What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Birdman - new film starring Michael Keaton and Zach Galifianakis (1 Viewer)

IN.

Looks good.

Also, as an aside....................I dig the stripped down version of "Crazy" that's playing, as well.

 
bigbottom, on 22 Oct 2014 - 3:21 PM, said:This looks so formulaic. Doesn't Hollywood have an original idea anymore?
My sarcasm detector is in the shop.

If it is what the early reviews say it is, I don't think we've seen any movie this meta in a long time.

 
Saw this yesterday. All the technical aspects were great - the direction, the acting, etc. I had a tracking shot boner.

Overall, I thought it was...OK. The funny parts were mostly funny. The social commentary it attempted sometimes seemed like something out of the mouth of a college freshman after a few bong hits. "Yeah, man! Hollywood has like, no substance man!" I don't disagree, really, it's just that it's been done and it wasn't redone with much new ground being broken. I think this movie wanted to be something important but it came across as heavy handed and forced at times.

There's some ambiguity that will annoy people. I tend to give a lot of leeway for movies that aren't plot-driven as far as, I don't know, tightness goes? I don't really need a clean ending, I guess.

All that being said, I was interested the entire time. It was worth it, overall, even if it didn't reach a point of greatness it clearly wanted to reach.

 
Saw this yesterday. All the technical aspects were great - the direction, the acting, etc. I had a tracking shot boner.

Overall, I thought it was...OK. The funny parts were mostly funny. The social commentary it attempted sometimes seemed like something out of the mouth of a college freshman after a few bong hits. "Yeah, man! Hollywood has like, no substance man!" I don't disagree, really, it's just that it's been done and it wasn't redone with much new ground being broken. I think this movie wanted to be something important but it came across as heavy handed and forced at times.

There's some ambiguity that will annoy people. I tend to give a lot of leeway for movies that aren't plot-driven as far as, I don't know, tightness goes? I don't really need a clean ending, I guess.

All that being said, I was interested the entire time. It was worth it, overall, even if it didn't reach a point of greatness it clearly wanted to reach.
I thought it attacked Hollywood and Broadway pretty equally. This is a type of movie that's hard for me to say I love but it was an excellent movie. Glad I saw it in a theater since I could see myself getting distracted during it at home.

 
bigbottom, on 22 Oct 2014 - 3:21 PM, said:

This looks so formulaic. Doesn't Hollywood have an original idea anymore?
My sarcasm detector is in the shop.If it is what the early reviews say it is, I don't think we've seen any movie this meta in a long time.
Lame attempt at a joke.
As usual, you aren't being nearly humble enough in light of people who have a mastery of sarcasm.

 
I really wanted to like this. A few reviewers declared it the perfect movie, but I thought it was just OK. Some parts shined but it was mostly forgettable and not nearly as clever and/or funny as it thinks it is.

Nightcrawler was muuuuuch better.

 
This is the most average great movie I've ever seen.
Watched it last night and this sentence sums it up really well. I liked the ambitious nature in terms of the way it was filmed but overall I thought the story lacked substance. The performances were all very good but the story didn't lure me in as much as it simply kept my interest. But some of the stuff going on was really well done.

I am happy that Keaton's getting praise for the film, though. He's good in it and has had a fine career. Nice to see him getting some recognition during award's season.

Oh, Emma Stone looked seriously anorexic in this film. I know her character is dealing with drug issues but she looked really really unhealthy. Maybe she was starving herself for art but she looked to be just skin and bones.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read that the director and writers did NOT have Michael Keaton in mind as the lead when they wrote this which is amazing since it seems to parallel his life so well

 
Hmmm only 2 theaters in in L.A. I hope they release it wider.
This Friday is full release.
Phrasing. :)

For those that haven't seen it, it is shot to simulate a continuous unbroken shot for the length of the movie, with no cuts. They seemed to think it was unprecedented, but Hitchcock's The Rope had a similar conception. He would have shot it continuously, but the film rolls ran out so he had to have a half dozen or so cuts, done in such a way that the edits were discrete, unobtrusive and seamless. It also was, I think, shot like a play would be staged, in that case in one room (somewhat similar to Rear Window, but even more extreme). Birdman had a play inside the play, so there is behind the scenes material, unlike The Rope. One of the principals, maybe the production designer, decribed it like making a movie upside down, in which post-production needs dictated much of the planning and structure form the inception. Everthing from the script on up, had to be meticulously organized up front, because they couldn't do edits in the usual sense.

I thought it started slow, but it gradually drew me in as the movie unfolded and progressed. Reportedly Josh Brolin was originally cast in the Ed Norton role, but schedule conflict prevented it. Maybe a case of life mirroring art, since Norton is a recast in the movie, due to a fortuitous (if you could call it that) actor injury mishap early on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did he jump and die, get caught in a tree or wires, climb something, or fly?

Otherwise I really liked all aspects of the movie, even if I knew what was going to happen on stage that night.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SPOILER

There were a couple points where I thought it was ambiguous, and in varying degrees pointed to having the audience interpret the end in a certain way, to make the final payoff more surprising. The movie opens with him levitating, and there are several times he appears to have telekinetic powers. But they only happen when he is alone. Maybe he is keeping them under wraps? But when he is trashing his room, and one of the actresses walk in (or the producer?), he is throwing things. So it makes you think it is his imagination. The monster bird section is I think followed by an extended flying sequence. But right after he lands, a taxi driver chases after him and demands payment, so it would seem to be just his imagination. Than again, the taxi driver runs into the theater, and I don't know if you can make out whether it was Keaton paying him or not? A case of misdirection, wanting the audience to assume that, but maybe Keaton arrives right after someone else tried to stiff the cabbie? Anyways, things like that seem calculated to bring about an audience expectation of suicide at the end. So I interpreted the smile at the end as him flying? If he had fallen to his death in a realistic, non-surreal movie, that would be an odd, inexplicable reaction from his daughter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dopey movie. No way was the guy ever flying in the air like a condor or dove or swallow. But we are supposed to believe that he did or we are supposed to put on a smoking jacket and slippers and talk about imagery and symbolism. oOOooOH wowie zowie look at that, Heathcliffe.

 
I thought it was pretty straight forward. He dies, and his daughter catches his brand of crazy so she will imagine him with her like he did with his Bird character.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top