I walked out of this after about an hour on Saturday. i never walk out of films, ever, but this just bored me to tears. The tipping point was the soundtrack though, that horrid improv-jazz drumming, mixed way too high. Were it not for that I may have persevered, but I was pretty bored by the whole thing anyway. Yes, the performances were good, it was well shot, blah, blah, blah, but nothing seemed to be actually happening, it just seemed like so much navel gazing and I found the whole thing incredibly pretentious.
I'm glad to see someone else agrees with me. I've seen 70 movies in the last year using mu Unlimited card and this was the first one I've walked out on, gave it about 50 minutes. And it really was those blood drums that really did it for me, I just couldn't sit there listening to it anymore. I can appreciate that it was quite clever the way it appeared to be one continuous shot, but by the time I left that had started to annoy me. Must have been very difficult to edit though, so I was surprised it didn't get an Oscar nomination for editing
Saw this today and while i admired it very very much i didn't love it. What i did love were the performances - Keaton, Norton and Stone were all brilliant. Keaton was sensational and gives a powerhouse performance and truly deserves the Oscar (imo) and Norton and Stone are rightly nominated.
It's an interesting film but that's all i found it to be. The drumming score took a while to get used to, also very interesting. Would i watch it again? Probably not.
Watching this felt like I was watching an in-joke which I wasn't in on. It just confused me. I got that some parts were having a go at the modern super hero fad and others were satirising the theatre industry, but I also couldn't shake the feeling that the film was making fun of other things, but I just couldn't quite work out what they were.
The directing was superb and the acting magnificent, but I felt like a lot of the film just went straight over my head. I didn't actually find any of it funny. I only found myself laughing once and that was because it had reached the stage were everything was so absurd and I was so confused that I laughed in a "Good God! What the hell am I watching!?" sort of way.
I admire this film, but I'm not sure I enjoyed it. Nevertheless, it was certainly interesting and my attention was held throughout.
I think this is the first film I've ever watched which I feel was too high brow for me.
I take it this isn't a film to recommend to my parents? Don't get me wrong, they can deal with complicated cinema but I highly doubt they will appreciate pretension that is rated highly due to the technical aspects of film making. That goes over their heads a bit and I don't wanna send them to something they will hate. My dad especially is as far as you can get from an art house fan.
Why not watch it yourself, then decide if it's for your parents or not. You're a better judge than us about your parents' tastes. One man's "pretentious" film is another man's great film. Great film for me, though.
I take it this isn't a film to recommend to my parents? Don't get me wrong, they can deal with complicated cinema but I highly doubt they will appreciate pretension that is rated highly due to the technical aspects of film making. That goes over their heads a bit and I don't wanna send them to something they will hate. My dad especially is as far as you can get from an art house fan.
I think you parents might actually be the ideal target for this film. I think it is more like to strike a cord in older viewers. By older I don't mean so much in age but experience. By 30 I think most of us had had those thoughts that life / work is pretty dull that odd day that life is not going to get much now than it was at a certain point 5 years ago. That you start to try and distract yourself from the world around you. This rising feeling that the world is unfair you get short changed from perhaps what you expected from life.
I think this is why some people like and other does seem to get it. If you have every had those doubts in life for just a moment. You can see how they could expand that feeling of being trapped in a situation almost repeating the mistakes of the past. you can make that connection to the film.
If not you must be left as a puzzle how you get into that state of mind. that what you feel is very real but on the outside is so absurd to everyone else.
I'm glad to see someone else agrees with me. I've seen 70 movies in the last year using mu Unlimited card and this was the first one I've walked out on, gave it about 50 minutes. And it really was those blood drums that really did it for me, I just couldn't sit there listening to it anymore. I can appreciate that it was quite clever the way it appeared to be one continuous shot, but by the time I left that had started to annoy me. Must have been very difficult to edit though, so I was surprised it didn't get an Oscar nomination for editing
I'm glad it's not just me then.
TheSilentFez, i get what you're saying, it seemed to be a film made for an Oscar panel, rather then the audience, more relevant to industry types. so I can see why it's got so many nominations too.
Bluescope, i can see what you're saying too, and I can identify with the feeling of being trapped in a situation, etc. It wasnt that I didn't get what the film was trying to convey, I got it pretty quickly, but over and above that, the film had little else to offer me, it all just came across as some self absorbed exercise in navel gazing and self pity, set in the self absorbed world of the theatre. And all the while it pummelled my eardrums with that godawful jazz drumming!
I loved the drumming. The camerawork too - totally innovative. The acting is superb. It's as fine a study of ego and mental breakdown - done with great humour and subtlety - as I've ever seen. I really disagree that it's a 'comedy' although understand the GGs categorisation too.
I've not seen a film remotely like it. I can understand that some people might find it too "theatrical", but even as someone who far prefers film to theatre, I found it fascinating.
The only bits that lagged a bit for me involved the Ed Norton character and MK's daughter.
I know I have to see it again as will have missed a lot the first time.
I didn't like it much, the performances by Keaton and stone was good though, but i just didn't like it, it was boring, not exciting, it was basically just a film to show raw acting with long uncut scenes. and the trailer didn't do it justice, the trailer made the film out to be something it wasn't, so that also angered me slightly too when i did watch it.
Enjoyed it a lot. There's a saying "a good story well told" and that sums it up: it's funny, it's well acted and the cinematography draws you in and keeps you engaged. It felt a little too long but was never boring or drawn-out.
However... five of the eight main characters are women yet it still fails the Bechdel Test! The men get to talk about Big Ideas and make important decisions and the women get to talk about men. It's not like it's a satire on women in the theatre. It's just bad writing.
I loved this film. The cinematography, editing, writing and acting were all hugely impressive. Michael Keaton, Ed Norton and Emma Stone were definitely the highlights performance-wise.
That being said, I can see why reactions to it on this thread have been so divisive - the faux-single take style may come across as distracting and/or gimmicky for some. And the soundtrack of jazz drumming almost constantly in the background of the film may become annoying for some as well.
They weren't a problem for me though. I thought it was a hugely innovative and impressive piece of cinema. I'm glad it's been nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars too - though it's a bit of a given that Boyhood's going to win that, and deservedly so in my opinion.
I just found the whole thing bizarre! I mean I don't want a film to spell everything out to me but for Christ sake what was that nose all about?????
Seriously can someone explain that nose to me?
It's probably some metaphysical guff.
Well the whole ending was ambiguous, so it depends what your interpretation of it is. I'll put my theory in spoilers below:
I believe that the whole scene in the hospital at the end was a fantasy. Riggan had actually died on stage when he shot himself (hence the blackout and the end to what had been the non-stop single take up to that point). The hospital scene was the last fleeting thoughts in his mind. It seemed to be too perfect. He'd received a glowing review, despite the reviewer promising she'd trash it and actually storming out of the theatre after Riggan shot himself. And he's told that he's finally gained the professional respect he'd been craving for years. In addition to this was his wife being by his side, and his daughter finally giving him the correct flowers. As I said, too perfect.
As for the nose, it's deliberately meant to resemble the beak of the Birdman costume. To me it represents Riggan finally reconciling his past as Birdman with his real self. His alter ego and real self merge as one, essentially. When he flies out of the window, that is his final release. And his daughter, in his last moments, finally sees him for who he is. Though, of course, it's all in Riggan's head. It's a rather bittersweet ending if you interpret it like that, but still hugely enjoyable as a whole imo.
Well the whole ending was ambiguous, so it depends what your interpretation of it is. I'll put my theory in spoilers below:
I believe that the whole scene in the hospital at the end was a fantasy. Riggan had actually died on stage when he shot himself (hence the blackout and the end to what had been the non-stop single take up to that point). The hospital scene was the last fleeting thoughts in his mind. It seemed to be too perfect. He'd received a glowing review, despite the reviewer promising she'd trash it and actually storming out of the theatre after Riggan shot himself. And he's told that he's finally gained the professional respect he'd been craving for years. In addition to this was his wife being by his side, and his daughter finally giving him the correct flowers. As I said, too perfect.
As for the nose, it's deliberately meant to resemble the beak of the Birdman costume. To me it represents Riggan finally reconciling his past as Birdman with his real self. His alter ego and real self merge as one, essentially. When he flies out of the window, that is his final release. And his daughter, in his last moments, finally sees him for who he is. Though, of course, it's all in Riggan's head. It's a rather bittersweet ending if you interpret it like that, but still hugely enjoyable as a whole imo.
There are loads of interpretations of the end but that one I think is the most plausible.
In fact the film reminded me of Death of a Salesman in many ways and ending that way would make it even more like that play
I think this film will be different on the second viewing, I'll give it another chance ;-)
Well the whole ending was ambiguous, so it depends what your interpretation of it is. I'll put my theory in spoilers below:
I believe that the whole scene in the hospital at the end was a fantasy. Riggan had actually died on stage when he shot himself (hence the blackout and the end to what had been the non-stop single take up to that point). The hospital scene was the last fleeting thoughts in his mind. It seemed to be too perfect. He'd received a glowing review, despite the reviewer promising she'd trash it and actually storming out of the theatre after Riggan shot himself. And he's told that he's finally gained the professional respect he'd been craving for years. In addition to this was his wife being by his side, and his daughter finally giving him the correct flowers. As I said, too perfect.
As for the nose, it's deliberately meant to resemble the beak of the Birdman costume. To me it represents Riggan finally reconciling his past as Birdman with his real self. His alter ego and real self merge as one, essentially. When he flies out of the window, that is his final release. And his daughter, in his last moments, finally sees him for who he is. Though, of course, it's all in Riggan's head. It's a rather bittersweet ending if you interpret it like that, but still hugely enjoyable as a whole imo.
I have been racking my brains trying to make sense of the ending but this explanation is perfect.
I've never liked Michael Keaton, not sure why but it might be the reason it didnt enjoy this film, I found it annoying and tiresome, some good acting but I pretty much hated it as a film.
Saw it two weeks ago. I suppose that it's nice to see Michael Keaton back in a good meaty acting role - but the film itself, I did not take to. I know that it's trying to comment on celebrity culture, etc. - but I think that it missed the mark by a long shot. There are good things in it, but as a whole - the film isn't that successful.
I watched this again a second time. I felt like it went over my head the first time because i was trying to analyze all the different things that were going on. Watching it a 2nd time knowing what i know i appreciated it a little bit more. Still, a film i admired a lot more than i actually liked.
Keaton for me is a deserved Oscar winner. My thoughts haven't changed on his performance. Perfect casting.
Saw this Saturday, while watching it was is like, wtf is this ? But now I've seen it and thinking about it, I actually enjoyed it very much. It is a slow burner but it's worth it imo, it's a funny-ish and sad film which I never thought I would enjoy.
The ending is open to debate, I think he flew away but he more than likely landed on the sidewalk.
Saw it last week, it was amazing and truly a film only an artist can understand, very funny but very sad at the same time. Personally I thought all the performances were but the best without question were Michael Keaton and Edward Norton (then again it's Edward Norton, he's always bloody good in everything he appears in)! Hope this wins a ton of Oscars because if any film deserves it it's Birdman.
As for the ending, personally I think his powers were real all along and he flew off! Oh OK that's unlikely seeing how the film implies his powers aren't real. My other theory is that he did indeed die and the hospital scene was a vision to show him he finally achieved what he wanted and hence he is able to pass on happily in peace...Nah I'm sticking with my "he haz powerz for realz" theory. Even if it is an unlikely theory to be true, it's more fun!
Saw it last week, it was amazing and truly a film only an artist can understand, very funny but very sad at the same time. Personally I thought all the performances were but the best without question were Michael Keaton and Edward Norton (then again it's Edward Norton, he's always bloody good in everything he appears in)! Hope this wins a ton of Oscars because if any film deserves it it's Birdman.
Hardly. The films is about mid-life crisis, and most people at some point will understand all too well. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu was motivated to do the Birdman tale because of his own mid-life crisis:
"When you make a revision of the priorities in your life, (you realize) some things are missing, and some things are great, and some things are not so great,” the director says.
“I have been going through a retrospection of how the mechanics of my own perception has been, so I thought I would do a movie about it.”
Hardly. The films is about mid-life crisis, and most people at some point will understand all too well. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu was motivated to do the Birdman tale because of his own mid-life crisis:
Comments
I'm glad to see someone else agrees with me. I've seen 70 movies in the last year using mu Unlimited card and this was the first one I've walked out on, gave it about 50 minutes. And it really was those blood drums that really did it for me, I just couldn't sit there listening to it anymore. I can appreciate that it was quite clever the way it appeared to be one continuous shot, but by the time I left that had started to annoy me. Must have been very difficult to edit though, so I was surprised it didn't get an Oscar nomination for editing
It's an interesting film but that's all i found it to be. The drumming score took a while to get used to, also very interesting. Would i watch it again? Probably not.
The directing was superb and the acting magnificent, but I felt like a lot of the film just went straight over my head. I didn't actually find any of it funny. I only found myself laughing once and that was because it had reached the stage were everything was so absurd and I was so confused that I laughed in a "Good God! What the hell am I watching!?" sort of way.
I admire this film, but I'm not sure I enjoyed it. Nevertheless, it was certainly interesting and my attention was held throughout.
I think this is the first film I've ever watched which I feel was too high brow for me.
I think you parents might actually be the ideal target for this film. I think it is more like to strike a cord in older viewers. By older I don't mean so much in age but experience. By 30 I think most of us had had those thoughts that life / work is pretty dull that odd day that life is not going to get much now than it was at a certain point 5 years ago. That you start to try and distract yourself from the world around you. This rising feeling that the world is unfair you get short changed from perhaps what you expected from life.
I think this is why some people like and other does seem to get it. If you have every had those doubts in life for just a moment. You can see how they could expand that feeling of being trapped in a situation almost repeating the mistakes of the past. you can make that connection to the film.
If not you must be left as a puzzle how you get into that state of mind. that what you feel is very real but on the outside is so absurd to everyone else.
I'm glad it's not just me then.
TheSilentFez, i get what you're saying, it seemed to be a film made for an Oscar panel, rather then the audience, more relevant to industry types. so I can see why it's got so many nominations too.
Bluescope, i can see what you're saying too, and I can identify with the feeling of being trapped in a situation, etc. It wasnt that I didn't get what the film was trying to convey, I got it pretty quickly, but over and above that, the film had little else to offer me, it all just came across as some self absorbed exercise in navel gazing and self pity, set in the self absorbed world of the theatre. And all the while it pummelled my eardrums with that godawful jazz drumming!
I've not seen a film remotely like it. I can understand that some people might find it too "theatrical", but even as someone who far prefers film to theatre, I found it fascinating.
The only bits that lagged a bit for me involved the Ed Norton character and MK's daughter.
I know I have to see it again as will have missed a lot the first time.
However... five of the eight main characters are women yet it still fails the Bechdel Test! The men get to talk about Big Ideas and make important decisions and the women get to talk about men. It's not like it's a satire on women in the theatre. It's just bad writing.
Technically, it is very accomplished, and the acting is superb, but I can't say I'd ever want to watch it again.
I just found the whole thing bizarre! I mean I don't want a film to spell everything out to me but for Christ sake what was that nose all about?????
Seriously can someone explain that nose to me?
It's probably some metaphysical guff.
Honestly after this and Interstellar I'm missing good old fashioned storytelling.
That being said, I can see why reactions to it on this thread have been so divisive - the faux-single take style may come across as distracting and/or gimmicky for some. And the soundtrack of jazz drumming almost constantly in the background of the film may become annoying for some as well.
They weren't a problem for me though. I thought it was a hugely innovative and impressive piece of cinema. I'm glad it's been nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars too - though it's a bit of a given that Boyhood's going to win that, and deservedly so in my opinion.
Well the whole ending was ambiguous, so it depends what your interpretation of it is. I'll put my theory in spoilers below:
As for the nose, it's deliberately meant to resemble the beak of the Birdman costume. To me it represents Riggan finally reconciling his past as Birdman with his real self. His alter ego and real self merge as one, essentially. When he flies out of the window, that is his final release. And his daughter, in his last moments, finally sees him for who he is. Though, of course, it's all in Riggan's head. It's a rather bittersweet ending if you interpret it like that, but still hugely enjoyable as a whole imo.
There are loads of interpretations of the end but that one I think is the most plausible.
I think this film will be different on the second viewing, I'll give it another chance ;-)
I have been racking my brains trying to make sense of the ending but this explanation is perfect.
Keaton for me is a deserved Oscar winner. My thoughts haven't changed on his performance. Perfect casting.
Hardly. The films is about mid-life crisis, and most people at some point will understand all too well. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu was motivated to do the Birdman tale because of his own mid-life crisis:
Ouch! That's me told then.