I was a little disappointed with it although after sleeping on it I liked it a lot more. My biggest complaint is that it's around 20 minutes too long and drags a bit in the middle. Most of it is fantastic. All of the actors are pitch-perfect. Michael Keaton is sensational and Emma Stone is also brilliant - she easily has the most to do of the supporting cast members and I think they'll both get Oscar nominations. Their big scene together early in the film is one of the standout moments and the film is at heart very much a father-daughter story. Edward Norton is also great and Naomi Watts is hilarious if a little underused. The cinematography is AMAZING (the whole movie is presented in what appears to be one continuous shot) and the score is also great. It's very insidery about New York and Broadway so I'm curious to see how it will play with a general audience. A-

Brilliant.

Everything from the ensemble, the cinematography, the directing, it all flows together so well. Michael Keaton is easily at his best in years and Emma Stone gives one of her best performances while Edward Norton's usual charm is brought in with a cocky twist that assures all three should get Oscar nominations. Andrea Riseborough and Naomi Watts are also fantastic and hot, with the latter remaining the hottest woman over 40 in Hollywood currently. The continuous flow aspect of the movie is done so well and keeps the momentum of the film going at a brisk pace. It's also really really funny which is a relief given Iñárritu's previous work.

It is very clear here though that Iñárritu has some major gripe with Hollywood, and show business in general, that is on display very well. Keaton and Norton's characters in particular being the ultimate battle of celebrity vs. art and while some could see it as almost snobbery, he does give a unique view on the culture not usually seen on screen. Easily the best film of the year so far.

Michael Keaton is gonna win the Oscar.

There's a lot to like here. Ensemble's great all around, Watts, Norton, Ryan, Stone, etc. The film is shot impeccably. I'm a fan of Iñárritu's previous grim films so it was pretty refreshing to see him do something that's darkly funny and not entirely suffocatingly depressing. I don't think it's a perfect film per se (at least on first viewing) but there is a lot of brilliance here to make it one of the best of the year.

Birdman is hyperactive and certainly ambitious. I wouldn't say it successfully accomplishes everything it throws at the audience, but it's always insightful and occasionally brilliant. The comparisons to Black Swan seem pretty accurate to me. It's impeccably directed by a lightened up Alejandro G. Inarritu with a stellar ensemble. The cast is very good, with Emma Stone and Edward Norton getting the most meat out of the supporting performers and seemingly bound for possible award nominations. Understandably, though, everyone takes a backseat to Michael Keaton. Keaton's entire career feels like it has been building up to this performance, and he doesn't disappoint. It's disarming and mesmerizing work. This also makes an interesting companion piece to Whiplash, which I just saw last week. Both are about the creative process' affect on the human psyche, and it's a pretty interesting topic of discussion to see cinematic endeavors examine this so intensely. A-

I was disappointed in this. I found some of it moving and funny, and some scenes were just priceless, but the film is very self-indulgent in some aspects. The satire is not really successful, and Iñarritu feels satisfied in firing on all cylinders. It's just very show-offy and it thinks it's profound, but it's not. And it's hardly subtle. Black Swan handled similar thematic elements much better than this. That said, I was mostly entertained, and I do think the film is worth-watching, if only for the performances. Michael Keaton embodies Riggan, and he could definitely win the Oscar this year. Edward Norton gives one of the best performances of his career. Emma Stone is solid as Sam, but I did feel she was a bit one-note as a character, but I think that might be the fault of the screenplay. I thought Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, Lindsay Duncan, and Amy Ryan all fared much better with smaller parts. Overall, this is a film with some strong parts that never really coalesce together, due to the chaotic, unrestrained, and underdeveloped vision of the director. B-

This

In Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Michael Keaton portrays a character who cannot help but invite autobiographical interpretation: an actor who once headlined an ultra-popular superhero franchise, but is now regarded as past his prime and requiring career rejuvenation. His vehicle for a second wind is the lead role in a self-adapted-and-directed Broadway staging of a Raymond Carver short story. However, the production goes sideways—the actors feud, the budget engorges—as his own grip on sanity grows tenuous due to doubt and loathing from outside and within. This is a big and bold art-house film by director Alejandro G. Iñárritu, trying his hand at pop-psychological comic mania after such well-received, yet divisive (and truly solemn) pictures as 21 Grams and Babel. His latest is as flashy and ornate as its seven-word full title.

Overall, I admire Birdman, but I never found it particularly moving or profound. The triumphant level of technical wizardry on display cannot be denied, though. It is shot and edited to create the illusion the story is unfolding in a single shot, as if the camera were darting, winding, ascending, descending, and traversing space and time with improbable grace. It is a self-conscious feat of photographic and editorial virtuosity, and the artificial continuity enhances the hot-box claustrophobia of the behind-the-scenes environments.

The story is harder to engage with, at least for this viewer. Yes, there are definite moments of amusement and fascination as the self-absorbed movie star loses the plot while various archetypes—the agent, the neglected daughter, the showboating co-star—devour the scenery around him, but they rarely cohere into a satisfying whole beneath the ace aesthetic and the strong performances, including a vanity-free and often underwear-clad turn by a spirited Keaton, as well as such welcome peripheral players as a vainly charismatic Edward Norton and a vulnerable Emma Stone. The film loudly, perhaps even vulgarly, motions toward age-old tensions such as the bombast of commercial cinema versus the perceived delicacy and integrity of more artistic endeavors, yet hesitates to plant its flag on either side of the ideological line.

At other points, it simply pushes too far or overplays it hand. For instance, the elegant Lindsay Duncan has the unenviable role of Tabitha, a cruel-beyond-compare newspaper critic who openly declares her plan to savage and close the central play before she even sees it on opening night. Such a despicable and one-note character, and she seems born from an uncomfortable place of anger and suspicion within the director and his co-writers. Consider, too, a rare-non-macho conversation shared by the plays' two female leads, played by Andrea Riseborough and Naomi Watts, which transforms into an inexplicable wet-dream tangent. At first, the two candidly share their dreams of recognition and fears of failure or self-sabotage, but then, apropos of nothing, start to kiss before they are interrupted. It is implied this is their first such amorous encounter, and their bond is never expanded upon or referenced again.

B-

^I agree completely with your last paragraph. And I would also add that I found the film to be quite misogynistic.

Loved it, favorite of the year so far. For the talk this weekend of Interstellar and great in-theatre experiences, I actually found Birdman to be an even more engrossing visual experience. The long shot gimmick gave the film a momentum and energy which along with the fantastic dialog, making it one of the most entertaining and alive films of the year for me.

Just an aces "screenplay+acting" film, I could've listened to these actors reading these lines all day. I knew Keaton and Norton were going to kill it but how strong Emma Stone is in this really surprised me. Her non-verbal acting (i.e. the expression in her eyes when listening to Norton on the rooftop or her expressing looking out the window at the end) showing the hurt inside her, is so great. Norton is such a charismatic but also broken presence in the film, but it really belongs to Keaton and all the demented stuff going on inside that character.

I do think it's not as an insightful film about human beings as it thinks it is, however I do like the theme that all these people face more pressure and are more driven to insecure 'acting' in real life than they are in stage and that's why they're in this business. I'm actually ok with it having two of the most obvious Oscar clip scenes (Stone and Keaton's) there will be this year, because the film putting itself out there for awards/admiration, kind of matches how its characters are hypocritical by wanting both artistic credibility and widespread admiration too.

Every so often there is a movie that comes out of nowhere and completely knocks you out from under your feet because of it's brilliance. Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) just so happens to be one of those films, at least for me. It's a film that will no doubt have quite a bit of discussion from theater goers who go to see it and I believe there is little to no middle ground here; you are either going to love it or you may very well just hate it. The performances here are all spectacular with Michael Keaton giving one hell of a knock out performance. He is completely backed up with fully realized, beautiful supporting players. Emma Stone gives by far her most complex performance to date and she succeeds on every level. The amount of emotion she gives just by giving a look is amazing and she completely deserves to be in the Oscar discussion this year. Edward Norton does as well, he was great. Naomi Watts was also great, though I did miss her presence a bit in the second half of the film and Zach Galifianakis surprisingly (to me) gave a very nice performance. Director Alejandro González Iñárritu (who made one of my all time favorite films, 21 Grams) directs the hell out of this film. It's a beautiful looking movie with a perfect pace and in my opinion, not one second is wasted. It also features the best editing I've seen in quite awhile.

There will be a lot of debate about the ending as it is left completely ambiguous. I fully believe that Riggan kills himself in the hospital room. I know there are other theories out there that he kills himself when he jumps off the building (but why would they show the bit with the cab driver?) or during opening night when he shoots himself, but neither of those really make any sense to me. He kills himself after opening night in the hospital room after hearing the glowing review he received, he accomplished everything and more that he set out to accomplish. I also know there is a lot of debate about the final shot with Sam smiling and looking up in the sky. I took this as her knowing her fathers issues and how he felt, while also being happy that he was finally "let free" if you will, as she knows how her father felt because she debated suicide everything night while sitting on top of the St. James theater. Who knows, I may be wrong but it makes the most sense to me and is a beautiful, heartbreaking, fully rounded ending.

A+

The acting is great, the cinematography is great and i dug the drumline score. It does these things so well that it is almost a shame that I now have to rant about it.

Did this movie have any point whatsoever? i kept waiting for it to take a stand on something and it just refuses to do so. Is it a critique on the current state of Hollywood? Sure seems like it at first, with all of Keaton's top choices being tied up with superhero franchises (in Birdman's world, Jeremy Renner being the 10th lead in the Avengers means he isn't allowed to do anything else). Yet for the rest of the movie, all criticisms of the film industry come from the mouths of antagonistic characters. So that isn't it. Is it about getting over your ego and finding your place in the current world? For parts of it, then there are other parts where we have reporters asking him about goat semen. So Keaton's problems with the world are only problems when he has problems with himself. And then he shoots himself once he realizes that he can be a stage actor and Birdman, an otherwise triumphant moment. So that isn't it. Is it about putting your personal relationships above your ambition? Parts of it are, but none of the relationships in the movie seem to matter by the end. Keaton and Emma seem to reconcile, but they were never really in that bad of a place to begin with. The love was there, just not the respect. Nothing over the course of the film changed any of that. We get a couple cute/hot scenes between Emma and Norton, seemingly leading to either a Norton face turn or the situation leading to some reflection on Keatons part. It ends up pushing him over the edge and the matter is never seen or heard from again. So that's not it.

The movie wants you to think, but it gives you nothing to work with. I can do that just fine on my own. I think it's a good thing that we're getting quality actors in "shameful soulless comic book trash". I think the team of this movie realized that about halfway through and tried to turn it into an Aronofsky film. What we get is very interesting in its parts, but absolutely nothing in its whole.

I agree with Shack in that this was very much an engrossing cinematic experience. Very worthwhile to see in theaters.


I don't totally understand these types of criticisms here. This was a story, its not a PSA. The schizophrenic nature of the film is a perfect reflection of its main character. All these things DO matter, and yet they DON'T. To me that's a pretty accurate summation of most human affairs. Call me depressed.

Actually I was pretty stunned when I realized how realistically Birdman's character was displaying symptoms that paralleled my sister's psychotic bipolar disorder. Hearing voices that pushed a certain way, being pushed back by events unfolding in the 'real world'...... being convinced of special powers and significance. Not being able to sleep, feeling torn apart by 'reality' and another 'reality' within oneself. Suicidal tendencies......

The suicidal nature of the third act was very uncomfortable for me, yet it made perfect sense in light of the Birdman's progressive emergence and/or Riggan Thompson's eminent degeneration. But, echoing a response to my sister's "madness," I kept hoping that Riggan would pull himself out of it, or at least somehow be okay in the end. And that's why I'm not sure about the ending..... I left clinging to the idea that Birdman really was okay, flying around......... but that's probably not the best interpretation going by the rest of the movie......

Anyway. Quite amazing movie, I'm glad I saw it in theaters. One of the best of the year.

A

Because it positions itself as a movie that is important with something to say about current society. Why else make references to real actors and franchises? It removed itself from the fantasy world by doing that. Yet, just like many of the subplots, it starts to develop themes/messages and then either forgets about them or plants itself firmly in a neutral position.

I would have been 100% with Birdman if it were purely an entertainment spectacle. It delivers in that aspect. Yet it also asks me to think, and when I'm thinking I can't ignore the flaws in the story, which Birdman has a great deal of. It just can't help itself.

I wish Michael Keaton would stop pretending there is no similitary between his career and the career of his Birdman character. He snaps at reporters who pursue this line of questioning.

The meta quality of his casting is glaring and increases the poignancy of his performance.

So far the best film of the year. It opens up a dialogue comparing the culture of New York theatre and Hollywood media. Michael Keaton's character truly captures the blend of these two cultures, same goes for the film itself which works as almost more if play than film, but still renders all of the majesty of cinema. A remarkable film that works on so many levels. The real tragedy is I don't see Edward Norton going home with an Oscar.

Better than I expected - loved the performances and camera-style.

A-

This might be my first A+ since Inglourious Basterds, but another two viewings and a year to stew upon is required before that verdict.

It's a good film with fantastic performances all around, but I just never got invested into the story at any point. Michael Keaton is THA MAN, but I agree with Magnus that Edward Norton is the most fun part of the film. Emma Stone was great too eventhough the father/daughter dynamic in this was a bit too empty and rushed IMO.

Also, the visuals/camera-style definitely made this an interesting experience.

What did everyone think of the blink and you miss it opening shot of the dead jellyfish on the beach and Riggan's story later in the film? What's the purpose for showing them for a split second? Does the shot imply anything and do the jellyfish imply anything? Just curious as to what people think. Is the whole movie a fantasy? I'm pretty sure Riggan held the gun to his temple and not his nose.

Oh, and I loved it. It's right there with Interstellar in being quite an enthralling piece of cinema. And it's a wet dream for anyone who cares about performances. Everyone is doing career-best stuff here.

I think the jellyfish is suppose to be Riggan, as it is similar to his suicide story about walking into the ocean and surving only by assumedly washing up to shore like the jelly fish.

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Terrific! Captivating and engaging from the very first second. It's deep and very aware of itself and what it succeeds in saying. It's a spectacular film for performances. It's totally an actor's type of film. They can really express themselves. The direction is also masterful. Wonderful movement and seamless execution by Inarritu. Keaton is absolutely on fire, and for someone that doesn't really warm to his outlandish and zany character, I absolutely loved what he did here. It's certainly worthy of Best Actor at the Oscars. Norton is also worthy for Best Supporting; so watchable and just awesome, it's just a shame that he had to do this performance in the same year that Simmons unleashed that beast. Emma Stone is also fantastic (and worthy of an Oscar) and plays the fucked up daughter of a movie star incredibly well, and Riseborough, yes, what a babe, and another great performance. These four just propelled Birdman to another level. Zach Galifianakis and Naomi Watts round out a superb ensemble. It is deliciously filmed, with a cool screenplay and fabulous effects (apart from perhaps at the end when Riggan shoots himself CLEARLY in the head, yet in hospital it's miraculously turned into just a nose shot -- unless that was another hallucination, but it didn't seem like it because after the gunshot, his Birdman is still present), but anyway, no need to get hung up on that. The has-been theme was well-explored and the music was great (constant drums). I will watch this again as soon as I get the chance. I just absolutely loved watching this film. It's ever-so-artsy premise and delivery are not usually my thing, but I ate this up and wanted more.

Oh, and Ed Norton gets a boner. Fucking awesome.

A-

Glad you liked it Algren

BJs Grade:

A/A-

There are moments in this movie that are just incredible.

Saw it again, not a fluke.

Which makes me so happy. I've been dying for a true A+ film. Haven't had one since 2009 (of course allof these are the opinions if DIB and DIB alone). For me, this is to New York, what Ratatouille is to Paris.