The Birdman narrative is bewildering to me. It is gaining momentum because of the way it criticizes these new flashy/showy Hollywood movies that have no substance, but Birdman is exactly that type of movie. It's just not honest about it.

"Jeremy Renner? Oh he's the tenth lead in Avengers, he has no time to do your highly artistic and historical and significant play."

Can't believe I never posted a rating for this. I think it's vastly overrated. Easy to admire, hard to enjoy. It's bizarre and frankly kind of annoying. Especially the intrusive score. That got incredibly sickening. Performances were all really strong though.

I'd go with a 6/10 (B-) mostly because of its technical merits. I do know someone who saw it though and felt exactly like me the first time they watched it. But then watched it again and loved it. Since I have friends who want to watch it now after the Best Picture win (though I'm positive they won't like it - it's too weird for them) I'll probably give it another shot. I don't think I'll like it much more if at all though. Disappointing it won Best Picture. Boyhood should have. Or Whiplash (this was better but didn't have a chance at winning).

*fart noise*

I bought the bluray last week, should rewatch it tomorrow. Shockingly this may be my favorite film to win BP in the last several years despite preferring Boyhood.

I'm annoyed I'm always going to associate this movie negatively for beating Boyhood at the Oscars.

I would say this is the most memorable Oscar winner in years

Nah. It's continuing a streak of mostly unmemorable Oscar winners.

I'm sure if you did not like it, you would say that, but this film will stay with me forever. God! I'm just so happy a good film won for once that not even the haters are getting to me. Still beaming! Birdman!

Wow backlash much?

I don't care. You guys like what you like and try not to follow the herd, yeah?

Just because Birdman beat Boyhood doesn't mean anything. Or like Whiplash, which is overrated as hell, seeing the reaction here.

Go your own way.

PTA deserved that award so so bad. It made me like No Country less because it won over TWBB.

NCFOM was the better film, but TWBB had the better direction (each by a little). Should have split.

In my mind I don't think it deserved any of the awards it got. I even think Casey Affleck deserved Best Supporting over Bardem.

And I still love the movie! Just shows that 2007 was a great year for cinema.

And to talk about Birdman (since this is the Birdman thread), still love it. Still my favorite of 2014.

Just rewatched it, felt the same way I did about it in the theater. Lots of moments of brilliance but it's not perfect. It's kinda terrible that Keaton missed on winning when he is the best thing about the movie but at least it wasn't to an unworthy performance.

I loved Birdman but this essay (and Film Crit Hulk in general) is pretty amazing http://badassdigest.com/2015/03/26/film ... f-birdman/

FCH is a great modern philosopher

His method of writing is so convoluted though.

I was not sold on really liking this movie until the end. I loved it was left up to interpretation. Did he die? Or were they living in a supernatural world the whole time? Was Birdman real or in his head? I was so sure it was in his head, but the last shot made me question that. I was not a fan at first of the one shot shooting style, but I did get used to it after a while. The acting was pretty good here; actually it was probably the best part of the film. Michael Keaton was good, but I felt he was overshadowed by the stronger performances of Emma Stone and Edward Norton. I did not even think Emma Stone was playing a good character, but her performance impressed me. When she was telling Riggan how no one really cared about him and he was a washed up loser, I didn't realize how captivated I was until I let out a deep sigh. Mike Shiner was a huge dick and I was hoping he'd get his comeuppance, but he didn't. Naomi Watts was also good. I was not impressed with Zach Galifinakis; anyone probably could have played his part. I enjoyed the more supernatural elements of the film; the flying sequences with the imaginary Birdman did not feel out of place at all with the more realistic feel of the rest of the film. I do think the film could have been improved if the play they were performing was more interesting, but that is a small complaint. Still doesn't feel significant enough to be a Best Picture winner, though it is the best of the ones I have seen (I still have not seen The Theory of Everything, and I've decided I have no interest in Selma whatsoever). My guess is I just can't get that super excited about weird dramas like this aside from enjoying them while watching, but then not really feeling a need to ever watch them again

A-

Still a masterpiece of cinema

Still? After all of six months? Timeless classic!

It hath stood the test of time.

If David says it, even if sarcastically, then it is officially true

No doubt.

Keeping the recent Best Picture tradition alive.

It recently parodied in both BoJack Horseman and Always Sunny in Philadelphia. BOOM

This movie is enjoyable enough, but the only thing I really remember is the awesome ambiguous ending. That ending gets an A+.