by the montage, it should make some sense that what we are watching is something different than we’ve been watching so far. It can’t be an alive Riggan, nor can it be what an alive Riggan is imagining while doing something else. To me it’s just an image of how Riggan would have liked his suicide-as-manifesto to ideally work out: a) he doesn’t die: b) the stunned critic writes a positive review, even though she said she would never do it; c) people are interested in him again; d) his daughter acknowledges what he has within himself and his miraculous abilities (the final look upwards). (End of spoilers). So, as I say, quite a downer, but I’m sure other people can have a different opinion. And that’s what’s so great about it. (24/01/2015)

The creative pose, unmasked by the unique technical possibilities of the film medium, flirting with the European arthouse, is about to divide the audience in 3, 2, 1... (01/02/2015)

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)

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)

Finally a true animated movie which means the same for the theater what the Day for Night (1973) meant for movie industry back than. And its qualities are best illustrated by the fact that, although it has a form that is as captivating and immersive as the fascinating technical side and its consistent execution (I don't remember when visual effects were used so abundantly in almost every shot and still only "a good servant and not a bad master", as is an unfortunate standard today), so you film remember this movie for a long time. I'm just wondering how to approach the final scene. It is no less excellent than the mosaic of (un) theatrical (un) backstage, where "everyone drives the show for a while", which precedes it, but how can get you excited with gradation, emotions and ending of Keato... Um, Riggan's line, everyone and everything else is being sidelined so the movie can fully concentrate on this; and this is, on the one hand, pity, and then, thanks to that, it gives (the question for 10 points whether erroneous or justified) the impression of losing pace. In any case, the best "art for general public" (and this is not exceptionally meant to be negative) ever. (22/01/2015)

All the brooding, sadness, decline, or self-examination may not be too original at its core – but that infinitely perfect form is. After two breathless and witty hours, it is almost irrelevant that Alejandro González Iñárritu, as is his custom, once again goes too far and shows even what I don't really need to see or hear in order to understand or enjoy it. Michael Keaton and Emma Stone, however, pass and play solos with such captivating pacing that in the escalating scene of the final performance, I forgot to breathe. (21/01/2015)

Iñárritu's debut Amores Perros once knocked me off my feet and I developed a special relationship and understanding with this Latin American director. None of his other films surpassed that debut, but I never gave Iñárritu less than 4 stars, simply because it wasn't necessary. I went into Birdman with a sense of certainty that I couldn't go wrong regardless of the positive reviews, yet after just ten minutes, I felt that I was missing the director's vision of the world this time. With every passing minute, my displeasure and rejection of what I saw grew. On the way back, I drove through red lights at intersections, scaring pedestrians on crosswalks with a devilish laugh. But that still didn't help; I had a perfectly ruined evening. If I had relied solely on emotions, it would have turned out even worse than a mere 2 stars, but I can't deny Iñárritu's formal filmmaking quality. I simply don't like theatrical, pretentious, and affected films. I avoid the term pseudo-intellectual because it is often used by ultra-right-wingers to label uncomfortable individuals, but the term pseudo-intellectual fits this film like a screw to a nut. A typical example of midcult, desperately pretending to have intellectual depth. Some time ago, a doctor diagnosed me with a throat infection and prescribed a treatment regimen. After completing it, I locked myself in the toilet for two sunsets and observed my stool to see if I was okay. I find Iñárritu's approach to be similar to that unpleasant activity of mine. If there's anything I can appreciate, it's Edward Norton's performance. His confident and spoiled theater star played with pleasure is the highlight of the film; this type of selfish jerk suits Norton perfectly. Emma Stone's presence was also nice. I anticipated the Academy Award nominations for her, and I think this kind of artistic torment and perspective suits her perfectly. Personally, I say - never again to this film... Overall impression: 40%. (02/03/2015)

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)

Let's recap. In 2014, the MCU was already in its 6th year, and the DCEU had joined in the 2nd year. Comic book reading was in full swing among both mainstream audiences and academics. Logically, an art project came along that maximized this situation. Alejandro González Iñárritu reached for Raymond Carver's play "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" (1981) and built a Broadway backstage drama on its blueprint. And not just any drama, but one flavored with a midlife crisis and the superhero subgenre. Because the lead role went to Michael Keaton, aka Batman, there is nothing to do but applaud. Some might argue that it is a somewhat self-centered form - and it is. Individual long shots filmed with a handheld camera are rehearsed like separate little theater productions, and the music is provided almost exclusively by an improvising drummer. But that's how art works, the form and content vie with each other. Fortunately, here everything fell into place in one absorbing whole with an unusual pace. (03/02/2024)

A weird experiment and a mixture of all sorts of things with an impressive cinematography by Lubezki, whose exhibition is more entertaining and interesting than the the Woody Allen-like satirical story that lacks a touch of insight and lightness. The whole thing is overly theatrical, long, stuffy with allegorical overlays that often aren't even very readable and blur the core plot like hell. It has its positives besides the cinematography (almost all the actors), but it's hard to say, because now they are giving Oscars for something new instead of something really good. (17/05/2016)

An excellent film, but it's not amazing - in the end it completely pushes away Edward Norton’s character (I don't often like him, but he's really great here), his Mike doesn't get any real ending... I can't forgive Birdman for that. Otherwise, although it’s undisguised and simple, it is very impressive and a 100% perfectly filmed slap to the face of the film industry with the excellent Michael Keaton (who played Vulture in Spider-Man three years after filming) and others. (30/12/2018)

Iñárritu doesn’t know how to produce proper humour, he only succeeds in creating the illusion of a joke, which he wraps in boring existential dialogues and motifs that are taken seriously despite the imposed superficiality. Birdman pretends that its specific form, combined with its intimate theatrical setting and the tragicomic depiction of creative decline, has something to say, but in the end we find that it has told us absolutely nothing. I have nothing against film experiments, but only on the condition that I find some sense in them and that I can enjoy their unorthodox approach. None of that was the case here, and so my only lasting memory of Birdman remains the delectable performances of Edward Norton and Michael Keaton in particular, who could easily play any superhero with an animal attribute. 60% (15/02/2015)

Birdman is a prime example of a movie that impressed me with its imaginative and playful cinematography, as well as the excellent performances. However, the content itself completely missed the mark for me. I can imagine the joy Iñárritu must have felt while coming up with the screenplay and all its technicalities, and the even greater pleasure of seeing it brought to life and celebrating with the crew after witnessing the end result. Just like I experienced joy and reveled in delight at the playful cinematography, the skillful and 'lazy' editing, the seamless blending of reality and fantasy, and the impactful use of cacophonic percussion to enhance the atmosphere of each scene in the movie theater. I can also imagine that at least one of the acting nominations will undoubtedly turn into a well-deserved win. However, I believe the Oscars for screenplay and best picture should be given to other films. In contrast to the film's perfect form, the story itself feels like a patchwork of overused and endless themes and tropes that I have grown tired of in recent years. The characters are portrayed through hysterical outbursts, crude language, and repetitive use of explicit words, which I find equally tiresome. To my surprise, the only truly interesting character portrayed by Edward Norton is nearly ignored in the second half of the movie. It's a great shame that Iñárritu didn't take as much care with the content as he did with the form of the movie. If the film had managed to communicate something meaningful to me (even just a little), I would have gladly given it a higher rating without hesitation and with grace. However, as it stands, I can only give it a modest three-star rating. (03/02/2015)

Artsploitation with all the works. The mannerisms, the metaphysics, the metamedia, the topical commentary, the aging washed-up actor playing an aging washed-up actor, the alienation effects... dude, it even has a seven-word title. However, the accumulation of all these factors gives it a sort of stamp of exuberant immature authenticity, and most importantly, it's terrible fun. (05/04/2016)

I should probably be raving about the perfectly crafted story and all, but all I took away from the film, aside from the sincere efforts of some of the actors, was that I was actively bored for two hours. (08/07/2017)

As captivating as the form is, even though I had to get used to it a lot, in the end, it still didn't captivate me enough to make me drop to my knees before the film. There are great scenes, great shots, and some actors give Iñárritu unbelievable performances (Keaton, Galifianakis), but even after several hours since watching it, mixed feelings remain. (28/01/2015)

What I enjoyed most were the allusions to commercial Hollywood – "How about Jeremy Renner?" "Who?" --- "Awful, we'd have raised, like..." "A serial killer..." "Or Justin Bieber." --- "He's got a new nose! And if he doesn't like that one, we'll get him another one. We can use Meg Ryan's guy." At these moments I laughed genuinely and very much out loud. And it's certainly one of the more interesting and original films I've seen. I applaud the "drumming" atmosphere, as I was actually tense as a guitar string a couple of times (and only because of drums!). I don't want to dissect everything Birdman is about (or what most people think it actually is); what's important to me is that I enjoyed myself for 110 minutes. I also found Norton quite entertaining in the first half. I appreciate the cameos by Spider-Man, Iron Man (how the previous "Robert Downey, Jr. bashing" is developed beautifully in one of the last scenes), and even Bumblebee. Michael Bay can be grateful to Iñárritu for finally getting his work into a proper film. After all, it did win the statuette... (15/05/2017)